I don't need Redondo pressing in wide areas. Its not a diamond so the fullbacks don't need to be gung-ho as the only source of width. Maldini plays his normal game, Redondo plays his normal game in the centre, any width ahead of them comes from Kaka showing wide or Crespo running into channels.
Fantasy draft S1: Cutch VS Chester
- Thread starter Annahnomoss
- Start date
I don't need Redondo pressing in wide areas. Its not a diamond so the fullbacks don't need to be gung-ho as the only source of width. Maldini plays his normal game, Redondo plays his normal game in the centre, any width ahead of them comes from Kaka showing wide or Crespo running into channels.
Maldini's normal game included getting forward and providing width for Milan, he did it for Italy as well when they played 3-5-2.
Redondo's normal game was often as the pivot of a similar midfield for Real Madrid - i.e where Pirlo is.
It isn't just about pressing wide either, that is a small part of any midfielders role. With Pirlo, Savicevic and Kaka the balance of the side is better with Rijkaard and not Redondo IMO.
Also as I said - it is very similar to a Milan diamond, the only change is Shevchenko for Savicevic and that is not a significant difference. Sheva was a complete forward who dropped deep and pulled wide behind Crespo/Inzaghi.
I really think this dislike on Redondo is primarily based on the fact that you are using a theme Cutch. It is incredibly hard to balance as people will complain about the lack of individual quality but at the same time if you make the slightest change to the tactics they will use it against you. Instead of saying "Wow he has 10/11 players who actually played their roles, the opponent had just 2 players in their perfect roles" they say "WTF, player X didn't play in this exact role - and the one who played the role was completely different which is shit for you".
Themes are so incredibly difficult for this reason, it is almost better to not have a theme - in which case it is very possible that people would rate Redondo higher even if the players around him were similar.
In this case I agree with them though that Rijkaard would have been better - but it isn't by any means as far of a negative as it is made out to be. It is more of a trade-off than anything else, you get better passing and that gives you a much better ability to attack against an organized defense. With Rijkaard you'd have a better ability to go true to the counter-attacking set up instead but you would lose the ability to handle the times your counters won't work perfectly.
Milan usually won possession with this set-up, even in the hardest environment in the CL finals they won possession in two out of three finals. The won they lost possession in it was 49-51 against an outstanding Juventus side. Milan was by no means a pure counter-attacking side, they always had to attack against teams who handled their first wave - and organized their defense.
Redondo would be a massive improvement for that regard, considering Milan's weakness was their ability to break down organized defenses which they inevitably had to play more often than not. Which is why they had such little success in the league. This is a knock-out environment of course, but I can't see why Redondo wouldn't add a lot here, sure it is different but that doesn't mean bad.
I can see reasons to go full out counter-attacking, but also why you would want to be dangerous in both phases of the game not just on the counters. With Redondo there you can certainly break down opponents much better and that was a big part of Milan's team as well.
Themes are so incredibly difficult for this reason, it is almost better to not have a theme - in which case it is very possible that people would rate Redondo higher even if the players around him were similar.
In this case I agree with them though that Rijkaard would have been better - but it isn't by any means as far of a negative as it is made out to be. It is more of a trade-off than anything else, you get better passing and that gives you a much better ability to attack against an organized defense. With Rijkaard you'd have a better ability to go true to the counter-attacking set up instead but you would lose the ability to handle the times your counters won't work perfectly.
Milan usually won possession with this set-up, even in the hardest environment in the CL finals they won possession in two out of three finals. The won they lost possession in it was 49-51 against an outstanding Juventus side. Milan was by no means a pure counter-attacking side, they always had to attack against teams who handled their first wave - and organized their defense.
Redondo would be a massive improvement for that regard, considering Milan's weakness was their ability to break down organized defenses which they inevitably had to play more often than not. Which is why they had such little success in the league. This is a knock-out environment of course, but I can't see why Redondo wouldn't add a lot here, sure it is different but that doesn't mean bad.
I can see reasons to go full out counter-attacking, but also why you would want to be dangerous in both phases of the game not just on the counters. With Redondo there you can certainly break down opponents much better and that was a big part of Milan's team as well.
Maldini will naturally get forward, but he's not going to attack like a mad man. In this setup he doesn't need a centre midfielder playing wide to assist him. As I say, he has attackers showing ahead of him. My formation isn't that much different to Chesters and no-one's saying anything about Robson having to press wide.
I think Redondo offers perfect balance to whoever plays alongside him here, whether it be Pirlo, Gattuso, or Seedorf. He can partner pretty much anyone. I can't believe he's being made out almost to be a negative, as if the team has less chance of winning with him in the side.
Agree with your post - and to clarify a few things.
1. It isn't just the theme - it's also the fact that Redondo suits the pivot position and played there for Real Madrid. He needed runners alongside him, not the extent of Pirlo but he still did. I think Pippa - who is a Madrid fan - articulated it as being too much of a 'vertical' player.
2. Yeah, the point is that Rijkaard suits it better - Not that Redondo is terrible or anything. It's not a big deal and I don't think it has been criticised too heavily.
