It's not a tactical problem. It's clearly the best arrangement to deal with the job in hand. 3-5-2 against tiki-taka? Look at Italy nullifying Spain in the group stages in Euro 2012 (and then getting pumped up with a back four in the final).
Managers Draft - R1: Gio vs The Red Viper
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
That's hardly the point, though. The idea is a basic one (sit back, allow TRV to possess the ball plenty), not to do specifically what Maureen did. Trap was good at sitting back when the latter was prudent - as most Italian tacticians have been over the years.
Matthaus, Tardelli and Rivera = free reign in midfield? That's miles better than anything Xaviesta have faced. The real question is how the Barca three plan to deal with Trap's three. Who is going to stop Matthaus and Tardelli when on the ball and moving forward? Who is going to stop Rivera from finding passes into the feet of the strikers?
I did look this up at some point. I understand he played centrally initially before being moved wide where he played his best football. Apparently. My Italian is a bit patchy these days.
Thanks
Typo in the poll description. @Edgar Allan Pillow should be fired - drunk on the job again, no doubt.
By the way, how the hell do they manage to give ratings to the overall performances in a Serie A season back in the mid seventies? What's that based on? Contemporary records? Did Gazetta do player-by-player ratings back then?
I am shocked Gio is losing this by this much margin!
Seems to me that he has improved upon Inter's tactics against Barca at their peak with better players.
Seems to me that he has improved upon Inter's tactics against Barca at their peak with better players.
barca didnt play like spain. The most important objective against barca was to close the gaps between the two lines (defense/midfield). Messi/Iniesta were almost unstopable in these pockets. In your lineup these spot would be fairly accessable.
Except that, the Inter team which defeated Barca was up against a misfiring Ibraimovic and Pedro while here, they will be up against a Robben at his peak and a very good Henry. More importantly, Barca didn't have Iniesta in those games against Inter Milan. Against an attack with Messi, Henry and Robben, with Iniesta supporting them, where all four possess brilliant close control, the link-up play and close control would be absolutely lethal in tight spaces. So, even if you defend deep in numbers, they will still be a threat thanks to their great understanding and ability in tight spaces.
Exactly.
Forget Messi. Spain didn't have anyone close to Robben's ability to provide them directness and penetration for the tiki-taka. They had to settle with Pedro and Fabregas as a false number nine. Messi and Robben are are level or two above those two.
True.
But, I expect at least those who are playing the draft or have followed it closely to take that into account the the likes of Rivera and Passarella were far from their peak. Now, if you start considering them by their actual ability when they were at their peak, it sets a dangerous precedent.
This doesnt bode well for my match.
Going by all that.. a 'very good' Henry for Barca played in a front 3 which had Etoo with Messi cutting in from the right rather than play as a pure false 9.
Messi at his peak as a false 9 played with runners on the wing like Villa and Pedro, who did not spend too much time on the ball and just provided an outlet for Messi, Xavi and Iniesta to find or stretch the play for Messi. Someone like Robben does not fit that role at all. At his peak, you would want him to run with the ball at defenders rather than play the supporting role to Messi, something I do not believe he is capable of.
Indeed - but I am stressing yet again that the key is to not regard the players at their peak, but rather at their general level at the time in question. We can all agree that Rivera's absolute peak predates Trap's stint - and Passarella's absolute peak certainly does - but the question is by how much? Was Rivera still a top player in '74? Was Passarella still a force to be reckoned with as a thirtysomething?
Gazzetta most certainly did. Maybe some others too, the italian media rating on my site is based, as they say, on Gazzetta, Corriere, Tuttosport and Guerino and it starts at 1973/74 and goes on (but maybe earlier ratings are based on a less number of sources).
Both Pedro and Villa had their fair share of possession as well. Especially in games against these teams who defended deep in numbers. They weren't just poachers playing out wide. If anything, the fact that both Robben and Henry can keep the possession helps the team, further because it would allow Messi to find those pockets of space and exploit that by attacking it. Its a complete front three where all can score or create. Messi, Iniesta and Xavi don't always need to create space for Robben and Henry here, because the later two can create on their own unlike Pedro.
As for your point about Henry, you mentioned how he played well with Eto'o leading the line. Why can't he do it with Messi there, who would offer him more service than Eto'o ever did?
Thanks, man - that's interesting. I didn't think they began giving individual marks for players until later.
This is a facht, as Rafa would say: Barca struggled whenever they faced a (good) side that didn't fall for the temptation to join in on the dance. You don't take your chances - playing risky or even semi-risky passes from vulnerable positions - against that side. You only take your "chances" when there's no chance involved, so to speak. You focus on staying behind the ball.
