Dominoes draft: R1 - Tuppet vs Sjor/Indy

[Enigma_87]

Didn't have much time today to follow the discussions and vote but seeing the score wouldn't make a difference either way.

@Tuppet as always has build a great team with clear tactics and formation that can do damage in attack, considering it's build around Cruyff.

I thought this is pretty close match as Sjor/Indy have also done a pretty good job both presenting the roles of the players on the pitch and also the team cohesion in both phases.

Scholes indeed receives a lot less credit than he deserves around here. He perfectly held his own in 07/08 against a top Barca side in the course of two legs in a midfield two with Carrick for example.

 

[Ecstatic]

A bit surprised by the outcome

@Indnyc
@Šjor Bepo

Good job: posts and videos.

At 1st, I was clearly inclined to vote for your team, I like your left flank and the heart of your team.

Then, your trio Cambiasso-Bergomi-Seeler made me think twice so I did prefer not to overthink and vote

I would have voted for you with this team

 

[antohan]

@antohan you cant have to much ability on the ball in the team as long as they have right personalities. Having Scholes and in a way Marcelo and Bonucci deep will free up the likes of Laudrup, Nedved and co. so the fluidity of the attacking quartet will be a much bigger issue for tuppets team then if we had Cambiasso + another DM/B2B as that would mean someone would often had to drop back because Cambiasso on the ball while its good, is nowhere near good enough to be a leading playmaker from the deep areas that will cut the first defensive line.

As you point out, you have Bonucci, Marcelo and Cambiasso (you are underrating him here) well capable of executing transitions.

I don't see that front 4 needing a meteonome behind them nor do I see you playing much fast-paced counterattacking. Yes, Scholes could help exploit Eto'os pace, but I don't even remotely see that as a key to your tactics. I can see your front 4 working well, fluid, but not really needing a Scholes but rather a more solid platform and recovery engine.

I can't remember a single time Scholes ever got any credit in these drafts.

I'd say the exact same if it were Xavi. That midfield would be better off with Seedorf, Mendieta or even Gerrard at RCM than with Scholes as a DLP.

 

[Moby]

As you point out, you have Bonucci, Marcelo and Cambiasso (you are underrating him here) well capable of executing transitions.

I don't see that front 4 needing a meteonome behind them nor do I see you playing much fast-paced counterattacking. Yes, Scholes could help exploit Eto'os pace, but I don't even remotely see that as a key to your tactics. I can see your front 4 working well, fluid, but not really needing a Scholes but rather a more solid platform and recovery engine.


I'd say the exact same if it were Xavi. That midfield would be better off with Seedorf, Mendieta or even Gerrard at RCM than with Scholes as a DLP.

Aint just this game but no matter how hes played its always He cant do this or he cant do that as if he was nothing but a bundle full of weaknesses and every tom dick and harry could do it better.

 

[antohan]

Let's just say it's beyond the human capabilities of being anal.

It largely depends on how one-footed a player is. E.g. play Valencia at RCM and it can work, play him LCM and it's a fecking disaster.

 

[Moby]

It largely depends on how one-footed a player is. E.g. play Valencia at RCM and it can work, play him LCM and it's a fecking disaster.

We are talking about CMs not wingers.

 

[antohan]

FWIW I would have voted @Šjor Bepo

@Tuppet's teamsheet looks great but the tactics for that personnel were suspect.

 

[antohan]

We are talking about CMs not wingers.

Just giving and example of clear one-footedness. Valencia has played the odd game at CM for Ecuador but no one in their right mind would place him left, would invariably run into traffic.

 

[Moby]

Just giving and example of clear one-footedness. Valencia has played the odd game at CM for Ecuador but no one in their right mind would place him left, would invariably run into traffic.

This discussion doesn't include freakin Valencia. Wingers can obviously be one footed yet Giggs has a solid CL final performance on the right.

CMs tho, world class ones that are in these drafts getting that criticism is hilarious.

