Cue Balu completely missing the arrow reference.
Fantasy Tournament: World Cup All-Time All-Stars
- Thread starter Polaroid
- Start date
There's an arrow reference? I was so happy to recognise the bear, ffs. This is a nightmare, now I understand how Theon feels all the time 
.
.Did you get the claw reference?
Good to see anto cracking up again. You can always count on it!
antohan - its quite incredible that you accuse me of being disrespectful, as I said before you're a complete hypocrite and it really blows my mind someone can have so little self awareness. How do you manage to get by day-to-day?
You're insane. I wummed and abused Romario? Quote the posts.
I would never have picked Romario because firstly I had the option of picking the similar but better player in Muller. Romario is likewise a winner so doesn't help with the non-winning quota, so there was no reason to pick him over the better player.
But secondly I couldn't pick him because I have an abundance of post-70 players in my team and couldn't fit another one into the side.
Surprised by this, I picked Piola so have nothing against him at all but compared to Muller its a non contest - without simplifying it too much Muller was a 1st round pick and Piola a 10th. But anyway, I'm not really underrating Piola because quite simply we have very little to rate him off. There won't be a poster on the Caf who has seen him play a game of football - how can we judge/talk about a player like that? I have nothing against older players but without seeing them actually play the whole thing becomes a bit silly. All we have to judge them on is stats and that is never a good way to judge footballers. Like Piola, Baggio scored 5 goals as well but through watching him we know that he offers far more than that, it isnt just the goalscoring and we can point to specific things he'll bring to the team.
When you largely base things off statistics - particularly ones as limited as how a player performed in 3 or 4 games - then you really are getting a flawed view of the player. You can score a few more goals without being a better player than someone else (not that this even applies to Muller vs Piola) but when all your judging on is goal statistics this fact largely ceases to apply. Tostao only scored two goals playing as a forward in 1970 but he was still absolutely fantastic and a better player than 90% of those who scored more. If he had played that tournament in the early 50's for example, where footage is less accessible, then in this draft he would be rated far lower because a lot more weight would be placed on his statistics and lack of goalscoring.
antohan - its quite incredible that you accuse me of being disrespectful, as I said before you're a complete hypocrite and it really blows my mind someone can have so little self awareness. How do you manage to get by day-to-day?
You're insane. I wummed and abused Romario? Quote the posts.
I would never have picked Romario because firstly I had the option of picking the similar but better player in Muller. Romario is likewise a winner so doesn't help with the non-winning quota, so there was no reason to pick him over the better player.
But secondly I couldn't pick him because I have an abundance of post-70 players in my team and couldn't fit another one into the side.
Surprised by this, I picked Piola so have nothing against him at all but compared to Muller its a non contest - without simplifying it too much Muller was a 1st round pick and Piola a 10th. But anyway, I'm not really underrating Piola because quite simply we have very little to rate him off. There won't be a poster on the Caf who has seen him play a game of football - how can we judge/talk about a player like that? I have nothing against older players but without seeing them actually play the whole thing becomes a bit silly. All we have to judge them on is stats and that is never a good way to judge footballers. Like Piola, Baggio scored 5 goals as well but through watching him we know that he offers far more than that, it isnt just the goalscoring and we can point to specific things he'll bring to the team.
When you largely base things off statistics - particularly ones as limited as how a player performed in 3 or 4 games - then you really are getting a flawed view of the player. You can score a few more goals without being a better player than someone else (not that this even applies to Muller vs Piola) but when all your judging on is goal statistics this fact largely ceases to apply. Tostao only scored two goals playing as a forward in 1970 but he was still absolutely fantastic and a better player than 90% of those who scored more. If he had played that tournament in the early 50's for example, where footage is less accessible, then in this draft he would be rated far lower because a lot more weight would be placed on his statistics and lack of goalscoring.
Of course I'm not saying Piola should be rated as highly as Müller, like I said it is an upgrade, not sure how significant for your team though (and to me it always looked like Müller is a bit underrated in the draft games in general, even though he gets picked early every time)
In this world cup draft I rate impact on tournaments incredibly high in comparison to general ability. That's what makes this draft so brilliant, imo, only a few games decide how we rate players and therefore players we haven't seen that much of become brilliant picks all of a sudden. You want a deadly goalscorer in your team, who scored crucial goals on the way to a worldcup win, well there you go, Piola did this. Tough to upgrade him, imo, and definitely good enough to play a 2nd game (but like I said before, you drafted really well and almost all of your players were good enough to play a 2nd game). Of course I can't speak for everyone and maybe many voters will see it differently, but saying Piola shouldn't hack it at this level seemed wrong to me.
