I've always said writeups should fit in one PM (of old, I understand the convos these days have no limit?). In any case, 4-5 paragraphs, anything over that and I refuse to read it.
Had to elaborate more on the dynamics on the midfield and the forward line as it did require a lot of explanation, so yeah it did go longer than I expected. It did fit one PM and I knew it would be long but not this long, as it came out on the thread
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ca3e/9ca3e6d4f897eb666da8d04a07c00b2ecb9fac32" alt="LOL :lol: :lol:"
.
Problem is, that Dutch side was terribly confusing as well more often than not, which makes it very difficult to gage how close the players are to being able to pull off such an exacting system.
Yeah, agreed with that which is why I'm not following their blue print stringently but rather just taking inspiration to a certain extent.
Keane is no Haan, that much I'm positive about.
That is fair enough as Keane was slightly more inclined attacking wise than Haan but then the disparity isn't that significant imo. Keane was a defensive/supporting B2B and wasn't someone who kept bursting forward relentlessly to get on the end of things but rather picked his moments and only did so in a supporting fashion more often than not. Similar to Jansen and Haan for Holland and Ajax in their roles imo or at least as close to it as can be for a B2B player.
Matthäus is more like Neeskens, not van Hanegem.
Aye, they were both quite similar tbh but their complete game meant that they could be fitted together in the same side. In the sense that both were tactically complete and brilliant in both basic phases but I'd say Matthäus was slightly stronger defensively and in conventional central midfield play and Neeskens the stronger offensive and the more dynamic one in the final third. Slight margins but it is great that Matthäus has Rivaldo in front of him, meaning he will have to focus slightly more on the defensive side of things but will have the freedom to bomb forward as he has two tactically malleable and non-egoistical companions in Keane and Neeskens who can form a formidable midfield duo when he ventures forward.
Whereas it will be more of Neeskens who will be the slightly more adventurous one, re-forming the two Johanns link as he has the dynamic Law who he can work in tandem with, esp in sharing defensive duties* and the more supporting Bossis on the right flank, as opposed to Nilton on the left. Meaning he has the freedom to bomb forward to link up with Cruyff or drop onto his favoured right flank.
*
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-all-time-auction-draft.404567/page-61#post-17667744
(Some of Law's performances and you can see the ubiquitous nature of his play and how he loved getting in the thick of things. Not necessarily playing as the poacher waiting for service. Just kind of like Rep in most aspects but much more talented and without any attitude too. I expect Neeskens-Law to be a terrific together in all honesty.)
Also as I said in the OP, the main key to this midfield is Keano imo, as the flexible all-round supporting B2B who helps facilitate the inclusion of both Neeskens and Matthäus in the same team. In fact, I had to leave a better holding midfielder in Varela on the bench, to make the midfield more feasible and the last thing I wanted was a static holding midfielder occupying the same huge chunk of space, which would essentially restrict the other two just being 'attacking B2Bs' or 'wide B2Bs' (as I've stated in the OP). A more flexible and fluid midfielder capable of covering, occasionally making forays forward in a supporting fashion and not just being a static presence was the key in making the midfield work and allowing Neeskens and Matthäus more compartmentalised roles instead of clashing as two attacking B2Bs in essentially the same exact roles.
Not sold on Rivaldo as Keizer or how he would work alongside Cruyff.
Tbh, I see an awful lot of similarity between both Rivaldo and Keizer. Both were free roaming and magnificently talented inside lefts with a similar set of skills but with some slight differences. Both were multi-faceted forwards, and nutters to boot, who had a marvellous left peg which was equally deadly when it came to creating or scoring. Both tried outrageous things and weren't averse to taking risks, esp with their shooting and passing. I'd say that Rivaldo was capable of providing more wingsmanship as he did seem more on ease at the left flank whenever he gravitated towards there. Keizer on the other hand was a bit more of a playmaker and looked to play more one-twos and hog the ball more etc but Rivaldo was the slightly more inconsistent one.
Anyway, I think Rivaldo is ideal as the inside left to play alongside Cruyff and whenever I watched him play he never seemed like the type who would have been at odds with a playmaker, much less a free roaming one in Cruyff. Can't really think of a better replica for Keizer in fact - someone who merges creative wing play and goalscoring inside left play to a high level.
I can't for the life of me see how Nasazzi would fit a Dutch side, a poor fit IMO.
That was a concern but I'm not playing an extreme kamikaze like high line or the same suicidal, yet brilliant, tactics that the Ajax side employed. My team is more direct and adventurous, yes, but not gung-ho like the Ajax side. It is a slightly more expansive set-up and I'd have preferred a more modern centre-back there but since it isn't a radical Barca/Ajax system replica, I don't think it is a significant issue.
And Bossis is too good to play weak-link Wim, he will be nowhere near as insanely gung-ho as him and never found out of position
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ca3e/9ca3e6d4f897eb666da8d04a07c00b2ecb9fac32" alt="LOL :lol: :lol:"
. Tbh, though I really think he has an overly exaggerated negative reputation in these drafts. Defensively I found him fine tbh, although the system did help focus more on the athletic side of defending as opposed to positioning and 'holding the fort' ala Chelsea style, where he might be found wanting maybe. His tackling and ability to track players seemed fine to me but it was his attacking game which was really underwhelming for me. He had a good engine and could provide a 'body' up front but he was pretty poor with the ball and it says a lot when your centre-backs, Blankenberg (zero caps but did have Der Kaiser in his way) and Hulshoff (going by looks alone - a hulking physical stopper), are much much better on the ball than your wing-back
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ca3e/9ca3e6d4f897eb666da8d04a07c00b2ecb9fac32" alt="LOL :lol: :lol:"
.