I think anto or someone made this suggestion, when we were discussing the whole Passarella/Scirea conundrum in the first game, and they went with it (making yet another huge mistake on the way though)
LV Monopoly draft - QF4: MJJ/Viva vs Jayvin
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
I called it the moment they picked Scirea: they would mess up the defence.
In fairness, the idea came up in the previous game discussing Breitner. Passarella has the attributes to do a similar free-roaming LB job.
Two problems with that:
1) He is too disciplined to reproduce Breitner's anarchic style
2) Breitner had Gentile doing the LB job in that game. Jairzinho isn't someone to experiment with, as you say.
The upshot is, given he is so disciplined he will stick to defending and will do a decent job. No contribution going forward though and Cole would have been better.
That's the only weak point I see though (and that daft double-sweeper start). Ruggeri is a good match for Kocsis. I fancy Edwards giving Platini a torrid time and Scirea picking up Henry, no problem. Irwin vs. Facchetti is where it's at. If Giacinto gets to cross consistently Kocsis will bag one sooner or later. Will he having to mind Garrincha? Occasionally, but not consistently.
So it all boils down to how much joy Jairzinho can get vs. Passarella. Not as much as MJJs front four can produce IMO.
Going back to my teamsheet pedant points. Can anyone seriously argue that Jayvin's doesn't sell his team far better?
Besides the Scirea-Passarella mess, I'm actually having a hard time imagine Di Stefano being happy with Garrincha and Best. Personality wise that just seems like a clash. Di Stefano - Didi was famous rivalry and even Puskas had to kind of accept a secondary role. Neither Garrincha nor Best would give a feck what Don Alfredo says though. They'd probably make bets on who could nutmeg him more in training while sipping whiskey. I can see a locker rivalry there like the whole Ronaldo-Kaka thing. On further thought on mentality, I'm not sure Di Stefano is the best type of player there. He would probably conflict with the two irreverent wing maestros.
@antohan food for thought for future since you are the pioneer of this concept - should shadow manager votes count for the team they are shadowing?
It can shadowcount
Sorry ended up having to go into work this morning. I'll try and address some of the points made so far:
Yep, Puskas/Henry cutting in from the inside-left position, Platini creating from deeper and like Hidegkuti a prolific goalscorer in that role. I think all my attackers would work very well together.
Definitely agree it's a shame I don't have a more traditional wide-player to whip in crosses for Kocsis, but Facchetti and Jairzinho aren't too bad in that regard. Also I wouldn't say Kocsis is 'wasted', he was a phenomenal finisher in general, although he is remembered mostly for his heading ability. Look at some of his goals in 1954 WC, he shoots with incredible power and accuracy from any range with both feet.
Also his goal record is just nuts. 75 goals in 68 games for Hungary and 296 in 335 league matches. Although it is difficult to find reliable statistics for his time in Hungary, some things I read claimed he scored over 400 headed goals alone!
Yep, Puskas/Henry cutting in from the inside-left position, Platini creating from deeper and like Hidegkuti a prolific goalscorer in that role. I think all my attackers would work very well together.
Definitely agree it's a shame I don't have a more traditional wide-player to whip in crosses for Kocsis, but Facchetti and Jairzinho aren't too bad in that regard. Also I wouldn't say Kocsis is 'wasted', he was a phenomenal finisher in general, although he is remembered mostly for his heading ability. Look at some of his goals in 1954 WC, he shoots with incredible power and accuracy from any range with both feet.
Also his goal record is just nuts. 75 goals in 68 games for Hungary and 296 in 335 league matches. Although it is difficult to find reliable statistics for his time in Hungary, some things I read claimed he scored over 400 headed goals alone!
Yeah I'd probably agree, maybe missing the instant wow factor of a Maradona or Garrincha. But having said that, my players aren't slouches and they're operating in a system which should get the best out of them. Maybe Kocsis won't get as many crosses as he'd like, but he'll still get plenty of chances, not to mention he's a good foil for the other attackers and also helps me with a 'get out pass' when I'm under pressure at the back.