Also I think it doesn't matter if it leads to a flawed view of the player, because that's what makes a world cup so special. Better players fail to live up to the expectations while worse players exceed those. So yeah, maybe it's a flawed view on the player in general, but it's not important if we judge them on what they did at their best worldcup tournament.
In this world cup draft I rate impact on tournaments incredibly high in comparison to general ability. That's what makes this draft so brilliant, imo, only a few games decide how we rate players and therefore players we haven't seen that much of become brilliant picks all of a sudden. You want a deadly goalscorer in your team, who scored crucial goals on the way to a worldcup win, well there you go, Piola did this. Tough to upgrade him, imo, and definitely good enough to play a 2nd game (but like I said before, you drafted really well and almost all of your players were good enough to play a 2nd game). Of course I can't speak for everyone and maybe many voters will see it differently, but saying Piola shouldn't hack it at this level seemed wrong to me.
Also I think it doesn't matter if it leads to a flawed view of the player, because that's what makes a world cup so special. Better players fail to live up to the expectations while worse players exceed those. So yeah, maybe it's a flawed view on the player in general, but it's not important if we judge them on what they did at their best worldcup tournament.
This isn't what I mean though. My point isn't that better players may fail to live up to the expectations - which I have no problem with, hence Messi not being much cop in this draft - its that statistics give a flawed view. It's a different thing entirely.
So with Tostao he didn't under perform in 1970 - he just didn't score a lot of goals. That is my point. His passing, movement, etc, were all spot on and as a player he performed at a very high level in that 1970 World Cup. My point is that just basing our opinions on statistics (e.g. Piola scored 5 goals) without any real knowledge on the rest of the game, such as passing, give a terrible view of the player. So if Tostao played in the 1950 World Cup in which the games aren't easy to watch, he would be rated a lot lower because we wouldn't have seen how well he actually played. It would be much more based on scoring just two goals - which would underrate him.
If we can underrate new players playing in old World Cups then it can work the exact opposite way - we can overrate old players. So we just see "Piola scored 5 goals" with no knowledge of how he'll actually cope going up against Cannavaro and very little footage of his actual general play and ability. So whilst Tostao going back would underrate him, it could be the exact opposite for Piola or other older players.
And here you go again... Point me to where I have resorted to throwing dirt at your players, as opposed to criticising their tactical deployment and fit.
Funny, it was a plain green smilie originally iirc.
I did mention Muller would be a restriction-free upgrade on Piola. Your side could still do with Romario instead of Baggio, particularly the magic square version.
Which is the entire point of the Underdog theme, not giving a shit what you or the voters think and making a homage side to those who made their contributions and rightly deserve to be competing here.
You are clearly referring to Ghiggia here. Now, I probably know more about Ghiggia and his game than you do about half your players, let alone Domingos Da Guia. That said, you've already laid your marker that whatever I say about him is bumming, which is why I squarely submit you to the facts. Only two players have scored in the last three games of a World Cup being the difference between winning and losing for their team: Ghiggia and Maradona. I made it a bit more flexible to allow for Rossi, Kempes, Muller, Garrincha and Pelé because it is indeed a very exacting way of classifying players, but since you insist... Sure, I'm ignoring that someone else would have played instead of him. I guess we will never know how Argentina would have fared with Bochini instead of Diego. He was the primary attacking weapon and route to goal, performed accordingly, but apparently all that doesn't matter.
I know what you mean - but in fairness the exploits of many of these older players are fairly well documented. Not in the shape of extensive footage, admittedly, but still: accounts from contemporaries, newspaper material, etc. In short, I think we would've been able to conclude that Tostao, say, was much more than a player who scored a couple of goals even if he had been a prewar player.
With Piola it's more clear-cut, I should say: he was a goal scorer, one of the greatest in the history of Italian football - this is something we know beyond doubt and can add to the mere WC statistics.
http://www.conti-online.com/generat...4_stars/20_world_cup_stars/1938-piola-en.html
@Theon
I actually think Tostao is a bit underrated because most haven't seen more than maybe a few highlights. His overall ability was brilliant and he shouldn't be judged solely on his goals, no doubt, and if you wanted a different type of forward instead of Piola, I wouldn't have brought it up.
