Enigma VS Downcast - NT Peak Draft
- Thread starter Annahnomoss
- Start date
The conspiracy EAP-ENIGMA-HARMS
Yeah Figueroa was great against... Gerd Muller?
Moore against Germany 66? Great but if you read my OP, it's Beckenbauer 72 who is amongst us...
You are missing Boniek, Stoichkov and their work rate factored in. As I've noted in the OP we will defend as a unit and won't provide much free space.
I think you are underrating Makelele because of his age which makes no sense IMO. At the same time Makelele was instrumental in a double Prem winning side and had the lungs of a horse. He's a late bloomer himself and was playing at top level at the age of 37-38 in PSG as you know of course
In terms of style of play in a single game, the only one I found about Netzer who enlightens the game and was a collective player with a great mobility
The conspiracy EAP-ENIGMA-HARMS
Yeah Figueroa was great against... Gerd Muller?
Moore against Germany 66? Great but if you read my OP, it's Beckenbauer 72 who is amongst us...
I don't know what others think of course, but in pure defensive sense I rate Moore above Beckenbauer in the respective tournaments. When you factor in the opposition as well I think Moore edges it.
As for Figueroa - yes none other than der Bomber (that was plus in picking him, apart from being absolute class)
You are missing Boniek, Stoichkov and their work rate factored in. As I've noted in the OP we will defend as a unit and won't provide much free space.
I think you are underrating Makelele because of his age which makes no sense IMO. At the same time Makelele was instrumental in a double Prem winning side and had the lungs of a horse. He's a late bloomer himself and was playing at top level at the age of 37-38 in PSG as you know of course
I don't 'underrate' Makélélé
I just say that details matters at the high level: Makélélé 33 years is part of the big picture
Otherwise, I have nothing new to add about him so we can move on :-)
I don't 'underrate' Makélélé
I just say that details matters at the high level: Makélélé 33 years is part of the big picture
Otherwise, I have nothing new to add about him so we can move on :-)
Well Makelele played some of his best football at that time, so I think age has nothing to do with his level, especially in his case and being a late bloomer.
Agree on the last part
I don't know what others think of course, but in pure defensive sense I rate Moore above Beckenbauer in the respective tournaments. When you factor in the opposition as well I think Moore edges it.
As for Figueroa - yes none other than der Bomber (that was plus in picking him, apart from being absolute class)
Beckenbauer was Ballon d'Or in 72 + UEFA Euro Best Defender 1972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_All-Time_Team
You have Moore and Pelé AGAINST Beckenbauer and Breitner! It might mean Beckenbauer can be good against non-European players.
Now, Beckenbauer is the perfect defender for my team in order to have a defensive line close to the midfield and in terms of build-up. Baresi was certainly a better performer in terms of defensive tasks.
Also, Moore was deployed as left CB and not as a right CB as you did
I say that because any detail matters!
Look at the positioning of Moore
One of the great 'what ifs?' had Jonquet not broken his leg.
If you think a team comprised of 10 players is equivalent to a team comprised of 11 players, it's your right.
It's not a 'what if he had scored'
Simply, he was injured and an injured player couldn't be replaced by a sub in 1958.
Not a detail IMO
However, France with 11 men would have lost but the game would have been tighter.
Last edited:
Beckenbauer was Ballon d'Or in 72 + UEFA Euro Best Defender 1972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_All-Time_Team
You have Moore and Pelé AGAINST Beckenbauer and Breitner! It might mean Beckenbauer can be good against non-European players.
Now, Beckenbauer is the perfect defender for my team in order to have a defensive line close to the midfield and in terms of build-up. Baresi was certainly a better performer in terms of defensive tasks.
Also, Moore was deployed as left CB and not as a right CB as you did
I say that because any detail matters!
Look at the positioning of Moore
I don't think it's relevant whether he'll be RCB or LCB as Figueroa is going to take care of Fontaine so he'll be central sweeping behind/intercepting. The idea on the RCB is to cover for Amoros if needed and/or centrally for Kopa.
He'll be in his natural 1966 role but with a huge upgrade on Jack Charlton.