 

[Ecstatic]

The benchmark should have been a Ferguson team

------------------------Eto'o
-----------------------------------Seeler/Cantona
--- Giggs/Nedved------------------------------------Beckham/Laudrup
------------------ Keane/Cambiasso ----Scholes


Scholes would have had direct access to the strikers and been the playmaker at the heart of the game
Seeler making the bridge between the attack and the central midfield
Laudrup as a false winger: he played in so many positions that it wouldn't have been an issue here
Scholes as right CM to combine with Laudrup

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I'd say the exact same if it were Xavi. That midfield would be better off with Seedorf, Mendieta or even Gerrard at RCM than with Scholes as a DLP.

YOU.... TAKE.... THAT ..... BACK!

 

[Moby]

The benchmark should have been a Ferguson team

------------------------Eto'o
-----------------------------------Seeler/Cantona
--- Giggs/Nedved------------------------------------Beckham/Laudrup
------------------ Keane/Cambiasso ----Scholes


Scholes would have had direct access to the strikers and been the playmaker at the heart of the game
Seeler making the bridge between the attack and the central midfield
Laudrup as a false winger: he played in so many positions that it wouldn't have been an issue here
Scholes as right CM to combine with Laudrup

Looks excellent.

 

[antohan]

This discussion doesn't include freakin Valencia. Wingers can obviously be one footed yet Giggs has a solid CL final performance on the right.

CMs tho, world class ones that are in these drafts getting that criticism is hilarious.

In this very thread several people argued Scholes is better on the left. Just like anyone will tell you Mendieta would work best on the right. Same with Tardelli.

Would you play Gattuso on the left of a midfield two? Even with his on the ball play being a footnote you wouldn't.

 

[antohan]

YOU.... TAKE.... THAT ..... BACK!

The point is about tactical role, not individual quality.

 

[Moby]

In this very thread several people argued Scholes is better on the left. Just like anyone will tell you Mendieta would work best on the right. Same with Tardelli.

Would you play Gattuso on the left of a midfield two? Even with his on the ball play being a footnote you wouldn't.

Again you keep taking convenient examples with players who never actually played in a midfield two in the first place and hence had more emphasis on the sides. I've already said its different for a diamond in which Gattuso played etc.

Not with players like Scholes or other proper CMs who played in double pivots or two man midfields etc. Bringing something up in a match thread is implying that it will be a factor in the outcome when CMs who never in a formation where they had to be overly played on one particular side or provide width have no issue whatsoever on either side. Keane and Scholes can play any way of the two, wouldn't matter a single iota.

 

[Gio]

I don't you can take a blanket black-and-white stance on it. Some CMs will struggle on the 'wrong side', some will thrive - depends on the player and the circumstances of the game. For instance, a lot of deep-lying CMs might spend a lot of the game facing their own goal trying to kickstart possession. And in that case, a right-footer on the left makes sense. But a team that wants to transition quicker going forward might benefit from a more conventional approach - less time spent checking back onto the stronger foot, easier to work the ball down the flank (e.g. LB to LCM to LW which always suits a left-footed LCM). Then it depends on where both extra defensive coverage might be need or where space might open up going forward - and most CMs will have preferred sides for that kind of business. There are also the partnerships and synergies which could form on different sides. And that's before even taking into account what the opposition is doing.

 

[antohan]

Again you keep taking convenient examples with players who never actually played in a midfield two in the first place and hence had more emphasis on the sides. I've already said its different for a diamond in which Gattuso played etc.

He won a World Cup in a midfield two (albeit a cagey 4-4-1-1).

Not with players like Scholes or other proper CMs who played in double pivots or two man midfields etc. Bringing something up in a match thread is implying that it will be a factor in the outcome when CMs who never in a formation where they had to be overly played on one particular side or provide width have no issue whatsoever on either side. Keane and Scholes can play any way of the two, wouldn't matter a single iota.

I didn't bring it up, you tagged me into an existing debate. In fact, I said I had no problem with it bar the tactical implications of the chosen midfielders (not their position).

 

[Enigma_87]

In reality was there any top class CM's that were that uncomfortable with the weaker foot? I recall van Hangem often turning to his left and skipping his right, but then again I've seen him a lot on the right side of the midfield and he was doing just fine there - not like his game was limited or something.