EAP VS Pat/Skizzo - All time 3 year peak - Auction Draft

Who would win based on players in their 3 yr peak?

  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .
Pat_Mustard said:
:D

42 votes in that game! As a drafting community, it looks like we've done a fine job of alienating and boring the feck out of everyone in the intervening 2 years :lol:
Click to expand...

There's way too many, too often, and the variations are largely on the draft side and the peak considerations. I'm not surprised people get bored of it.
 
Annahnomoss said:
I wasn't a fan of Vieri and Charlton as a pseudowinger and the younger Charlton would have been a much better choice for this match and I would have really liked him in that role.
Click to expand...

Err... what? I have assumed all along it was young Charlton on the left (and 66-68 Charlton now), why would you think otherwise? Have I missed something here?
 
antohan said:
There's way too many, too often, and the variations are largely on the draft side and the peak considerations. I'm not surprised people get bored of it.
Click to expand...

Aye, although I reckon its just lost its novelty value now. There's less mismatches now than there was initially too, which makes it that bit harder to decide who to vote for in alot of games.

antohan said:
Err... what? I have assumed all along it was young Charlton on the left (and 66-68 Charlton now), why would you think otherwise? Have I missed something here?
Click to expand...

Both of us have forgotten to specify our three year peaks for all our players as we did in the last round of matches, but Edgar did specify in his last match that he was playing 1966 Charlton, yet here he's variously been asked to provide width, drop back into midfield to provide numerical superiority, and be a primary goalscorer when EAP acepted that Figueroa would get the better of Vieri. EAP has also yet to answer our question as to what Charlton he was playing, which is understandable as he seems to need him to be Superman if he's going to make his tactics work.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Gullit is supposed to contribute drifting wide and Eusebio is the one playing centrally. I certainly don't see why you'd consider Gullit as the main hold up play man here.
Click to expand...

This is the third time I've had to post this for you to ignore:

They both have the skillset to do the No. 9 role just fine. When one of them is dropping wide or deep, the other will be gravitating more towards the centre forward position. Its not a complex tactical instruction - I reckon me and Skizzo could manage it ourselves, never mind Eusebio and Gullit!
Click to expand...
 
Pat_Mustard said:
EAP has also yet to answer our question as to what Charlton he was playing, which is understandable as he seems to need him to be Superman if he's going to make his tactics work.
Click to expand...

Previously it would be 1958-60 Charlton who played Outside Left to great success. In the new formation, it would be the 1966 WC winning charlton who played at the tip of the diamond for England.
 
Pat_Mustard said:
This is the third time I've had to post this for you to ignore:
Click to expand...

No, my point was having the skillset is not often the same as where he was best at. For me both 'have the skillset' but they are not CF's whom you want leading the line. They are better playing behind a striker in a free role. Same point that was made of Puskas in my last match, I suppose. He can lead the line but was better playing left behind a striker. Same applies here.
 
Gullit's best - Right side behind the striker where he can drop deep and use his physicality to create. He will be all over the middle.
Eusebio's best - Again picking ball deep and running at defenders.
Maradona's best - Picking deep and dribbling past defenders.

See, they are pretty much identical and not complementary.

Admit it, you lack a proper CF/Striker to get the best out of them and are making do with big names and skillset to play. It is not optimal at all.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
No, my point was having the skillset is not often the same as where he was best at. For me both 'have the skillset' but they are not CF's whom you want leading the line. They are better playing behind a striker in a free role. Same point that was made of Puskas in my last match, I suppose. He can lead the line but was better playing left behind a striker. Same applies here.
Click to expand...

Eusebio was every bit as great running in behind or poaching as he was dribbling from deep. Here he's paired with Gullit, who can provide everything that Torres did in terms of physicality as his partner.

Meanwhile you've played the majority of the match with Vieri attempting to bully Figueroa, and you've now replaced him with another striker who has to try to win headers against Figueroa, Chumpitaz and Ruggeri.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Gullit's best - Right side behind the striker where he can drop deep and use his physicality to create. He will be all over the middle.
Eusebio's best - Again picking ball deep and running at defenders.
Maradona's best - Picking deep and dribbling past defenders.