I agree with the Redondo/Rijkaard analysis - that is, I agree that the role he plays here isn't the most obvious fit for him. He looks like a more natural fit in a co-called pivot role of some description - behind an attacking midfielder/playmaker, slightly behind two central midfielders, in a diamond of sorts, yes. Although Real's version - with Redondo in it - was slightly different from the Milan diamond. I'd say Redondo would normally find himself higher up the pitch than Pirlo did.
However, I can easily see Redondo in a midfield two of the old sort - and in a modern-day two-man pivot like the one employed by Real in later years. I hate the term "pivot" by the way, but I use it myself all the time, fecking hipster jargon.
Anyway, the point would be that while Pirlo, say, would look entirely out of place in that role (one of two central midfielders in a diamond) I don't think the same can be said for Redondo. But I fully agree that Rijkaard looks like a more natural fit. If you don't have Rijkaard - you could do worse than use Redondo (who is, after all, just about the complete midfielder). But if you DO have him - well, why not play him? I really don't see what Redondo does in that role which would justify picking him over Rijkaard.
However, I can easily see Redondo in a midfield two of the old sort - and in a modern-day two-man pivot like the one employed by Real in later years. I hate the term "pivot" by the way, but I use it myself all the time, fecking hipster jargon.
Anyway, the point would be that while Pirlo, say, would look entirely out of place in that role (one of two central midfielders in a diamond) I don't think the same can be said for Redondo. But I fully agree that Rijkaard looks like a more natural fit. If you don't have Rijkaard - you could do worse than use Redondo (who is, after all, just about the complete midfielder). But if you DO have him - well, why not play him? I really don't see what Redondo does in that role which would justify picking him over Rijkaard.
Redondo played there in part of a 2 man midfield, with Mcmannaman who was naturally an AM, with Raul, Morientes and Anelka ahead of him. I don't at all see it as a necessity for him to have such a customized set up for him he wasn't nearly as limited defensively as Pirlo. With Carlos bombing forward in that formation he often had to do the exact same role here of defending out left as well.
They comfortably beat the great Valencia side with 3-0 in the final with him in this role, which was near identical to what Cutch is playing him in here. I'd say Cutch is using Redondo in the second best possibly role you can use him in.
What are you talking about, you realise that is one game right?
Madrid played a diamond shape with Redondo at the base, something like,
Seedorf ------- Karembeu
-------- Redondo -------
I'm pretty sure Redondo played in exactly the same position here as he did in his famous game against United. I think he and McManaman were either side infront of Campo/Helguera (can't remember which).
I don't agree there, Annah. Those roles are different for me - clearly so.
Anyway, the "pivot" Redondo I picture most easily would be the one who operated in the middle, "flanked" by a couple of other midfielders - and then a trio of sorts up front, with Raul in that deeper role of his. Something like the way they played, for instance, in the 1998 final against Juve.
Anyway, the "pivot" Redondo I picture most easily would be the one who operated in the middle, "flanked" by a couple of other midfielders - and then a trio of sorts up front, with Raul in that deeper role of his. Something like the way they played, for instance, in the 1998 final against Juve.
Which position would you consider his second best if not the role as a left sided CM/DM.
Yeah, that's the pivot style Redondo, alright. Later on they were wont to field three at the back and Redondo partnered with someone (McManaman) in a two.
But the salient point is that when Redondo operated in a two, he didn't have another "pivot" or deep lying playmaker behind him - which is the diamond conundrum here, it changes the dynamics of the whole thing.
Edit: Pippa's formation = pivot style Redondo. Just to be clear.
But the salient point is that when Redondo operated in a two, he didn't have another "pivot" or deep lying playmaker behind him - which is the diamond conundrum here, it changes the dynamics of the whole thing.
Edit: Pippa's formation = pivot style Redondo. Just to be clear.
What?
As a left sided CM in a diamond I don't think it's a good role at all because of what that position entails. His best role is as a midfielder with mobility next to him - as the playmaker and fulcrum of the team.
Two things just struck me. The amount of games Redondo racked up for Milan must be slender indeed. I remember him making a couple of comebacks during his stint there - but I honestly can't remember what sort of role he played exactly.
And two - how would a manager fare in a draft here with McManaman? And isn't old Steve, leaving our red tinted specs on the coffee table, strictly speaking a bit underrated all things considered? I mean, he was pretty good in his pomp - and in some ways a remarkable player, at least he seems that way to me. I don't mean remarkably good - but remarkable in the sense that he doesn't easily fit into standard categories. Or am I talking utter bollocks?
And two - how would a manager fare in a draft here with McManaman? And isn't old Steve, leaving our red tinted specs on the coffee table, strictly speaking a bit underrated all things considered? I mean, he was pretty good in his pomp - and in some ways a remarkable player, at least he seems that way to me. I don't mean remarkably good - but remarkable in the sense that he doesn't easily fit into standard categories. Or am I talking utter bollocks?
No doubt his best side is as the Pirlo role here, nobody is saying anything about that. But he did play in a very similar role defensively as he would here, having to cover for Carlos offensive runs out left and having to defend there in general as well. He will have Kaka offering help as well in the defense.
