Manager draft Semi final - The Pep Vipers VS The Tramps

Who would win based on their peak under the managers?

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
h01IMX6.png


@Annahnomoss

A good manager needs to adapt to get results, even if it goes against his own philosophy. After the substitution pep vipers came too close to equalizing, so I decided to strengthen my backline even more. I'm sorry, Boniek, it seems that you are going to come off :(

tumblr_mp5hrpixVg1rwkiq1o1_500.jpg

Cuccureddu, a zebrine hero of my first game is replacing him.

UXfHB9q.jpg
 
So you are sitting back and playing on the counter and take Boniek off? Really? You take out the one who had a telepathic understanding with Platini to play Baggio and Batistuta?

It should have been Baggio coming off, what exactly is he doing that isn't jointly covered by Platini, Boniek and Batigol?
 
Also, the Platini conundrum is no more, Lahm is left with no significant defensive job other than... tucking into midfield to keep tabs on Platini.
ohgeez-1.gif
 
harms said:
h01IMX6.png


@Annahnomoss

A good manager needs to adapt to get results, even if it goes against his own philosophy. After the substitution pep vipers came too close to equalizing, so I decided to strengthen my backline even more. I'm sorry, Boniek, it seems that you are going to come off :(

tumblr_mp5hrpixVg1rwkiq1o1_500.jpg

Cuccureddu, a zebrine hero of my first game is replacing him.

UXfHB9q.jpg
Click to expand...

Now that Boniek is off, you don't have any runners who can latch on to those dangerous through-balls by Platini. Baggio was quick off the mark and Batigol was powerful, but neither had the pace and penetration of Boniek which means, my defence can play a high-backline with the offside-trap better since your biggest threat from counters to my high backline is off.
 
antohan said:
So you are sitting back and playing on the counter and take Boniek off? Really? You take out the one who had a telepathic understanding with Platini to play Baggio and Batistuta?

It should have been Baggio coming off, what exactly is he doing that isn't jointly covered by Platini, Boniek and Batigol?
Click to expand...

I knew that it wouldn't win your vote back and, most likely, make it more easy for you. Baggio is a more reliable goalthreat and, even with the telepathic understanding between Boniek and Platini Baggio is still a far superior player. Baggio was the most obvious goalscorer on the pitch and he still remains such, in my opinion.


 
No worse feeling than to see that anto doesn't agree with you in your match thread, I get it now :lol:
Anyway, I'm going to sleep. I'll let you guys decide whenever I fecked this up or what.
 
The Red Viper said:
Now that Boniek is off, you don't have any runners who can latch on to those dangerous through-balls by Platini. Baggio was quick off the mark and Batigol was powerful, but neither had the pace and penetration of Boniek which means, my defence can play a high-backline with the offside-trap better since your biggest threat from counters to my high backline is off.
Click to expand...

So you didn't play a high-backline before? And there was a huge gap between your gung-ho attack and disciplined defence, which Boniek, Baggio and Platini exploited all those time?
 
harms said:
So you didn't play a high-backline before? And there was a huge gap between your gung-ho attack and disciplined defence, which Boniek, Baggio and Platini exploited all those time?
Click to expand...

No. I played a high back-line obviously. I wrote it in my tactics as well. I am just saying that, with Boniek off, my high backline won't be prone to counters or won't get as much exposed as it was with Boniek on. Baggio likes to drop deep and get involved rather than playing on the shoulders of the last defender. Batigol is the only one who is likely to break the offside trap but if he doesm Puyol, Boateng and Abidal have the pace to catch up with him.
 
The Red Viper said:
No. I played a high back-line obviously. I wrote it in my tactics as well. I am just saying that, with Boniek off, my high backline won't be prone to counters or won't get as much exposed as it was with Boniek on. Baggio likes to drop deep and get involved rather than playing on the shoulders of the last defender. Batigol is the only one who is likely to break the offside trap but if he doesm Puyol, Boateng and Abidal have the pace to catch up with him.
Click to expand...
I really need to go to sleep now, you clearly stated it well enough in your first comment. I don't agree with Baggio not being a threat to the high-line though
 
Not saying Baggio won't be a threat. But he won't be as big a threat as Boniek. Anyway, GN mate.
 
harms said:
I knew that it wouldn't win your vote back and, most likely, make it more easy for you. Baggio is a more reliable goalthreat and, even with the telepathic understanding between Boniek and Platini Baggio is still a far superior player. Baggio was the most obvious goalscorer on the pitch and he still remains such, in my opinion.

Click to expand...