1972 (June 18) West Germany 3-USSR 0 (EC Final)
BREITNER-BECKENBAEUR-NETZER >>>>>>>
BREITNER-BECKENBAEUR-NETZER
>>>>>>> Then you should have quite simply have stated that instead of making an absurd comparison between Kopa and Wimmer when Zito is the defensive player here.
Kopa was an extremely direct and a free roaming playmaker who operated higher up the pitch and Netzer played a fairly deep role for Germany in 1972. Don't see why they'd be at loggerheads here, esp since Kopa was hardly the dominant playmaking type but rather a direct and an incisive #10 who should fit Netzer's style.
Went for Downcast in the end as I could see Downcast's midfield, in combination with Beckenbauer (who's strangely gone under the radar here) wrestling control of the match. Makélélé was a fine player but he does look a wee bit out of company here and could have too much on his plate to deal with here.
Thanks for sharing your views. I was watching some youtube videos and one of the stremable videos illustrate what you say
25.04.1971 - UEFA EURO 1972 Qualifying Round 8th Group 5th Match Turkey 0-3 West Germany - Türkiye 0-3 Batı Almanya
Netzer: passing skills
I'm aware of Rahn's impact on the 1954 final, but wouldn't his 1958 overall performance rank higher? @Balu?
Same game, you could see Netzer was really a deep-lying playmaker who goes forward when possible
Good question.
I forgot to check Rahn 54 versus Rahn 58 in greater detail.
I've watched Germany 58 against France 58 (game for the 3rd place but Rahn seemed tired) but I haven't found a game of Germany 54.
So, I can't say.
I think Moore and Beckenbauer have the similar impact to the central core and the midfield.
you can see Moore's effect on the game which is by no means inferior to Beckenbauer I'd argue that it's even greater given that particular tournament.
I can't agree that Zito would have a better game here as well as he is getting less support from midfield/attack considering Pele's role in 1970, Boniek work rate and Stoichkov also helping out.
I think as a stopper Figueroa is also better at this level and pairing for Moore, while in the same time Zito most likely is having a tad tougher job against Pele.
I don't think Downcast central midfield is getting more help from Henry, Rahn or Kopa, which is not taken into consideration here.
Also some attention to the men between the sticks. Although Mazurka had an excellent tournament I think it's safe to say Fillol had bigger impact in a WC winning team in 1978:
3rd in Castrol ratings for tournament best players:
conceding just 4 goals in 7 games. On the back of that tournament he was voted Silver ball of South American player of the year in 1978.
3rd in Castrol ratings for tournament best players:
conceding just 4 goals in 7 games. On the back of that tournament he was voted Silver ball of South American player of the year in 1978.
Left-Wing of the Franco-German Army: Style of Play
The German flair and creativity
The Ultimate left-footed weapon
The German flair and creativity
The Ultimate left-footed weapon
@Enigma_87
Yeah, Fillol was great in 78.
But who was the best GK in 70? Mazurka
Are you serious to compare Uruguay 1970 with Argentina 1978?
Yeah, Fillol was great in 78.
But who was the best GK in 70? Mazurka
Are you serious to compare Uruguay 1970 with Argentina 1978?
Nah there's no way their influence could be in anyway similar in terms of their impact on midfield. Beckenbauer in '72 was pretty much the embodiment of a perfect 'libero' performance and the way in which he and Netzer combined was brilliant to say the least. Netzer's presence in midfield helped create space for Beckenbauer to run onto and vice versa.
Defensively Moore was impeccable in 66 and whilst his long range passing and ability to step up once in a while were excellent, they aren't really comparable to Beckenbauer's on the ball performance in 72 and ability to aid the midfield (and that too with Breitner of all people in a complementary set up). Don't get me wrong I really rate Moore's passing ability on the ball (amongst the best) but in terms of providing support to the midfield and carrying the ball forward, Beckenbauer is head and shoulders above him.
Can see Netzer, Beckenbauer, Breitner, with support from Schnellinger, Zito and Andrade (great supporting players on the ball) gaining a foothold on this match and as great as your defense is, Downcast packs enough firepower, with Kopa-Fontaine at the helm, to potentially exploit that imo.
Splitting hairs though as it's a close match and Pele-Muller is fantastic but I prefer Downcast's overall set up and cohesiveness
I'm saying Fillol was more influential and received more plaudits in a WC winning run. It's one of the best keeper performances I've seen at that stage@Enigma_87
Yeah, Fillol was great in 78.
