MPFG Draft - Final: Pat_Mustard vs General_Elegancia/Invictus

[Synco]

-My defenders(all of them) have great ability on the ball. They can beat the press in a lot of ways like dribbling, long passing, short passing, or anything else. All of the have very high quality, when they have the ball and all of them are fine passers too.

On Pat's side, I think all of his midfielders and defenders are no mugs on the ball too, so I will not criticize in this department. I just want to tell everyone that our side players are great on the ball and have the ability to beat the press at the highest level.

Agree that press resistance is important in this matchup. Also true that Pat's defense is generally good on the ball as well, but in terms of backline you have a clear overall advantage imo. Both GKs could be better in that department, though.

Only thing that keeps me from voting for you is Carvajal, in all honesty. But I think there's a certain chance he gets rinsed here.

 

[Physiocrat]

Gone for GE and Invi. Whilst I Mozer and Stam make a great pairing in this setup I think a more expansive passer is really needed at CB when you aren't having loads of the ball to make the most of the counters. Now I could be underrating Mozer in this capacity but having Virgil or Krol at CB would have given you am edge on the counter.

 

[Synco]

Decided Dani will have the game of his life and voted GE/Invi. But the match could well go the other way in my eyes.

 

[Physiocrat]

Decided Dani will have the game of his life and voted GE/Invi. But the match could well go the other way in my eyes.

TBF he was excellent against Mane in the last Champions League final.

 

[General_Elegancia]

TBF he was excellent against Mane in the last Champions League final.

and Luiz Diaz too

 

[Synco]

TBF he was excellent against Mane in the last Champions League final.

and Luiz Diaz too

Actually scrapped a longer explanation on this for keeping it brief. Gist was I've seen Carvajal doing both very well and pretty badly in that regard. A bit like Sergio Ramos, who could be exceptional (including in defense, which is often neglected), as well as lose a game on his own. So not a question of peak level quality, but consistency and reliability on the highest level, and discrepancy between upper and lower end performances.

I'd want this to be understood the same way about Carvajal. It's about averages and probabilities for me, not saying it can't work out for him in this game. Since draft finals are so tight, it's sometimes about these details. Even in a peaches draft, he's more of a 1st/2nd round player for me.

 

[Invictus]

Pleased for @General_Elegancia. A really nice lad who doesn't take things too seriously, and a good addition to the draft community.

Thanks to all the commentators and voters for making these matches a lively affair, and to @Physiocrat and the committee for running this edition.

And well played @Pat_Mustard. Your Lobanovskyi emulation was almost inch-perfect despite all the budgetary constraints, and this could have gone either way.

 

[Physiocrat]

Actually scrapped a longer explanation on this for keeping it brief. Gist was I've seen Carvajal doing both very well and pretty badly in that regard. A bit like Sergio Ramos, who could be exceptional (including in defense, which is often neglected), as well as lose a game on his own. So not a question of peak level quality, but consistency and reliability on the highest level, and discrepancy between upper and lower end performances.

I'd want this to be understood the same way about Carvajal. It's about averages and probabilities for me, not saying it can't work out for him in this game. Since draft finals are so tight, it's sometimes about these details. Even in a peaches draft, he's more of a 1st/2nd round player for me.

That's fair.

 

[Synco]

Congrats @General_Elegancia (and @Invictus too, of course)!

I think you knocked on the door already during your spell here (or am I misremembering?), so it was maybe just time to win one. Thought it was a very interesting final with two teams making a good case for winning this, and I had a (fun) hard time figuring out my vote.

 

[TheReligion]

Pleased for @General_Elegancia. A really nice lad who doesn't take things too seriously, and a good addition to the draft community.

Thanks to all the commentators and voters for making these matches a lively affair, and to @Physiocrat and the committee for running this edition.

And well played @Pat_Mustard. Your Lobanovskyi emulation was almost inch-perfect despite all the budgetary constraints, and this could have gone either way.

@General_Elegancia

Well done both of you.

The General is a gentleman so very happy for him

 

[harms]

How much do you think Kalle will offer in the defensive phase? Will he offer his body to be an extra man in midfield?