See, they are pretty much identical and not complementary.

Admit it, you lack a proper CF/Striker to get the best out of them and are making do with big names and skillset to play. It is not optimal at all.
Click to expand...

How on earth does Gullit being 'all over the middle' work to your advantage?! A few pages ago he and Maradona were going to be falling over each other deep on the right wing, now we're disadvantaged by Gullit playing centrally? Crazy.

As for the bolded part, I admit it. Eusebio and Maradona are both ridiculously fast and brilliant dribblers. Never mind that one was probably the greatest playmaker ever and the other one of the best goalscorers ever, the fact that either could tear your defence to shreds by running from deep makes them identical and not complementary. I must have missed the memo that said you should only have one blisteringly fast, all-time great dribbler in your team.

EDIT: Cheers for the vote by the way, I've returned the favour!
 
EAPs midfield five are insanely good and Kocsis would be a great poacher at the end of it, not just a great header of the ball.

It's mental that a team like that could be going out, but I can't see them getting back into the game. Had he started with the team below he would have won this, I reckon.

SUBSYour-team-formation-tactics.png
 
antohan said:
:lol:

It's a bad choice of words. Would you disagree that two classic Busby men would find it easy to play alongside each other? I don't. I once put together a team that had largely not played together but were all Dutch school Barca/Ajax players. I would expect them to gel myself, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

Sure, they would gel. But "bad choice of words" is where it's at. Because Edgar knows very well that it's not actually a proven partnership by any stretch of the imagination - he's just selling it as such. "Charlton and Edwards were team mates and even though Charlton certainly wasn't at his peak when he played with Edwards, it's reasonable to assume the two of them would work just fine together, even at the highest level". That's TRUE. It's nowhere near as good a selling point, though.

It's draft tactics - purely. Raises certain questions, one could say.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is kinda what I wanted to build from Day 1.

Skizzo stone Neeskens at last minute.
Charlton at CM was not well received as I hoped for.
And bloody no good CF or DM in reinforcement pool!

TEST-formation-tactics.png
Click to expand...

The issue was that you needed someone who stayed out wide so that inside left channel was open for Charlton to bomb forward in that case. A traditional winger rather than a false-winger like Rivellino. Very close though!
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Sure, they would gel. But "bad choice of words" is where it's at. Because Edgar knows very well that it's not actually a proven partnership by any stretch of the imagination - he's just selling it as such. "Charlton and Edwards were team mates and even though Charlton certainly wasn't at his peak when he played with Edwards, it's reasonable to assume the two of them would work just fine together, even at the highest level". That's TRUE. It's nowhere near as good a selling point, though.

It's draft tactics - purely. Raises certain questions, one could say.
Click to expand...

I think you are reading too much into semantics. I've sold some snake oil before, but this case is not like that. Google 'Busby Babes formation' and you get:

772884_Manchester_United.jpg


It was a fantastic selling point especially in a United forum.

If you look at Bobby Charlton's goal stats in wiki, his best goalscoring season (29 goals in 39 appearances) was when he played Left attacker with Edwards behind him (close enough to my starting formation). Add that to the fact that despite short time together (and we are only using a 3 year peak here) it was First Division winning combination, it's not that much of an exaggeration!
 
@Edgar Allan Pillow

No, it ain't snake oil - you're right about that. But it is used cars.

Charlton was brilliant out wide - at times. Unpredictable in both a good and a bad way. Clearly not his best role, though - and many would say that his peak as a winger came in the first seasons post Munich, in the rebuild years, if you will.

Plus, as the formation above suggests, Charlton featured just as much (and certainly as a goal scorer) as an inside forward for pre-Munich United. Which makes the original point (the Edwards-Charlton "proven partnership" one) even less convincing.

Used cars - not snake oil. But still.
 
Aldo said:
What?!?! :lol:
Click to expand...
He had a midfield pair of Ancelotti and Pantsil, with Rocco at inside left dropping into midfield.

It was horrific. But he did have Baresi and Maldini/Desailly iirc. It was more a case of "you have no midfield, but the defence will hold out".
 