Not at all, he is generally underrated to be fair. That Real Madrid side has never been attempted to recreate from what I know and it is a bit under the radar like the Bayern of the late 90's/early 00 until Balu popped up.
Would be great to see someone attempt them as a theme.
You guys are comparing two different Real sides.
I would argue peak Redondo was the pivot in the early one but the average cafite rates the other one higher due to that season and game against us. It was actually insane that Real managed to pull off that with only one actual "proper" midfielder. No one in their right mind would play a formation like that in one of these drafts TBH. It's a testament to Redondo's qualities, but was also quite depenndent on the fact that Real side was so über-attacking. Their rivals had their hands full with all that attacking talent. Do bear in mind once they got shot of Redondo they carried on the same path but with Makelele...
As Chester correctly points out, there's no other pivot also there. It was a team laid out to play in a completely different way to how a team sporting Pirlo deep and Gattuso as another CM would play. Basically, you are saying that because Redondo worked when similarly placed in a similar looking teamsheet, in a completely different side, that handled games in a completely different way, then he will work here.
Sorry, there's a flaw there. I rate Redondo, of course he wouldn't be a weakness, but this side is better off with Seedorf and Rijkaard and Redondo is a good alternative to Pirlo. I'm pretty clear on that.
I would argue peak Redondo was the pivot in the early one but the average cafite rates the other one higher due to that season and game against us. It was actually insane that Real managed to pull off that with only one actual "proper" midfielder. No one in their right mind would play a formation like that in one of these drafts TBH. It's a testament to Redondo's qualities, but was also quite depenndent on the fact that Real side was so über-attacking. Their rivals had their hands full with all that attacking talent. Do bear in mind once they got shot of Redondo they carried on the same path but with Makelele...
As Chester correctly points out, there's no other pivot also there. It was a team laid out to play in a completely different way to how a team sporting Pirlo deep and Gattuso as another CM would play. Basically, you are saying that because Redondo worked when similarly placed in a similar looking teamsheet, in a completely different side, that handled games in a completely different way, then he will work here.
Sorry, there's a flaw there. I rate Redondo, of course he wouldn't be a weakness, but this side is better off with Seedorf and Rijkaard and Redondo is a good alternative to Pirlo. I'm pretty clear on that.
Redondo didn't cover Carlos, that's what Helguera was there for, the defenders covered Carlos.
I don't disagree, I already stated Rijkaard would be better here - Seedorf would be as well. But people focused slightly too much on all the negatives Redondo brings to the table and he deserves some credit for what he actually would bring himself. I think I summed up what he would add to the team - to balance out all the negatives that has been said about him in the team.
Rijkaard was mentioned 22 times in the first page, among the most of the players in the teams and he wasn't even playing.
Proves my point earlier in your thread. Reinforcements and tactical changes must be managed carefully to avoid derailing the thread. I once lost a final for not picking Rivaldo as a reinforcement, by the time I finished explaining why I hadn't picked him I was 8-1 down (10 minutes, that's all it took). It was like a Roman circus with lions feasting on my team and a succession of thumbs down, when my argument was pretty simple: I didn't need Rivaldo to exploit Gary fecking Kelly at RB when I had Forlán and Zidane already in my side. I ended up losing my a single vote. Had I openly announced my reinforcement and explained it properly prior to the game I'm sure it would have turned out different.
I don't disagree with that statement at all, I think it is exactly how it is. Matches are usually won or lost by the first page of discussions and any change to a side can create a focus on "Why don't you's" which is the path to a loss.
Best are matches where the discussion is "How would this team work - how would the other team work". Rather than "How could this side be better - Why would the other team work well."
Best are matches where the discussion is "How would this team work - how would the other team work". Rather than "How could this side be better - Why would the other team work well."
It was a strange team, looking back on it. The earlier version - with "pivot" Redondo was sort of strange too. That Raul role - frequently with Morientes and a "partner" in front of him (or alongside, or whatever it was) - is something of an oddity. If you look at the team they would often field in terms of more conventional formations Raul, given what sort of player he was, looks...I don't know. I won't say bizarre, but there is something very unfamiliar - in terms of football history and the way tactical "trends" usually impact the top sides - about Real in those years. And this was before the Galacticos explosion, let's not forget that. After Zidane arrived, and the fat boy, and Beckham, and whoever they deemed flavour of the month, they arguably sported downright stupid teams (in my opinion), but this is something else. Not least because it actually worked - they won major trophies with this somewhat puzzling approach to how you piece a team together.
Fascinating, actually.
Indeed, didn't SAF allude to that as well? How Real's teamsheet looked a joke, it could never work... then being stunned how well it did
Indeed, didn't SAF allude to that as well? How Real's teamsheet looked a joke, it could never work... then being stunned how well it did
Hehe - yeah, that rings a bell. He looked better after his Franco and "virus" statements. Well, after his Franco one, anyway - lest we get into the discussion about to what extent non-fat and frankly nowhere near as funky Ronaldo was a virus.