I'll be interested to know why you consider Henderson is a weakness? He's obviously not VdS, but he's never been an error prone keeper, I've seen worse keepers drafted . Also I would agree he hasn't been around that long but we are going by the 3 year peak and over those 3 years he's been one of the best keepers in England.
Only Fools and Horses QF - 2mufc/gio vs EAP
- Thread starter Šjor Bepo
- Start date
I'll be interested to know why you consider Henderson is a weakness? He's obviously not VdS, but he's never been an error prone keeper, I've seen worse keepers drafted . Also I would agree he hasn't been around that long but we are going by the 3 year peak and over those 3 years he's been one of the best keepers in England.
It's not really the right style of players to dominate the ball. At the top level Terry, Carvalho, Desailly, Cohen, even Evra - none of these guys played in possession heavy set ups. The Mourinho Chelsea, United and late 90s Milan sides were more counter-based. Evra's the best fit but even his United side were compact and counter-attacking in Europe. Now if you had a 4-3-3 with 3 pure ball players in the centre of midfield, e.g. a Xaviesta and Busquets style trio, then we would have a major problem. Because you could tiki-taka a way through and we would be fecked (see United's flawed 4-4-2 in the CL final v Barcelona) But actually the flat 4-4-2 with two deep-lying CMs to cut off vertical runs (Platini and Edwards) and leave Desailly passing it to your defence is the best way to mitigate your threat here.
Obviously you can have more off the ball, but it's not going to be moved with the pace and precision to unlock our team. Especially when our defence matches up very well and your main man is coming up against a thoroughbred pain-in-the-arse in Mackay.
How much of his peak was even played in top tier leagues? He made Team of the Year in League 1 and that's it.
Ideally his performance in top league should only count for in drafts and we don't have 3 years of it.
It's not all on potential. He lacks game experience at top levels, esp when facing likes of Platini and Kempes.
You misunderstand. I said I'll have plenty of possession, not play possession football. Retaining the ball in 4231 is relatively easier than a direct 442.
Here we go. Platini, Mata and Litti are plenty to move the ball with pace and precision. And I'll have more of the ball.
-
How exactly will Mackay cover Platini?
Is he going to man mark him? Platini's movement will drag Mackay all over the pitch and just destabilize your midfield.
Is it a zonal coverage? In which Platini will drop deeper and pull strings. Litti or Mata will engage Mackay in his zone leaving Platini free again.
Mackay is a tip player but he just lacks support in your team. No one man can hold the fort in his own against my team.
It's a real bummer for me that Henderson is on goal for Gio/2mufc0. It's the same game as previously in this draft with Rojo at LB where there is one figure that can potentially decide the game and just nudge it in a two evenly matched teams.
Like both sides and really tough to separate. I like Gio's defence a tad more, especially with Maldini in there. Edgar however has an excellent base in midfield and the upper hand there, which protects the complimentary and also proven duo in Terry/Carvalho. Laudrup/Best/Giggs/Henry is a fantastic attack hands down. On the other side there's Platini, who should have a great game and can provide the ammo of a highly mobile forwards in Littbarski and Kempes.
All in all great matchup and Henderson/VDS tilted it for me.
Like both sides and really tough to separate. I like Gio's defence a tad more, especially with Maldini in there. Edgar however has an excellent base in midfield and the upper hand there, which protects the complimentary and also proven duo in Terry/Carvalho. Laudrup/Best/Giggs/Henry is a fantastic attack hands down. On the other side there's Platini, who should have a great game and can provide the ammo of a highly mobile forwards in Littbarski and Kempes.
All in all great matchup and Henderson/VDS tilted it for me.
A quote about Cohen from veteran football writer Brian Glanville:
“George was a one-club player, and spent his whole career here, although he could have moved if he’d wanted to. He was terribly useful, he tackled well and had great pace,” Brian recalled. “He used to overlap a lot, and he kept Jimmy Armfield out of that England team.
“George was a one-club player, and spent his whole career here, although he could have moved if he’d wanted to. He was terribly useful, he tackled well and had great pace,” Brian recalled. “He used to overlap a lot, and he kept Jimmy Armfield out of that England team.
Best had him in his All-Time XI (at least in one of them) – and named him the toughest opponent alongside Reaney if my memory serves me right.
He's got Carlos Alberto and Paul Breitner in the one I saw there. Decent company to be fair.
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/george-best-perfect-xi
I remember his Reaney quote.