Most likely we underrate quite a few players in different positions pre '70, because there's hardly any footage available. But how can you overrate scoring decisive goals in knockout games when you want to use a striker mainly as a poacher and don't argue his overall contribution? (Sadly) most see Müller as a pure poacher as well and will only judge him on his stats and not on his overall contribution to the game?
You basically have the same problem now with da Guia, don't you? Where's the difference, let's say you picked a brilliant centerback you've seen a lot 1st and played Piola upfront instead?
/edit:
I'd actually be much more comfortable making a case for the brilliance of an attacking player on stats than for a defender played in a formation he never knew purely on reputation.
I actually think Tostao is a bit underrated because most haven't seen more than maybe a few highlights. His overall ability was brilliant and he shouldn't be judged solely on his goals, no doubt, and if you wanted a different type of forward instead of Piola, I wouldn't have brought it up.
Most likely we underrate quite a few players in different positions pre '70, because there's hardly any footage available. But how can you overrate scoring decisive goals in knockout games when you want to use a striker mainly as a poacher and don't argue his overall contribution? (Sadly) most see Müller as a pure poacher as well and will only judge him on his stats and not on his overall contribution to the game?
You basically have the same problem now with da Guia, don't you? Where's the difference, let's say you picked a brilliant centerback you've seen a lot 1st and played Piola upfront instead?
/edit:
I'd actually be much more comfortable making a case for the brilliance of an attacking player on stats than for a defender played in a formation he never knew purely on reputation.
Muller would be a restriction free upgrade and the better player. Romario was a clear wind up - you always do it. On what planet was Romario the better pick? Seriously, you've made this into a big thing now and are acting like I was unreasonable - so back up your view. I would have needed to pick a new keeper for example, I couldn't have picked Scirea, Falcao may have been off the table...
Way to miss the point in the second part. It isn't about 'giving a shit' what the voters think, what is wrong with you? I haven't seen Piola play a single game of football - no one here has - so upgrading him to Muller was an absolute no brainer. The majority of the Caf will be able to talk about Muller and I'll be able to discuss him as a player.
It's actually hilarious because anyone who is involved with drafts against you knows that you would absolutely lay into Piola if he was playing next round.
No doubt Tostao would be still rated, but he wouldn't be rated as highly if people haven't seen the footage. That is my view anyway - fair enough if you disagree.
By the way isn't it strange that we constantly read people saying defenders from older formations might find it tough in newer ones. I mean, when a defender proved to be world class at a time where 5 men attacks reigned the sport and formations like 2-3-5 were in use where those defenders managed to prove themselves with lesser support defensively than they would get in say a 4-2-3-1 or 5-3-2. If they could maintain a 2 man backline and take care of a striker who is being supplied by 4 players, what will restrict them in the modern game? Surely having a 4/5 man backline with proper defensive support from midfield with lesser number of attackers to face should only go in their favour?
I don't disagree - footage clearly helps! My point was simply that the oldest generation of WC players aren't just names on a stat sheet - we do know quite a lot about the more famous of 'em.
Well we've been through the first part and I find it pretty ridiculous Piola vs Muller is being discussed.
On the latter part - yes of course I do, I haven't seen Da Guia and have seen little more of Santamaria who was the other pre-70's option. Everyone will have these problems because of the nature of the draft. I mean how much have you seen of Marzolini?
The way the upgrades worked Muller was the better pick. From my knowledge, Da Guia is also regarded as the better player than Piola and I saw striker as the far more pressing upgrade. Others agreed with me there, so it wasn't an unreasonable view - Aldo, Tito and Snow have all said the same. If you wanted to leave Piola and go for someone else that is fair enough though, we'll all approach the game differently.
As I said though Da Guia is very highly regarded in Brazil and I have no qualms starting him in this game - antohan on Da Guia for example
Nah, I would ignore him and leave people's ignorance to make light work of him. Much more effective.
I wasn't winding you up on Romario. I was thinking you would go magic square at the time though, with 5-3-2 in mind Eusebio would have been the right upgrade IMO. I really don't see what attribute Muller brings which Piola didn't already possess (other than a more impressive record overall and ease of argumentation). No question I would rather you had Piola though, I'm not stupid mate.
Absolutely (and I haven't even read what Theon seems to have written on Da Guia quoting me all along
). My grandfather never quite rated Scirea as highly as he deserved for that very reason: "it's easy to defend when you have five people doing it". Baresi did eventually make him come to terms with the times changing and excellence in marshalling a defence being an attribute of significant importance.Eusebio would have been the upgrade if he lasted, especially because he is a non-winner and a pre-70's. But he was never going to last Pol's turn and I needed Falcao - who surely would have otherwise gone to Cal. Muller fits the number 9 role better than Eusebio anyway and I have no urgent need to upgrade Baggio.
