thats all great on paper but Ronaldo wouldnt allow it, i mean im not guessing here we have years of evidence. If you want to believe he would act differently because its Beckham thats cool, i disagree.
Nostalgia Draft - SF: Isotope vs harms
- Thread starter Synco
- Start date
thats all great on paper but Ronaldo wouldnt allow it, i mean im not guessing here we have years of evidence. If you want to believe he would act differently because its Beckham thats cool, i disagree.
Oh, how did I not know this ispoiler stuff? Sweet.
Well played mate. Cracking midfield. I share that niche preference for midfielders that are comfortable in all phases and channels.
Terribly unlucky with injuries every turn
If I ever enter a draft again I'll pick Massimo Taibi. Watch how people suddenly care about keepers.
The manager decides who does what, not the players. Cristiano has never been the sort that downs tools over such disagreements, more so if the results are proven to evidently be good for the team. He only loses the plot when defenders mess with his hair or shit like that.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. He'll certainly try to get rid of me comes the summer, but during the season he'll keep performing at his best as his best is what's the most important to him.
He did leave some free kicks to James, Özil, Pjanic and Dybala IIRC, although you could probably say that it was in the realm of statistical error.
Sorry about Iniesta, man. Somehow can't really warm up to him.
Anyway. Have to admit, I've been lucky with my opponents injuries so far. Joga's with Ayala, Anto's with Enrique, and yours with Tassotti. Key players for different reasons. But my route to Final have been against some of the best. So, it's evening out.
@harms . SInce the game is over, we can discuss freely.
If a certain player, like Iniesta, who's extremely associated with a certain style of football; how do you see him mixed with others with different style? Would he be as effective?
For instance, Xavi was struggling on his early age, until Pep came in and introduced tiki-taka.
If a certain player, like Iniesta, who's extremely associated with a certain style of football; how do you see him mixed with others with different style? Would he be as effective?
For instance, Xavi was struggling on his early age, until Pep came in and introduced tiki-taka.
IFFHS' World's Best Goalkeeper of the Year
1992 - rank 2nd
1993 - rank 4th
1996 - rank 8th
while being integral part of the Dream Team and Spain NT.
Taibi eh..? Just incredible.
Xavi wasn't an enigma at a young age and it was hard to envision him becoming arguably the greatest midfielder in history, but Iniesta was a different deal. Since the very young age he was seen as the next big thing and he has also played and shined in so many different teams — be it Rijkaard's Barca, where he had changed the course of the 2006 CL final, Aragones' Spain, Pep's juego de posicion (Pep would've killed you if he heard this — he hates tiki-taka: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It's so much rubbish and has no purpose"), Enrique's gung-ho treble-winning side, Del Bosque's stifling death by a thousand passes Spain...
A question of wherever a player who has only shined in a certain system can adapt and play in is a valid question. It's just not a question about Iniesta.
Out of the big midfield three that is Busquets, Xavi and Iniesta I'd only really worry about Busquets — the difference between his performances in a comfortable role (that made him one of genuine all-time greats) and in a Casemiro-like role where a DM is required to cover a lot of ground instead of controlling the space was quite drastic. Thankfully those experiments usually didn't last that long.
With Xavi the question of a system is very much appropriate — but then it's not really the system that creates Xavi, it's Xavi who creates the system around him, that's the beauty of Xavi. And if you have a peak Xavi on your hands, surround him by decent ball-playing partners and he'll shine either way.
Iniesta is a different breed altogether though. He combines the controlling ability of Xavi (not quite on Xavi's level, but as close as any other player can get to that) with the ability to seamlessly glide on the pitch, breaking the lines not only with his passing and his movement, but also by simply dribbling past (or through) the opposition players. It's why I love him so much. Him being comfortable both centrally and out wide (mostly on the left, although I've seen him on the right as well) just adds another dimension to his already unique skillset.
I can't think of many players who are similar to him. Laudrup would be an obvious association, especially since he is Iniesta's childhood hero, but he was very much a final third player, while Iniesta is a midfielder — an offensive one, but a midfielder nonetheless. Charlton is the name that usually comes to my mind when I try to describe Iniesta — obviously the latter was more refined in terms of ball-control and more consistent (almost flawless) with his passing while the former gave you tons of goals, one of the few things that Iniesta truly lacked.