Aldo said:
Alberto, I am guessing, got the nod due to his link with Jairzinho, which is fair enough. I do agree with the above posts that Djalma and Sammer would make a lot of sense in the back four, I am not sure what Burgnich is still doing there especially next to Forster.

BTW to the old timers - we know quite a bit about their national team exploits, even there Djalma played 4 WCs, but who wins it between him and Alberto in their club careers? This guy's defensive nous is really amazing..

(no. 4)
Click to expand...


Yeah I'm curious about his club career too. He was brilliant defensively and excellent on the ball, albeit in a more economical fashion. Even though he played a rather simple game offensively, his technique and ability on the ball was there for all to see - esp his one touch passing and his great touch. He didn't play as a buccaneering wing-back, as he had to provide tactical balance since he had Garrincha on his flank and N.Santos on the other but part of me wonders if he could have played such a role, as he had the physical qualities for just that. Also read a few reports whereby they claim he was versatile and could play various positions - some even suggest that he was a brilliant attacking wing-back.

Independent's obituary of D.Santos said:
But Santos could be a thrilling attacker, too, capable of rampaging down his touchline on swashbuckling overlaps and joining in with flowing team moves, occasionally displaying flair with the ball worthy of the most artistic midfield general. He was also a dead-ball specialist, taking penalties in the early part of his career, and he was blessed with an even temperament, retaining his composure in the most hectic of situations and never being sent off in more than 1,000 games as a professional.
Click to expand...

So perhaps he was more of a free attacking wing-back for his club sides. His technique and ability on the ball were something which always struck out more for me, than his defensive ability though - not that it was better but more due to being taken back by surprise as he was primarily renowned for his brilliant defensive game.

Maybe @antohan can shed more light on his attacking game play and club career.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
This is kinda what I wanted to build from Day 1.

Skizzo stone Neeskens at last minute.
Charlton at CM was not well received as I hoped for.
And bloody no good CF or DM in reinforcement pool!

TEST-formation-tactics.png
Click to expand...
I adore Johan Segon, but Falcao is a better fit there.

And what is your hard on for Burgnich in a CB pair? I would have voted for with the right change there but was definitely not voting you after that switch and would have voted for Pat/Skizzo if it got close.

I just preferred keeping you three biting your nails.
 
Why all the talk about Vieri? Nowhere near good enough for this draft IMO, and particularly this round, despite what Anto might preach!
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Nothing special. In every draft I prefer flexible CB's who can operate in 2 or 3 man backline. Burgnich was chosen here.

Burgnich, Forster, Sammer, Edwards, Falcao, Charlton, Junior, Rivellino can all operate in more than one position.
Click to expand...
I do that a lot as well, I'd say it is one ofmy most obvious traits. It still doesn't explain why Burgnich would be preferred to Sammer.
 
Fergus' son said:
Why all the talk about Vieri? Nowhere near good enough for this draft IMO, and particularly this round, despite what Anto might preach!
Click to expand...
If you expect him to beast that defence and score it's a tall order but if you actually acknowledge the real threats were Jairzinho/Rivelino and Charlton, he was good enough to keep the best defender on the pitch busy with him and therefore not on the others. He wouldn't be the star, sure, but a valuable cog in a team effort.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
One of the feedbacks in last game was Sammer's peak was in a libero. Anywhere else he was not considered as good. I thought Burgnich's peak as CB was better to sell than Sammer's peak in a back 4.
Click to expand...

feck that peak shite. You are chasing a game, need to play a high line, your opponent has no wingers but instead has Eusebio and Maradona... You play Sammer in that context, every day of the week, no two ways about it.
 
Joga Bonito said:
Yeah I'm curious about his club career too. He was brilliant defensively and excellent on the ball, albeit in a more economical fashion. Even though he played a rather simple game offensively, his technique and ability on the ball was there for all to see - esp his one touch passing and his great touch. He didn't play as a buccaneering wing-back, as he had to provide tactical balance since he had Garrincha on his flank and N.Santos on the other but part of me wonders if he could have played such a role, as he had the physical qualities for just that. Also read a few reports whereby they claim he was versatile and could play various positions - some even suggest that he was a brilliant attacking wing-back.