I love it when managers argue their players' case quoting others... then say they talk bullshit about rival players. Go figure.Just to clarify this, I'm not saying you picked wrong or badly or anything. I just thought your comment about Piola was over the top, it was never meant as a criticism towards your choices, quite the opposite actually. I actually believe Müller suits your team very well and brings a few brilliant attributes to the table he rarely gets credit for and should help you a lot, doubt anyone will believe he's more than a brilliant poacher though.
I don't have any problems with da Guia, quite the opposite, I rate him really really high because of his reputation and what I've read about him. That's my point and that's why part of what you wrote above makes no sense at all. You used not having seen the player as a reason why you had to upgrade him and say it all becomes a bit silly, when we judge players on stats and reputation. I disagree with that, not with your picks.
Did that make sense in your head?
You do talk shit about rival players - everyone knows this. Your posts on Da Guia were made around a year ago, which is a tad before I picked him in this draft.
Mmmm... I doubt Cal would have picked Falcao, but I do see the point in terms of Falcao being hot property for you. Still, restrictions aside, I would have picked Romario.
I was actually baffled he made it all the way back to me. Similar with Cannavaro... Ended up getting a far better quartet than I ever hoped for. I thought I was going to pick the one upgrade and three players to provide flexibility or sit in a "when I get the slot for you" waiting list.
Did that make sense in your head?
You do talk shit about rival players - everyone knows this. Your posts on Da Guia were made around a year ago, which is a tad before I picked him in this draft.
I've always been consistent in my views on players. I know every time I post something like that it will eventually get picked on and brought back to bite me. I don't care, if that's the player they were, that's what they deserve and no less. That's why I find your schoolkid dissing of Ghiggia outrageous and not in the spirit of this draft.
You are the one saying Piola can't hack it, not me. I feel for the poor bugger.
As I said before, you really lack any self awareness of how you conduct yourself. It really is incredible.
You're the one who started making petty little comments and you're the one who has a history of going way, way over the top with 1) praise for your team 2) criticisms of other players.
The reason I quoted those Da Guia posts is that there is no doubt you would have started criticising him in the match thread. Absolutely none.
How about this on Ricardo Zamora?
fecking Brad Friedel better than him. Unbelievable.Larger goals, faster surfaces, faster balls, Rivelino's Atomic Kick... and a 1920s keeper meant to stop it.
Surprised no one has commented on that.
And no, it's not unfair or bollocks, it's staring straight at your face and it wasn't me picking their goalkeeper ahead of Planicka or Grosics (who at least wouldn't be Spanish) or any decent keeper from the last 20-30 years.
To name a few: Oscar Córdoba, Brad Friedel or Juusi Jaaskelainen would do a better job than someone picked because a Goalkeeping Award is named after him. On a greats basis Boca and Colombia fans would argue Córdoba is not out of place here.
Guys stop arguing about shit like this and take it in the match-thread instead. There is no point in having this convo here it just ruins the mood of the draft.
@Balu Regarding Tostao he suffers the same fate as many players of his style. He was expected to score a lot more goals than he did - it was one of his biggest strengths. Like Platini if they had scored 2-3 goals more it would have taken their level to legendary status all of a sudden.
Then the competition for the AM slots are the highest by far which makes it hard to pick Tostao who wasn't near the most integral part of the 70's side.
@Balu Regarding Tostao he suffers the same fate as many players of his style. He was expected to score a lot more goals than he did - it was one of his biggest strengths. Like Platini if they had scored 2-3 goals more it would have taken their level to legendary status all of a sudden.
Then the competition for the AM slots are the highest by far which makes it hard to pick Tostao who wasn't near the most integral part of the 70's side.
About your players? No, just about your petty little comments from the off on Ghiggia, topical little bit of ribbing as Annah asked me if I had talked with him. It was you reacting to that like a madman warning everyone about me talking bollocks, Garrincha mk II, etc.
Well, you are wrong, what can I say? I only took a stand for him last week when Gio was playing you. Incidentally, I voted for you anyway.
I do love it how apparently I'm over the top on my players but you are happy to quote my "typically ott" views on yours.