What I originally suggested was the shadow teams playing (or via ranking) a knockout with the team they shadow. Whoever wins carries on, so no need for a rule.
In the fun non-competitive version I'm playing it's irrelevant really. If you are suggesting it shouldn't I'm not fussed really.
17-7! Wow!
Yep, it's a bit much to be fair. Your front 4 is incredible
A big feck off to not revealing the score during the game
GG Jayvin, sorry for lack of activity was working/enjoying the American meltdown all day.
You missed their spastic initial lineup. Ran up a 10 vote lead in no time.
Well the formation changed at 6:3 so I don't really think that was the problem.
I voted after the change but that was still a huge factor in my vote. I think a tactical mistake in the initial teamsheet makes a difference even if corrected
Me too.
Fair enough, can't argue against it. This is what happens when you don't really have a lot of time in hand so couldn't double check things and small things slip through.
Also didn't help us missing out one of the two reinforcements.
@Edgar Allan Pillow I think this was one of the better ideas we've had for these drafts lately. It can be very good for rehashing it a bit doing it with different pools, different boxes or even different rules but in the same concept.
Also didn't help us missing out one of the two reinforcements.
@Edgar Allan Pillow I think this was one of the better ideas we've had for these drafts lately. It can be very good for rehashing it a bit doing it with different pools, different boxes or even different rules but in the same concept.
It wasn't small. It's a monumental cockup playing against Jairzinho and a side that needs no introduction or explanation like Jayvin's.
You didn't need reinforcements, just Daniel benched. You would have most probably won it with Cole on the pitch.
Form teams, not star collections. Actually, what I like about the format is that, given the rudiculous wealth of talent, the ones progressing are the ones building teams. E.g. Enigma just passed on Best/Charlton for VDS, Jayvin left Pelé deeply offended as he picked Romario instead...
Hopefully this doesn't sound too aggressive, but you don't have to be a righteous cock all the time mate. It might be a big mistake in the match tactically speaking, but what I meant was that it was a a minor slip in the sense that both MJJ and I knew we should start him on the right but because of lack of time we haven't noticed he got mixed up with Ruggeri's spot in the lineup. So you could either understand that it's the same as having a syntax error in the tactics or you could argue on it until the end of time.
Don't get me wrong mate, I'm not saying it shouldn't have effected our match or even decide it, but I really don't understand why you find the need to be so critical of it and not just get that it was a mixture of lack of time and lack of focus pre match instead of trying to explain why it had such dramatic influence. We get it, we're fine with it.
Lack of reinforcements weren't what sent us out of it, but the extra reinforcement couldnhave done good for us. I personallu disagree about Cashley and I don't think he's a better option than Passa in this match but thats no longer relevant
It doesn't, I was wondering myself whether it wasn't too much when I wrote it given I've been wailing about getting knocked out in the process. But it seemed you were blaming luck with the reinforcement thing and I thought it was worth underscoring you HAD the tools and just cocked it up.
Didn't realise it was a mixup like that, the teamsheet certainly looked poorly executed (which I understand) but I was baffled as to how it had even crossed your mind to put the two of them together.
Glad you got the tone properly. Wrote it all down than started feeling I'm coming across incredibly defensive which isn't the idea.
The idea of playing Passarella a LCB came after last round, with the first blunder we survived(that one was on me lol) with benching Scirea. I really like Passa and rarely get a chance to play him so I wanted so find a slot for him however possible. As we have Best-Garrincha(who were incredibly underrated through both matches really.. Garrincha apparently can't dribble past no top LB) I thought this is a great time to try and use him as a LCB in a 4-3-3. Don't really have the time to get in the tactical analysis of it which would probably be a lot of bollocks anyway but I think with an offensive RB and the four of Passarella-Edwards-Ruggeri-Scirea you'd be pretty safe at the back for most of the match whatever the opposition throws at you