I watched him pretty much every week and can tell you that is directly linked to team success/rating and not his level, which fell off a cliff. 1990 or so, absolutely.
Paramount to someone picking De Gea with a 2019 cut off. Completely different keeper.
Iniesta was on a clear pathway to being an outstanding midfielder pre-Pep, it was Xavi that hit a different level/tier due to the tactics.
I can't imagine Iniesta marking Beckenbauer, though, like Charlton. I can see Charlton in midfield two, but can't see Iniesta being effective there.
Anyway, for me Iniesta is difficult to integrate. Is he really midfield general that control the game ala Modric or Scholes? Spraying passes left and right. Like you said, he's not a final third player. He had a few sporadic seasons with plenty of assists though, but lack in consistency.
I have Thomas Ravelli in reserve. Any opinion on him, man?
Again, thanks to @Joga Bonito for his fabulous suggestions. Mr. Busyman is not voting here also.
You are welcome but I didn't really do much tbh, just a few tactical suggestions.
Personally prefer Ravelli to 90s Zubi.
What Iniesta has in his favour is malleability over different tactical set ups, be it the range of roles for Spain, or as part of the more transitional based Enrique midfield from 14-15.
It’s a god question to ask. I think sometimes we take for granted some of these synergies when assembling teams from widely different eras and footballing educations.
sure....i bet every manager of Cristiano was licking his lips in prospect of him fecking up another set-piece opportunity.I saw you had him once. But then people started questioning him, too.
Had this discussion with GTSQ before on PM. I had Cruyff, then picked Gentile (to partner Bobby Moore as CB). He disagreed with the Gentile's pick, mentioning of "not in sync with Cruyff", although they are on different part of the field. Although i think on that instance it's a bit extreme, but I keep this in mind.
I thought you would play him. He is not at Cech level or peak Zubi level, but at least there's no clearcut weakness.
Still bizarre that people don't give two fecks about the difference between having Ravelli or Cech, Schmeichel or Buffon. If anything, with so many GOATs and superstars on the pitch a really top tier goalie should be an even bigger difference-maker.
I've no doubt the most glaring mismatch in this game was Ronaldo was trying to score against Cech (absolutely not an easy task, even after getting past Rio, Vidic, etc) while Cristiano and Sheva just had to make sure they didn't shoot straight at Zubizarreta.
Last edited:
Actually, that's what I most liked about @harms midfield from Turn 1. I typically don't take it for granted and was surprised at how great a fit that trio seemed despite coming from different setups 5-10 years apart.
E.g. I'm sure many would have seen his midfield as stronger or Kaká being nullified if Rijkaard was there instead of Dunga. The whole trio falls on its arse though and, personally, I wouldn't swap them in a million years.
I'm not sure what I said that has anything to do with that.
No sane manager would give Cristiano to take freekicks based on his ability so when he continues to take him its pretty much his decision and manager allows it to keep him happy - if that fits into your "manager decides who does what" theory then fine.
Also, he never down tools because nobody took freekicks from him, if they did im 110% sure he would start bitching.
It's all hypothetical. If you were telling me Rashford is taking them, well yeah, he will get stroppy as his success rate doesn't justify it.
Beckham? Cristiano would be onside with that, having a giant ego doesn't make him a fecking idiot.
As i said, if you believe he would change his stance cause of Beckham thats okay, i just strongly disagree.
He is been pathetic from them for years, feck almost a decade and in that period he played with shitloads of players that were much better then him or even if we go your route - that could easily pick a cross for him in the middle and he didnt change and continued to take them so yeah, looking only at that aspect of the game he is an idiot.
Well either way you’ve nailed the back-to-front sync this time. It was my reluctant difference maker today.
Feck people.
The thing is, no manager (unless it's Jose at the very end of his cycle) would do a kamikaze move like I did as every manager wants to keep his job & keep his main star happy and at the club.
thats exactly my point
But i dont agree with the "kamikaze" tactic, in theory its a win win for you but we should be sensible and disregard it in the start as that could open a pandora box so every "problematic" tactic could go that route - it will work short term, we will clash on the long term etc. as there is no long term in a draft.
Personally, I think Cristiano will definitely demand a freekick if he has a direct shot at goal with it. Anything a bit further out and he'll happily leave it to Becks.
Would be like the Cristiano/Kroos relationship, sounds realistic.