That's a very apt choice of video, given that its a prime Baggio destroying a high line defence and a very, very good but not absolutely top class defender in Costacurta (similar to TRV's lot). You've got my vote for now, although both you and TRV are arguing very well so I might change. You get bonus points for using the word "zebrine". TRV has let himself down in that regard :).
 
Tbh I preferred harms prior formation. Seems like he thought he had to do something with TRV catching up and I don't blame him.

I can see Boniek's blistering pace being better utilized in harms latter setup but I can understand why he went for Baggio. I rate Baggio as a superior player with a far more greater goalscoring threat which is going to be absolutely crucial in this counter attacking set up with fewer chances. Can also see Baggio-Batigol linking better than Boniek for some reason or other.
 
antohan said:
Again, can't have you cake and eat it. "I want the pre-82 miserly defensive record and the post-82 pizzaz going forward". It just doesn't work that way I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Well - no. But, well - yes. It sort of does. It's the realism versus fantasy business again. What did TRV do? Switch from "Barca circa 2009" to "Bayern circa 2014"? If so, you could argue him to pieces, claiming that Lahm looks entirely out place, Eto'o doesn't fit in, the fabulous Biscuits-to-Iniesta trifecta is just plain unheard of - and so forth.

It would be absurd to do so, however, as we all know.

So, in short - you can claim that you go for defensive approach A combined with offensive approach B - even though there is no historical precedent for this particular combination. I'm not saying you can't argue against the set-up, as such - which you clearly can, but in my opinion it isn't a legit point that the set-up is a mishmash of (historical) approaches, rather than based on a particular model.

Feck, having read what I just wrote I didn't understand it myself.

Conclusion: I should be in bed.
 
harms said:
I knew that it wouldn't win your vote back and, most likely, make it more easy for you. Baggio is a more reliable goalthreat and, even with the telepathic understanding between Boniek and Platini Baggio is still a far superior player. Baggio was the most obvious goalscorer on the pitch and he still remains such, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Joga Bonito said:
Tbh I preferred harms prior formation. Seems like he thought he had to do something with TRV catching up and I don't blame him.

I can see Boniek's blistering pace being better utilized in harms latter setup but I can understand why he went for Baggio. I rate Baggio as a superior player with a far more greater goalscoring threat which is going to be absolutely crucial in this counter attacking set up with fewer chances. Can also see Baggio-Batigol linking better than Boniek for some reason or other.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt Baggio is the better player and a greater goalscoring threat individually. But you are not just losing Boniek's unique traits, which are even more important in a counter-attacking setup, you are also losing his linkup with Platini. The telepathy starts with Platini finding Boniek, but regularly finished with Platini being the scorer. Asked whether there would be a fourth repeat after being top scorer and Ballon d'Or three seasons on the trot, Michel was clear: "the top scorer next year will be whoever Roma lines up next to Boniek". And so it was.

You lose Boniek AND how he too got the best out of Platini who has been reduced to a ball-pinging Pirlo of sorts here, seeing as Baggio is doing very much what he would be doing upfront. I love Baggio, very much so, but he never dominated World Football the way Platini did. You've gone for adding the individual parts here, but they aren't as good as their total sum and your best player has been sacrificed along with Zibi.

In fairness though, I buy Joga's point re: Baggio-Batistuta, I could see them working very well off each other. Batistuta definitely will be pleased, which is no minor issue. The problem though is the pair up top is better but Platini is now squeezed between Xavi-Iniesta and Busquets-Lahm (who will surely tuck in in support). Leaves you with Cuccu and Cabrini as your primary means of transition, which isn't bad but not breathtaking either.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
So, in short - you can claim that you go for defensive approach A combined with offensive approach B - even though there is no historical precedent for this particular combination. I'm not saying you can't argue against the set-up, as such - which you clearly can, but in my opinion it isn't a legit point that the set-up is a mishmash of (historical) approaches, rather than based on a particular model.
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

The defensive record harms indicates as their "peak" isn't really their peak per se, just better explained as the result of

a) a different, much more cagey setup with more men in midfield and more men dedicated to defending across the team, i.e. a different setup to the one here ergo, the "peak record" is irrelevant and the record under the same setup should be the guide.

b) the competition (i.e. the attacks they faced) being much worse than the post-1982 ones.

Effectively, it was very much the same defence that suddenly started conceding twice as many goals than in their "peak" season and that wasn't because they got past their peak or played differently as a back four but because they had less protection (I acknowledged Furino being a factor, but there were more bodies, not just Furino>Bonini) and faced better rivals, both things that are the case here.

Juve didn't face any attack even remotely as good as that Barca one, be it before or after 1982, yet they still leaked goals.