Barca had an insane possession percentage against Maureen - and later against Chelsea under Di Matteo. Absolutely insane - over 80 percent, I think, in one of the Inter legs. But they failed to capitalize on it. They lacked an element of directness - for lack of a better word. They created the sort of chances which a defensively strong (very strong - it should be added) side are capable of withstanding.*
Two points: Robben and Henry are an improvement in that regard. They do have that directness. But in order to unleash their potential in this regard one arguably has to step slightly away from the pure Pep/Barca approach.
The inclusion of Iniesta - who was absent against Inter (at least in the decisive second leg, not sure about the first) - does nothing to improve the above flaw. Brilliant as he was, he was certainly not direct - quite the opposite, I'd argue.
* With a bit of luck. In Chelsea's case certainly. But the defenders - and players overall - involved here are at a different level than anything Barca faced. That has to count for something.
Barca had an insane possession percentage against Maureen - and later against Chelsea under Di Matteo. Absolutely insane - over 80 percent, I think, in one of the Inter legs. But they failed to capitalize on it. They lacked an element of directness - for lack of a better word. They created the sort of chances which a defensively strong (very strong - it should be added) side are capable of withstanding.*
Two points: Robben and Henry are an improvement in that regard. They do have that directness. But in order to unleash their potential in this regard one arguably has to step slightly away from the pure Pep/Barca approach.
The inclusion of Iniesta - who was absent against Inter (at least in the decisive second leg, not sure about the first) - does nothing to improve the above flaw. Brilliant as he was, he was certainly not direct - quite the opposite, I'd argue.
* With a bit of luck. In Chelsea's case certainly. But the defenders - and players overall - involved here are at a different level than anything Barca faced. That has to count for something.
The tactics point is important. Both Henry and Robben will cut inside onto their stronger feet. That's why it makes perfect sense to have three central defenders as opposed to two. There's less demand for conventional full-backs because the one space that won't be threatened is down by the corner flag. TRV's team will try to win the game through the middle - exactly where we have Kohler, Passarella, Ferri, Matthaus and Tardelli squeezing the space.
Yeah but you easily roll that forward and say Kohler is an upgrade on Chiellini, Cabrini one on Bonucci etc. We also have to consider that if Robben gets beyond Cabrini, he is then up against Kohler. It's a big ask to get past one of the best defenders of all time, one who was absolutely comfortable and won a World Cup playing the very same role.
Found it - "the first ratings were published back in October 1973"
http://www.fantasista10.co.uk/totti-tops-40-years-of-gazzetta-ratings-but-baggio-is-perfect-10/
I'm not sure why there would be acres of space between my defence and attack. Four of our midfielders have defensive remits. And we have a exceptional back three that can squeeze up if Messi wants to drop into the 'hole'.
Both Tardelli and Mattahus played their best football in 3-5-2's.
In fact Tardelli won the World Cup in '82 and Matthaus won the World Cup in '90 playing this position. So I'm not too sure how it renders them inefficient.
Also, just the way you're speaking about them is grossly playing them down. They're two of the best midfielders of the last fifty years, with Matthaus arguably the best of all time, yet here you're suggesting they are going to be somehow completely out of the game.
Xavi and Iniesta have never faced a midfield like Tardelli/Matthaus - It's on a different level entirely to anything they've come up against.
In terms of pressuring the ball it is hard to imagine a more effective set up than Tardelli/Matthaus/Passarella - All three are excellent ball winners.
On the flipside, I'm struggling to see how Iniesta or Busquets would deal with Tardelli bursting forward or Matthaus rampaging down the pitch.
Busquets on Saturday couldn't get to grips with players like Benzema and James Rodriguez, yet here he's up against two Ballon d'Or winners in Matthaus and Rivera but apparently he's coping fine.
Where on earth have you got this from?
In a back five the midfield typically has more freedom to press the opposition because there is the added security of an extra centre back. It this situation it's not any extra centre back either - It's Passarella.
On the other team you have Puyol and Gerard Pique, the latter completely out of his depth here.
It seems to make more sense that the far weaker two man central defence requires more assistance from midfield, than the rock solid three man central defence made up of much better defenders.
Not that Tardelli/Matthaus wouldn't offer more defensively anyway.
Tardelli always played with №4 behind him, Orieli in Italy and Furino followed by Bonini in Juventus - very different players to the free-roaming peak Matthaus. But I think that Passarella should've been enough (I have my doubts about the old Passarella though) if you're mainly defending and sitting deep.