I stand by that, if there's one position which has changed dramatically it is goalkeeping. The surfaces, bounce and pace of the ball are a completely different cup of tea these days. Keepers struggle when a new ball with marginal differences is introduced (Jabulani in 2010 anyone?), let alone the oldie ones. Have you ever seen me pick an oldie keeper?
Brad Friedel is actually quite a good keeper. Still, you seem to deliberately overlook I was primarily referring to Oscar Cordoba, whom I thought should have been picked in that draft and I would have been far more confident about. Cracking goalkeeper.
I am deliberately holding it here because it is quite clear Theon is readying up to spend the entire game playing "poor me vs. the big bad wolf". Has been effective before, making it all about the managers and their styles and not what is actually happening on the pitch.
I'm not having it, I haven't picked the side I've picked to do anything but justice to them.
I agree with your point in change of balls, etc, anto, but we would be stuck in a real mindfeck if start bringing in the change in conditions from different eras, as big as they were.
That is how an all time draft can work imo, if you just go by what they achieved in their period and ignore the difference in conditions, training regimes and everything. I know it makes a difference but that would just make it impossible to compare teams as there is just no way whatsoever to draw comparisons between eras without ignoring a certain amount of changes. Again, as big as they were.
For me I look at how a player did in comparison to his contemporaries and what his attributes were while translating him from one formation to another which is mainly restricted to his ability as a footballer and not what he had to deal with in terms of opposition/pitches/rules/strictness of lack of from referees, etc. I think all that needs to be ignored here, to make a level ground for any comparisons going.
That is how an all time draft can work imo, if you just go by what they achieved in their period and ignore the difference in conditions, training regimes and everything. I know it makes a difference but that would just make it impossible to compare teams as there is just no way whatsoever to draw comparisons between eras without ignoring a certain amount of changes. Again, as big as they were.
For me I look at how a player did in comparison to his contemporaries and what his attributes were while translating him from one formation to another which is mainly restricted to his ability as a footballer and not what he had to deal with in terms of opposition/pitches/rules/strictness of lack of from referees, etc. I think all that needs to be ignored here, to make a level ground for any comparisons going.
Aye, agreed Aldo. It's just Theon bringing it up as something ridiculous I said, which it is not (and much of it was, as usual, standing up for an underdog in Córdoba).
I think at the time we all agreed it was best to adopt the view you lay out above or it all turned into a clusterfeck, which is fine by me.
Once again getting spectacularly confused antohan. The quotes on Da Guia were not regarding a draft game, you just said them in a thread. The reason they were posted is to prevent/rebut the inevitable made up criticisms that you'll throw during the match.
What? What? No one mentioned Cordoba in that thread. What are you talking about? You're insane. You started criticising Zamora saying how awful he was and then mentioned the likes of Brad Friedal as being better than him. This is one of those instances where you really lack self awareness. Just read the post three or four times and really think whether or not it was an unreasonable thing to say.
I don't have any doubt I have the far better players. If this game was played I don't have a doubt in my mind that my team would win, its better all over and any attempt by me to move away from the football wouldn't be beneficial.
What you need to do (and inevitably will do) is come up with a lot criticisms. You'll talk them down, say the system is wrong, question if they could play this way in the modern era, etc etc, whatever rubbish you'll come out with. You have history of this and you do it all the time.
I know when I said it, when putting together the best teams by country. The tone of that post though is exactly the sort of tone you would accuse of being OTT when related to one of my players.
I am always stylistically the same when I'm heaping praise on players, whether they play for me or not. Your assumption I would have a go at Da Guia is just that, an assumption, and a misguided one at that.
I was pissed off Cordoba hadn't been picked. I was close to picking him myself, so pissed off I was he got overlooked. In a draft where being from a country with a tiny talent pool was a massive bonus, I thought it was really unfortunate. Cracking keeper.
I was not being unreasonable, Aldo has agreed I had a valid point only a few posts further up. Just look at that photo, he looks like a newspaper boy, if he came onto a pitch like that these days you would laugh your bollocks off. I do agree though if you judge him based on his excellence relative to his contemporaries he is right up there. That was not denied by what I was getting at though, was it?
So you agree you have a great collection of names and your main risk is they may be found wanting when you put it all together? Possibly, yeah, let's see whether I have any valid points or not, shall we?
Oh, come on Annah, that wouldn't be fair on Cal. Not that I have the faintest idea anyway.