Although I liked harms' approach of putting Cristiano under strict orders for the tournament run and then getting fired.
If we are going to make shit up like that we may as well assume Ronaldo will have a fit before the final and spend the 90 minutes not having the foggiest idea what is going on.
Well Cristiano has played with guys who had even better success rates than Beckham and still demanded the ball every time. That's why he ends up in these idiotic scenarios where he's missed 50 in a row.
The only thing that might make him accept it is Beckham's fame in the same ballpark as his own. They might end up in some mutual reacharound arrangement where they share the duties- much like the Galacticos when Figo, Beckham, Zidane and Carlos all took turns with free-kicks.
What will make him accept it is he will love playing with Beckham and wish he had always played with him. You don't go all billy big bollocks on guys who make you perform at eveb higher standards.
I pity whoever it was that first got hit with this completely bonkers line of argumentation, all the while ignoring Cristiano would have very likely got a brace here.
Agree with this, despite the image CR7 is very professional, don't see an issue here.
Someone questioned Iniesta? I thought most people agreed he must be among the greatest sidekicks to GOAT player in history. Can see him shining, aside from Messi, with Cruyff, Di Stefano, Cristiano, even Pele... Only question marks would be Maradona. Can't quite envision that combo, but considering Iniesta unselfishness maybe they could also work (in Aragones Euro 2008 scheme for example where Diego would take Fabregas role).
His ability to create chaos and penetrate the final 3rd coming from a bit deeper areas is among the best I've seen even in an all-time context. Have zero doubts that Cristiano would love to have him in the team.
In any case, always thought that the purpose (or most appealing thing) of the draft is to make different combos, from different eras or tactical context in which they shined and then others see them working great together.
As far as am concerned, people opting for a team with Busquets - Xavi - Iniesta - Messi or Charlton - Best - Law will always start with a minus point in my book. It just lacks imagination.
As for Beckham it would be hilarious to see Cristiano having to endure a longer period of time giving freekicks to someone who is also better looking and equally famous. I can imagine him getting along just for the sake of all those headers from Beckham crosses.
His ability to create chaos and penetrate the final 3rd coming from a bit deeper areas is among the best I've seen even in an all-time context. Have zero doubts that Cristiano would love to have him in the team.
In any case, always thought that the purpose (or most appealing thing) of the draft is to make different combos, from different eras or tactical context in which they shined and then others see them working great together.
As far as am concerned, people opting for a team with Busquets - Xavi - Iniesta - Messi or Charlton - Best - Law will always start with a minus point in my book. It just lacks imagination.
As for Beckham it would be hilarious to see Cristiano having to endure a longer period of time giving freekicks to someone who is also better looking and equally famous. I can imagine him getting along just for the sake of all those headers from Beckham crosses.
Anyone who can't play with Iniesta is not particularly good at football.
Agree, it's seeing combos you had never thought about and look perfect that makes this all remotely interesting. Else it's always the same old rubbish, we already know who is/isn't rated and wins/loses votes.
That said, I prefer any of those proven combos to nonsensical porridge.
Now THAT could be an issue, not who takes the fecking free kicks. Good thing it's not Cristiano's job to service Beckham but the other way around.Questioning Iniesta to work with Mendieta, not Ronaldo (as he doesn't play as CM).
Ah ok... In any case I was in a mood for a bit of rant and especially to show my everlasting love to Don Andres, so don't bother. Didn't even properly read the whole thread.
That said, I don't see any issues with him and Mendieta. Considering it is peak Mendieta, it is pretty frightening duo to face in fact. You already went through all of this back and forth in the thread, so maybe it is best to leave it.
Mendieta at his peak was the main man, but not in here it seems. But Ok, boss.
Can you elaborate on
1. What makes a main man
2. What exactly Mendieta loses when he is degraded to "not a main man" status?
I literally have no idea what you mean as Mendieta being the best player in that Valencia side doesn't affect his performance at all. He's not an ego-maniac that would be furious if one of his teammates would be considered more important (like Cristiano); he doesn't have Gerrard-like Roy of the Rovers complex that requires the whole team to adapt to his role... in fact, Mendieta spent his whole peak playing multiple roles (CM/RM/DM/AM/LM and that after being moved from RB) because it helped the team — Cúper used him as an instrument to adjust his team's settings instead of being forced to build it around him.