I like your defence and don't think that there is a DM issue here, but come on, Puyol is easily second best center back on the pitch.
I've said it before but Passarella's playmaking was secondary to his actual defending. He's good on the ball, but he's certainly no Beckenbauer in that respect. It's his defending which stands out.
So it isn't Passarella 'doing his playmaking' with Messi around - It's Passarella facing up to Messi and trying to limit his influence.
I can't think of many better for that role, particularly in a 3-5-2 with Passarella playing as a libero. You've mentioned needing a DM to track Messi, but as a libero there isn't much difference there - Passarella has complete freedom to track Messi into defensive midfield. That comes with the role.
Argentina just played a four man back line when Passarella won the World Cup in '78, but even then he was pushing into midfield. In a 3-5-2 he has more freedom to do that.
Is he heck. He's not in the same league as Passarella or Kohler.
In their prime - of course not. Kohler is in his prime, he was absolutely world-class his first season. Passarella isn't, he was very good in his first season at Inter but so was Puyol. "Easily" is probably an overstatement, but I would pick him before.
Come on that's just not true. Puyol is not even in the top bracket in what has been a poor generation of centre-halves. Kohler is better by some distance. As is Passarella, especially given your focus on average ratings and his high rating for his first season at Inter. Puyol has obviously been key for Barcelona and Spain but in the centre-half rankings here he sits alongside Ferri. And I rate Ferri highly so that's no criticism. Pique is bottom of the pile by a country mile.
Sorry Gio, but I've gone for TRV. What was an excellent Barcelona side has been added to with real quality.
Also in my opinion your best chance to win this game against a tika taka outfit would have been to sit deep and counter. I think you've nailed the first part in your strategy but I just don't think you've got the right players going forward to win.
Of all the draft games I've seen this is the perfect side for Messi to excel and it's just hard for me to look past TRV here.
Also in my opinion your best chance to win this game against a tika taka outfit would have been to sit deep and counter. I think you've nailed the first part in your strategy but I just don't think you've got the right players going forward to win.
Of all the draft games I've seen this is the perfect side for Messi to excel and it's just hard for me to look past TRV here.
Oriali - yes. But that Italy team was set up differently, with a classic Italian model of three plus one (Cabrini) back there.
But as you suggest, much of it comes down to how highly one rates Passarella in his Trap manifestation.
As for Tardelli, to me what you need to do is to look at the player - and decide whether he suits the formation/system presented or not. Whether his role corresponds exactly to how he played in historical teams is less interesting - to me. The latter is a matter of record - anybody can figure out how team X appeared on paper.
Does Tardelli look out of place in G/T's setup? No, he does not - not at all as far as I'm concerned.
What I find interesting to find out is how we think Barcelona would fare against Chelsea 2009/2012, Inter 2010 or Bayern 2013 - but up against an improved set of defenders and central midfielders. If we consider Fortitude's post from 2011 here. While you may disagree with some of the criticism, it's inescapable that Barcelona have struggled against a certain type of team which is very much in the mould that has been drafted here.
Mixed him up with Oreos in my mind probably! I do think that Tardelli-Matthaus duo looks good, I just doesn't agree that he played in this formation earlier as Theon suggested.
I probably rate Puyol higher than most here
I think it's perhaps the best central midfield duo on the go. It's not the same as Trap Juve or Italy 82 operated, but they also had other differences like a high right winger and what not which makes the direct comparison less relevant.
Looks like we are revisiting highline vs. deep-sitting.
In a deep-sitting defence Puyol is Ferri level, in a setup like Barca's he is in a similar bracket/status as Kohler. It's about competence for the job at hand and few could beat Puyol in this setup.
In a deep-sitting defence Puyol is Ferri level, in a setup like Barca's he is in a similar bracket/status as Kohler. It's about competence for the job at hand and few could beat Puyol in this setup.
Gio's must be the best drafted side to ever lose in a first round. I would love to watch that team, they'd be awesome, absolutely brilliant.
What formation do you think Italy played in 1982?
I reckon what he's getting at is that Italy played with a "pure" DM in Oriali. Tardelli then functioned more as a box-to-boxer with Antognoni as the designated AM. If you compare that three with the one you field here, Oriali would be "replaced" with Matthaus - who obviously isn't a pure DM.
To me the above is not a good argument against Tardelli in your set-up - not at all. But I reckon this is what he suggests, i.e. that Tardelli requires someone to hold/cover for him - as Oriali did in Italy's great '82 team and others did at Juve.