So perhaps he was more of a free attacking wing-back for his club sides. His technique and ability on the ball were something which always struck out more for me, than his defensive ability though - not that it was better but more due to being taken back by surprise as he was primarily renowned for his brilliant defensive game.

Maybe @antohan can shed more light on his attacking game play and club career.
Click to expand...

Not sure what I could add here re: his club career. When I lived in Brazil I saw more of him at club level (they had a retro football show which I really enjoyed) and all I can say is you are spot on re: the Djalma everyone sees is one limited/adapted to having Garrincha ahead and Nilton on the other flank.

He certainly could go on a mazy run and was a superb crosser, it just didn't make much sense for him to do that with Garrincha ahead. There's no point trying to overlap Garrincha and offer him a one-two: he enjoyed taking on defenders 1v1, beating them through a 2v1 was no fun.

That's not to say that would be his main characteristic, he was a defender first and foremost, a supremely gifted one. I actually rate him higher than Nilton myself. Nilton was more of a maverick and has this aura about him being the Encyclopaedia and all that, but the one who looked to me as an Encyclopaedia on how to shut out a flank and provide cover was Djalma. He had the physique, he had the tactical awareness, the technique and, crucially, the resilience and character. He was humble, not flashy, not fussed with the limelight. Supremely confident, he just occupied himself with the business of winning games of football and excelled at it like no other RB ever has IMO.
 
harms said:
About their attack - it's a perfect set-up for Platini, and less so for Maradona. I don't think that the gap between them was that big, and 100% of Platini here would've been better than 90% of Maradona, in my opinion. I understand the urge to get one of the two (three? four?) best players in history, but I still feel that it should've been Platini (who is easily in all-time top 10 himself).

Still, Gullit is the perfect "workhorse" at this level, Eusebio will be floating around in left-central channel and Maradona centrally? Looks more convincing than Pillow's set-up.
Click to expand...

Aye, signing Maradona was a bastard of a decision strangely. When Theon and us were in a bidding war for him I was torn between desperately wanting him and hoping we got outbid. Basically, we had money to burn, a team that needed strengthening, and he was the best player available. Its just a huge pain in the arse that he plays in the same position as our previous best player, who I agree is close to him in terms of quality. Ultimately, it was as much a case of keeping him away from other managers as anything - if we'd lost him we'd have stood a near 50/50 chance of drawing an opponent with one of Pele, Maradona or Messi, which would have been shit really.

antohan said:
I'd also agree with those arguing you have one defender too many while lacking a holding midfielder that really frees up Marco and van Hanegem. Yes, I get that Effenberg shouldn't be holding, but you really should have got a DM. You can't just sit around praying Desailly will be released for upgrade.
Click to expand...

I can't really argue with that. The initial plan was Passarella as libero, as he'd offer a degree of flexibility in terms of being able to step into midfield, but Figueroa is just the better player imo and there was also the Passarella/Maradona enmity which sealed it really.

antohan said:
I would concede Vieri would struggle when facing three CBs and with figueroa minding him. That said, most strikers would. Ultimately, Vieri was making a major contribution of taking Figueroa out of the equation (or else he WOULD make an impact) leaving Chumpitaz and Ruggeri to deal with Jairzinho and Charlton while Falcao and Edwards bomb forward through the middle.

I would have thought we would have appreciated by now that even when a striker may not score he can play a valuable role in keeping certain defenders busy and dictating their positioning. That's what Vieri did for EAP which neither Eusebio nor Gullit do for you: he led the line, pegged back defenders, and as a result created space between the lines for his teammates.
Click to expand...

I didn't especially like the extent of my Vieri-bashing as I do like him as a player, but we faced an onslaught of criticism from the very start and had to go on the offensive to get back in the game. I do stand by my stance that our centre backs were a dreadful style match up for him. The 'leading the line' thing is of limited value when Figueroa/Ruggeri are beating him to the ball the majority of the time. If he can't win or keep possession EAP surrenders possession far too often. I also don't see what Vieri offers in terms of back to goal/target man capabilities that Gullit can't replicate or better. The only argument I can see is that we're asking too much of him by tasking him with providing width on the right occasionally too, but I don't think Gullit and Eusebio alternating who stays central/leads the line is especially problematic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.