Yeah, he's going to work a lot. He's probably the closest match to Lobanovsky's idea of perfect forward outside of the players that he had managed himself.

 

[General_Elegancia]

Thanks, @Physiocrat for setting up this great draft

Well played Patty @Pat_Mustard, I think you've built an almost perfect theme for Lobanovskyi's theme. I'm even happy to see Uli Stein aka German Cnut in the final round, he's a great goalkeeper who didn't play as a starter in any tournaments because of another cnut Toni Schumacher.

@Invictus Great comeback in almost three years for you. Thanks for being a great partner in crime.

 

[Physiocrat]

Yeah, he's going to work a lot. He's probably the closest match to Lobanovsky's idea of perfect forward outside of the players that he had managed himself.

I thought he probably would, but wanted to check after GSTQ's comments.

 

[Himannv]

I think you're all cnuts and should have voted for me Congratulations to the winners! You're beautiful, if only just for a while!

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Pleased for @General_Elegancia. A really nice lad who doesn't take things too seriously, and a good addition to the draft community.

Thanks to all the commentators and voters for making these matches a lively affair, and to @Physiocrat and the committee for running this edition.

And well played @Pat_Mustard. Your Lobanovskyi emulation was almost inch-perfect despite all the budgetary constraints, and this could have gone either way.

Thanks, @Physiocrat for setting up this great draft

Well played Patty @Pat_Mustard, I think you've built an almost perfect theme for Lobanovskyi's theme. I'm even happy to see Uli Stein aka German Cnut in the final round, he's a great goalkeeper who didn't play as a starter in any tournaments because of another cnut Toni Schumacher.

@Invictus Great comeback in almost three years for you. Thanks for being a great partner in crime.

Well played lads! Well-deserved victory, and kudos for going all-in on Di Stefano and succeeding in giving him the draft run he's deserved for years. An impressive feat, especially with the limited budgets in play here.

I'm happy with my finished product here, and felt that Nedved was a great addition, although I do agree with Bepo that the team had got a bit stale. I ran out of steam research-wise as well. I was surprised to read that Lobanovsky was sometimes criticised for being overly negative, and wish I'd looked into this more:

Curiously, both times Spartak could not afford a draw, thanks to... Dynamo. Dynamo’s 15 draws in 30 games in 1977 wasn’t even the highest number in the league. Four clubs managed 17. The total number stood at a record 107 in 240 matches (45%). The Soviet football authorities decided to act, trying to make the league more competitive and weed out corruption. They limited the number of draws for which a team would be awarded a point to eight. Lobanovskyi was frequently criticised for encouraging negative football with his ‘away’ model and occasionally hauled in front of the authorities to explain himself. Needless to say, this did not help his relationship with Moscow.

Might have been interesting to try to switch things up to a cagey, pure counter-attacking model for this match, but unsure how I'd have went about it.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

negative football and volume of supposed fixed draws became a big issue for lots of teams in soviet football in the 70s. the league was similar to contemporary serie A in its low scoring and suspected corruption, with the 70s arguably being a peak.

It's difficult to tell from later interviews with different players/managers etc just how much was really going on, quite a few will say it only tended to happen in circumstances like late season games that had big stakes for both teams. How much was just paranoia from the authorities? - who expected corruption in anything as the easy option for blame, as so many had become corrupt themselves. mythmaking from fans , again easy to understand as the overall system had become so corrupt, or simply a product of a football system that by then had settled into being much better at producing good quality midfield area players rather than forwards. Blokhin was really the only consistent 1 goal every 2 games forward over most of decade, and he was hardly a deadly finishing 9, getting most of his goals through the amount of chances he created with other attributes like movement, pace, dribbling. Other above average forwards tended to have strengths as roaming supporting types rather than prolific goalscorers.

The "away model" came about in this environment. With Lobanovsky, Bazilevich and Zelentsov team committing 100% with their sports science approach, they came to the conclusion that in a low scoring league (with a small squad) being attacking in most home games with the new pressing ideas etc, combined with a counterattacking catenaccio'ish approach in most away games (as initial tactical approach) was the most efficient approach to comfortably guarantee winning the league.