The season that defensive record was attained -with four midfielders protecting that defence- only three players reached double figures in Serie A: Roberto Pruzzo (Roma - 15/3pens), Edi Bivi (Catanzaro - 12/3pens) and Claudio Pellegrini (Napoli - 11). I for one don't think any of them are at the level of Eto'o, Messi and Robben.
 
Last edited:
I really like harms original formation.

I would have depicted it in the picture as more of a 3-2 at the back. They just defend. Squeeze space in the middle for Messi top operate in.

... Tardelli ...... Furino .......
Gentile ... Scirea ... Bergomi

Cabrini in a relatively free role to link to Baggio and Boniek supporting Platini.

Perfect.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well - no. But, well - yes. It sort of does. It's the realism versus fantasy business again. What did TRV do? Switch from "Barca circa 2009" to "Bayern circa 2014"? If so, you could argue him to pieces, claiming that Lahm looks entirely out place, Eto'o doesn't fit in, the fabulous Biscuits-to-Iniesta trifecta is just plain unheard of - and so forth.

It would be absurd to do so, however, as we all know.

So, in short - you can claim that you go for defensive approach A combined with offensive approach B - even though there is no historical precedent for this particular combination. I'm not saying you can't argue against the set-up, as such - which you clearly can, but in my opinion it isn't a legit point that the set-up is a mishmash of (historical) approaches, rather than based on a particular model.

Feck, having read what I just wrote I didn't understand it myself.

Conclusion: I should be in bed.
Click to expand...

As one beer-riddled man to another, that made sense. I see no massive contradiction in what Harms has done here - he's assembled a brilliant and proven defensive unit, complete with the unsung defensive midfielder and the all-around midfield colossus, and upgraded the attack. If the attack undermines the defensive unit tactically then its a problem, but until thats spelt out then I'm assuming it works.
 
antohan said:
You missed the point.

The defensive record harms indicates as their "peak" isn't really their peak per se, just better explained as the result of

a) a different, much more cagey setup with more men in midfield and more men dedicated to defending across the team, i.e. a different setup to the one here ergo, the "peak record" is irrelevant and the record under the same setup should be the guide.

b) the competition (i.e. the attacks they faced) being much worse than the post-1982 ones.

Effectively, it was very much the same defence that suddenly started conceding twice as many goals than in their "peak" season and that wasn't because they got past their peak or played differently as a back four but because they had less protection (I acknowledged Furino being a factor, but there were more bodies, not just Furino>Bonini) and faced better rivals, both things that are the case here.

Juve didn't face any attack even remotely as good as that Barca one, be it before or after 1982, yet they still leaked goals.

The season that defensive record was attained -with four midfielders protecting that defence- only three players reached double figures in Serie A: Roberto Pruzzo (Roma - 15/3pens), Edi Bivi (Catanzaro - 12/3pens) and Claudio Pellegrini (Napoli - 11). I for one don't think any of them are at the level of Eto'o, Messi and Robben.
Click to expand...

Aha! Ye-es. I take yer point. I'd regard it as an argument against the "peak" claim more than anything, though. I think my main point still stands, even though it's no longer an actual point against...yer point.
 
In fairness to harms, he has turned this into a drab affair again and I struggle to see TRV scoring three now. 2-1 or 2-2, not sure which, but the tiki taka wankers will have to be at their very best and fortunate selves.
 
14-23?

I hate my sub, I feel like Van Gaal who was forced to use right-footed CB on the left :(
 
harms said:
14-23?

I hate my sub, I feel like Van Gaal who was forced to use right-footed CB on the left :(
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have been very good if it was an even game, but as you were already ahead we can assume it was to ride out the last 30 minutes rather and lay on the counter.
 
Annahnomoss said:
Wouldn't have been very good if it was an even game, but as you were already ahead we can assume it was to ride out the last 30 minutes rather and lay on the counter.
Click to expand...

It was probably the only time I couldn't quite take it that way as I spent the entire time up to TRVs switch not having a clue who to vote for. The notion of the voting scoreline reflecting the game scoreline didn't quite work for me here, at all.

harms said:
Thanks man, you too! Your sub confused the hell out of me (in a good way)
Click to expand...

Good game you two, great drafted sides and lineups going into the game with both subs throwing interesting game-changing curveballls. Brilliant.

I was leaning towards a draw after both but chickened out of going for the chicken option last night and woke up too late today. Glad I did as harms needed to be given a run for his money after spending the entire first half largely unchallenged bar a raging debate on Gentile's defensive ability, political views and all-round cuntishness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.