But who was the best GK in 70? Mazurka
Are you serious to compare Uruguay 1970 with Argentina 1978?
If Beckenbauer pushes forward that leaves some space for Muller and you don't want that to happen in his 1970 form. So it goes both ways. Also as I've said I have more bodies contributing to the midfield so I can't see how DC is gaining more there tbh. I don't think Henry, Rahn, Kopa or Fontaine (who is way forward) would contribute to the same extend our players will. In this set up he has more passengers in midfield.
I think we will share possession most of the time but with Pele and Muller on the pitch, not to mention also Stoichkov in his goalscoring form of 1994 will prove too much for the defence to handle.
KOPA-NETZER ---> THE FANTASTIC DUO
It doesn't make sense to say Kopa (right-footed playmaker) can't play with Netzer (left-footed playmaker who had a deep role for Germany 72). Iniesta-Xavi was a success because they were also collective players like Kopa-Netzer.
Please keep in mind that Kopa played with super mega stars like Di Stefano, Gento or Puskas.
Kopa with Madrid was deployed on the right because Di Stefano was the super star. It means he is a collective player, a modulable player.
BUT, Kopa started his career with Stade de Reims as right-inside attacking/playmaking midfielder and lost the final of the European Cup against Real Madrid. He also played for France 58 as
Coach: Miguel Munoz (from 1959)
Achievements: European Cup 1955,56,57,58,59,60; Finalists 62, 64
Key Players: Di Stefano, Puskas, Kopa, Gento, Santamaria, Del Sol
Star Player: Di Stefano
Formation: 3-2-2-3
Kopa (the player #18) was really a collective player. Other videos are available in my previous game.
I'm saying Fillol was more influential and received more plaudits in a WC winning run. It's one of the best keeper performances I've seen at that stage
Well, I don't believe in a relevant gap between the greatest Uruguayan GK of All-Times and the greatest Argentinian GK
Well as I've said both featured in the team of the tournament, but to me Fillol impact was greater backed by the acclaims he received in South America at the time. Tiny details, but then fine margins here and there.Well, I don't believe in a relevant gap between the greatest Uruguayan GK of All-Times and the greatest Argentinian GK
In terms of the midfield you both have 2 cracking playmakers in Didi and Netzer. However he has the edge there with Beckenbauer of all people in support and Breitner in tow to boot. Likewise, I can see Zito and Kopa contributing more to Downcast maintaining control and the possession side of the game, as opposed to Makélélé and Pele tbf. Whilst Stoichkov and Boniek's industry and link up play shouldn't be underrated, they aren't exactly the Rivelino sort who'd actively contribute to gaining control. In fact, your side is more direct and primed for excellent counter attacks with an excellent defense and 2 excellent wide players. However, I can see Downcast's defense with Beckenbauer in his 1972 role handling that better than most tbf. One of the main reasons why I voted for Downcast and it's unfortunate as I could see your set up trumping against most other sides here.
on Rahn and from Pat's quote from the game:
To be honest I also think the 1958 version of him would be better fit in terms of what I've read about him and his impact in both world cups.
To be honest I also think the 1958 version of him would be better fit in terms of what I've read about him and his impact in both world cups.
Well as I've said defending and getting the ball back is more of a team effort from my side which I've tried to explain right from the OP. So while DC support comes from the defence(which will undoubtedly leave gaps out wide if they cut in, making way for Boniek/Stoichkov) my support comes from the attacking players, whereas on the DC side I don't see that support there.
Either way we can agree to disagree on that point
1. No. Fontaine was a mobile CF.
I don't have the time to make new videos about Rahn but I think he has nothing to envy to Stoickhov not known for his defensive contribution
Henry defensive contribution: just an example
2. Pele is a hurry player and Didi likes to run the show so I'm surprised because I offer 2 playmakers on the pitch who have the required team-spirit in an army.
Please look at the impact of Kopa in terms of possession
I will come back tomorrow.
In the meantime, it would be great to have more neutrals involved here.
Bonne nuit / Gute Nacht*
*Good night
In the meantime, it would be great to have more neutrals involved here.
Bonne nuit / Gute Nacht*
*Good night
Night mate, you've done pretty good job on presenting, we'll take it back again tomorrow.I will come back tomorrow.