I'm kind of in the same boat as theon when it comes to the Ghiggia pick, I thought he could have been picked a bit later, but this is largely based on the fact that he wasn't on my radar (despite needing a rw). I can see where Anto was coming from picking him so early, he has great pedigree and there were some great drafters out there who could easily have gambled on him. Fitting that Anto got him though as he's probably the one person that could do him justice, with some of the more obscure players you definitely need to be able to speak about them thoroughly IMO. That's why I also agree with theon about Piola and Muller, I'm not doubting Piola but without be able to elaborate on him much more, I would've been keen to upgrade him too, and in Muller he has a top of the line replacement.
Absolutely. I did think I could wing it up to round 8, but then I saw some very random picks and people like Annah looking at oldies very positively, which was worrying. I was already set on a formation, had Czibor on the left, Garrincha and Jairzinho were already gone and I absolutely had to nail a South American for the right wing, as planned, but with no backup I could think of at anywhere near that level.
In comparison, I was pretty confident I would nail every single one of the defenders I wanted, so it was really a matter of risking Seeler, when I wasn't too concerned about getting Elkjaer as a backup and less era hassle in the process.
No brainer really, particularly when ultimately there are certain players you absolutely want to have and Ghiggia was one such player for me. I wasn't at all keen at seeing AN Other making a poor effort of introducing him, only to chop him out of the side ASAP in favour of a better known name. Clearly what would have happened to him given how adamant many were that I was going to pick Garrincha. I'm still confused by that logic
See below a clip from Roma TV on Ghiggia, longer than the one I originally found. Shame it's in Italian, as it is quite a decent "third party" view. Love the turn at 1:25
They go on a fair bit about his indiscretions and partying. What is it with wingers and women? His current partner is actually a 30+ year old when he is >80 (and skint, so it isn't about money).
Kudos!
I really hope I can get something down tomorrow - it's been hectic at work.
Haven't done anything yet either. Hope I'll find some time tonight.
Back from holiday... hopefully should have something ready tonight.
Absolutely. I did think I could wing it up to round 8, but then I saw some very random picks and people like Annah looking at oldies very positively, which was worrying. I was already set on a formation, had Czibor on the left, Garrincha and Jairzinho were already gone and I absolutely had to nail a South American for the right wing, as planned, but with no backup I could think of at anywhere near that level.
In comparison, I was pretty confident I would nail every single one of the defenders I wanted, so it was really a matter of risking Seeler, when I wasn't too concerned about getting Elkjaer as a backup and less era hassle in the process.
No brainer really, particularly when ultimately there are certain players you absolutely want to have and Ghiggia was one such player for me. I wasn't at all keen at seeing AN Other making a poor effort of introducing him, only to chop him out of the side ASAP in favour of a better known name. Clearly what would have happened to him given how adamant many were that I was going to pick Garrincha. I'm still confused by that logic
See below a clip from Roma TV on Ghiggia, longer than the one I originally found. Shame it's in Italian, as it is quite a decent "third party" view. Love the turn at 1:25
They go on a fair bit about his indiscretions and partying. What is it with wingers and women? His current partner is actually a 30+ year old when he is >80 (and skint, so it isn't about money).
Kudos!
At round 5+ there is always an abundance of better old players than modern players. The modern players gets picked really early on because they combine bringing in votes and actually being good.
After that you find picks like Ghiggia or Leonidas who I think was my best pick in this draft. A Non-WC winner, Golden Ball winner and Top Scorer and generally rated very highly in every ranking he is included in as a 5th pick.
The other strikers/forwards picked in near rounds were Batistuta and C. Ronaldo. Leonidas will play in a final for me almost surely from his inside right position(Roughly right attacking midfielder or right forward).
Ghiggia may even play in a final as well if the WC restriction isn't bothering Anto at all and he gets to pick up the best of the best in the other positions instead.
Indeed Annah, it looked like the modern pool was drying up and people were starting to need to pick oldies even if they didn't know much about them, which was the worry.
Ghiggia would absolutely start as I don't see the point in swapping him with Garrincha or Jairzinho (makes no difference constraints-wise) and everyone else is clearly inferior.
The constraints have been a massive issue for me from the off: Puskas-Czibor-Bozsik-Ghiggia are all nailed on starters, now Figueroa as well. Leaves very little room for manoeuvre with the oldies as Andrade was meant to swap sides for flexibility, but increasingly looks like the one that would have to go if a Pelé were available (or Seeler were to play again
). Problem is, the upgrades I would fancy there are also oldies (the Santos "twins"). I would need two rounds and a lot of luck with what becomes available to pull off the side I want to get to. Not bloody likely!