It probably reached an extreme in that 1977 season win because of the player rebellion in 76, over the workload of their training methods and extra national team/olympic games they were playing, which seemed to have burned a lot out after the great 74 and 75 seasons. He was apparently close to being sacked, and i'd imagine had to scale back significantly - for a time - on a lot of the more intense new training/playing ideas, so adapted to the situation by emphasising the more defensive away model side of it all to a level that would have had Capello nodding. That season wasn't a sustainable approach after the draw points limit was introduced, and more of a unique situation made possible because of the shadier aspects of the league. His training also would have become more refined to avoid such a situation again. It's easy to forget the trial and error that must have been involved with trying to implement a lot of these new scientifically based ideas to training at the time, with the relatively limited resources they had compared to modern clubs (or the bigger western clubs of the time), and players that weren't necessarily fully buying into it all. Blokhin has said that the 80s teams were a lot more aware and dedicated to things as a collective, while the mid-70s was more individualistic/divided.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Cheers @Demyanenko_square_jaw . That's an absolutely brilliant post that has clarified and contextualised things a lot for me.

 

[Gio]

Fascinating post @Demyanenko_square_jaw

 

[harms]

I'm happy with my finished product here, and felt that Nedved was a great addition, although I do agree with Bepo that the team had got a bit stale. I ran out of steam research-wise as well. I was surprised to read that Lobanovsky was sometimes criticised for being overly negative, and wish I'd looked into this more:

It was a brilliant homage to Lobanovsky.

If I were to pick a Lobanovsky-inspired side without players that he had managed himself (and without any additional restrictions), I'd probably pick 4 of your players — and the rest fit the theme perfectly too (nice job on Rush by the way, Liverpool legends doesn't get enough credit here — for obvious reasons though)

FW (Seeler?) - Rummenigge
Nedved - Breitner* - De Bruyne
​

*Matthäus is also an option but with Rummenigge up front it makes sense to use Breitner

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

If I were to pick a Lobanovsky-inspired side without players that he had managed himself (and without any additional restrictions), I'd probably pick 4 of your players

Not Gullit ahead of De Bruyne?

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

Would have loved if @Pat_Mustard had picked Rivellino instead of Nedved for the finals. Obviously Nedved is the go to guy for most if not all but from what I understand of the setup, seems like Rivellino would be aces as well.

 

[harms]

Not Gullit ahead of De Bruyne?

I want someone more midfield-ish, although Gullit would look brilliant there as well (is there a set up where he wouldn't?).

Would have loved if @Pat_Mustard had picked Rivellino instead of Nedved for the finals. Obviously Nedved is the go to guy for most if not all but from what I understand of the setup, seems like Rivellino would be aces as well.

He would be great but if you're given a choice and your theme is Lobanovsky, it's a no-brainer.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

It was a brilliant homage to Lobanovsky.

If I were to pick a Lobanovsky-inspired side without players that he had managed himself (and without any additional restrictions), I'd probably pick 4 of your players — and the rest fit the theme perfectly too (nice job on Rush by the way, Liverpool legends doesn't get enough credit here — for obvious reasons though)

FW (Seeler?) - Rummenigge
Nedved - Breitner* - De Bruyne
​

*Matthäus is also an option but with Rummenigge up front it makes sense to use Breitner

Cheers Harms. In fairness, at least 50% of the credit should go to you given how much I relied on your previous posts . Digging deep on Rush (and to a lesser extent Magath) was one of the best parts of the draft for me. That workrate and wonderful, team-orientated attitude has really elevated him a few notches in my eyes.

Not Gullit ahead of De Bruyne?

For a few glorious hours I thought I could afford Gullit for the final. I misremembered his price and thought he was only 105m which I could have just about managed . He wouldn't have even fitted in as seamlessly as Nedved position-wise, but I wouldn't have been able to pass up on him. Would have been nice to place probably the greatest universalist of them all in a Lobanovsky team.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

He wouldn't have even fitted in as seamlessly as Nedved position-wise, but I wouldn't have been able to pass up on him.

Aye for all the Nedved love as the final reinforcement in many drafts, Gullit is a sure shot way to victory. Had him and 2 finals and won both.