In the meantime, it would be great to have more neutrals involved here.
Bonne nuit / Gute Nacht*
*Good night
Some nice highlights from Stoichkov and his tournament in 1994:
Highlights from the game against Germany.
Highlights from the game against Germany.
Both strong teams, but couldn't find any fault with Enigma's team. Fantastic sets of front four, with Didi pulling the string in midfield and Makelele covering all grounds in front of already impressive defense
Not sure. I guess it depends how much credit you want to give him for the World cup winning impact in '54. Overall he was more consistent in '58 and more an established player while he had to find his place in the team in '54 and only really excelled from the quarterfinal onwards. I'd say it doesn't matter which one you pick.
I think so as well and in quite a dominant fashion. While the work rate output from Enigmas wingers are higher they were both basically doing the same job as free roaming second strikers. With Muller, Pele and Didi all operating centrally I don't think that is quite ideal and they'd be better off with two wingers who provided width. Slightly too many match winners for me as that was the role of Boniek and Stoichkov as well and some utility out wide would have been appreciated. Didi and Pele are more about slower interplays and breaking down the opponent that way.
Downcast just has a more coherent style where everybody would be at their best together and I see Breitner and Beckenbauer winning this for him. That combination of Breitner-Beckenbauer-Netzer worked like a charm and with Kopa and Fontaine there as well it just seems like too much for him not to pull out the winner. Tightest margine possible but I have to give it to downcast.
Agree with Joga and Annah, have said most of what I would have. The ability on the ball of the likes of Breitner, Beckenbauer and Andrade combined with their versatility and willingness to be present in midfield will be really vital and I can't see many 'hard working' midfields coping with that, really. I agree with Enigma that he has more pure work rate and tenacity in there but that wouldn't tell the complete story on who will dominate the middle there as the quality on the ball from all areas goes in favour of downcast and in general both Hristo in 94 and Boniek in 82 would themselves be a lot happier in a ruthless counter attacking setup while not being the ideal choices in terms of getting swift combinations going in midfield. That is quite a big factor for me, the game otherwise is immensely tight as you would expect but I think I prefer Downcast tactically here and while Muller is obviously a bigger name than Fontaine for example but in terms of WC peaks there's hardly much between him and Fontaine. Similarly Kopa is right up there and there's that famous quote when Santiago Bernabeu asked his scout to bring him the best player from the 1958 World Cup and he got the reply that the player is already at the club!
In short, Makelele as I already mentioned is not someone I am fond of in that team especially given who is up against and while both of Enigma's wingers individually have great credentials, I find it tough to envisage their playing styles blending well with the 1970 Pele and the tactics he played in where wide players were expected more to contribute in attack and in terms of individual as well as team's offensive skill than being industrious, all action impact players like the two Eastern Europeans here. You normally associate Pele's playing culture with the likes of Garrincha and Jairzinho who are absolutely a different school of playing style than the likes of Zibi Boniek.
In short, Makelele as I already mentioned is not someone I am fond of in that team especially given who is up against and while both of Enigma's wingers individually have great credentials, I find it tough to envisage their playing styles blending well with the 1970 Pele and the tactics he played in where wide players were expected more to contribute in attack and in terms of individual as well as team's offensive skill than being industrious, all action impact players like the two Eastern Europeans here. You normally associate Pele's playing culture with the likes of Garrincha and Jairzinho who are absolutely a different school of playing style than the likes of Zibi Boniek.
A lot has been said centrally but I think we have advantage on the wings and both Stoichkov and Boniek in the form of their life, stretching the play supported by Maldini and Amoros has to be taken into consideration.
Amoros and his contribution in 86 was vital for the Caree Magique, especially in a more central set up where he manned the flank and provided a lot of support in attack. I feel that Maldini should keep Rahn at bay in this one while Stoichkov and Boniek continuously stretching the play out wide in attack would minimize the effect Breitner and Andrade can provide centrally.
Amoros and his contribution in 86 was vital for the Caree Magique, especially in a more central set up where he manned the flank and provided a lot of support in attack. I feel that Maldini should keep Rahn at bay in this one while Stoichkov and Boniek continuously stretching the play out wide in attack would minimize the effect Breitner and Andrade can provide centrally.