I suppose I've not seen enough to convince me either way. He looked fairly solid for England in 1966, somewhat unremarkable, but a useful cog as part of an effective defence. But earlier in the thread I listed those Scotland v England games from the 1960s where quite often Scotland exploited England's right-back area. For instance in 1963, Baxter tackles Armfield and scores direct. And in 1967 - probably the most famous game in Scotland's history - Macalliog's 1-2 to score the 3rd goal and make it 3-1, it just looks like pretty weak defending.
(See below at 1.50)
So obviously that weighs high on my mind in terms of the limited footage I've seen. Perhaps there is Fulham or England material to strengthen his case.
But yes the status argument could be made. Armfield is commonly regarded as the English standout of his era and, if not for injury at an unfortunate time, would have played the World Cup. And in any all-time English XI it would be fair to say that right-back is the weakest position, yet despite that Cohen rarely makes the cut, whereas Armfield, Neville, Anderson, Neal, and going forward probably Trent populate the vast majority of XIs. Although to be honest I agree that most of the old school full-backs are much more defensive in their games compared to present day. And even the more attacking ones of that time, like Armfield or Nilton, were actually not that amazing going forward yet were robust defenders.
And in the context of this game, if there is a more persuasive route to goal, it's Giggs v Cohen, or Giggs/Maldini v Cohen/Mata.
Makes sense.
This is another one by him, but it's all British (from 1:55:00). The guys had his team to discuss with him in the pub but he didn't show up
Jennings
Cohen - Moore - England - Pearce
Robson - Bell
Fowler - Charlton - Greaves - Law
Cohen - Moore - England - Pearce
Robson - Bell
Fowler - Charlton - Greaves - Law
On our front two:
Here's Thierry Henry who faced the Terry/Carvalho partnership for 45 minutes in this 2-2 draw with Mourinho's Chelsea in 2004/05. This was Chelsea at their most miserly - Makelele parked in front of the CBs - and they only conceded more than 1 goal twice all season. But Henry breached that defence twice in the first 29 minutes of the game. It was the only goals Chelsea conceded in 12 games. Carvalho was hooked at half time.
It's not just Henry up against the centre-halves, he's so good in wide areas that his overloading with Best or Giggs could be decisive. Just remember how many goals Pires and Ljungberg helped themselves to in the Invincibles team, and then ramp that up a couple of notches with the quality he can work with here.
Here's Thierry Henry who faced the Terry/Carvalho partnership for 45 minutes in this 2-2 draw with Mourinho's Chelsea in 2004/05. This was Chelsea at their most miserly - Makelele parked in front of the CBs - and they only conceded more than 1 goal twice all season. But Henry breached that defence twice in the first 29 minutes of the game. It was the only goals Chelsea conceded in 12 games. Carvalho was hooked at half time.
The Guardian said:
It's not just Henry up against the centre-halves, he's so good in wide areas that his overloading with Best or Giggs could be decisive. Just remember how many goals Pires and Ljungberg helped themselves to in the Invincibles team, and then ramp that up a couple of notches with the quality he can work with here.
Laudrup
Don't think that is correct. Armfield was injured and recovered to get 2 caps before the WC, but by that time Cohen was Ramsey's clear choice. Glanville's quote above also says Armfield was kept out because Cohen had solidified in that position.
The results are mostly skewed to modern greats. Neal, Neville etc were part of stellar club teams having won multiple trophies, whereas Cohen was a one club man in Fulham. If Alf Ramsey who has managed Cohen and Armfield says Cohen was the best right back, then that carries lot more weight than internet polls.
That was the only game he scored. I recall he's faced the duo 4 times and got shut out other three occasions.
The thread has been a really good reading.
Well done to both the managers.
Well done to both the managers.
I really find it surprising that I have to big up Platini. At his peak he was scoring 30 goals in 49 games or something like that!
It's equally surprising if people actually believe Mackay can shut out Platini the whole game....and somehow shield the defence against Mata/Litti if they choose to cut in too!
And hope @Gio would address this:
It's equally surprising if people actually believe Mackay can shut out Platini the whole game....and somehow shield the defence against Mata/Litti if they choose to cut in too!
And hope @Gio would address this:
Not true. He has played against the Carvalho and Terry partnership for 135 minutes and has 2 goals. Or a goal every 67 minutes. That's an impressive record against a defence that kept clean sheet after clean sheet against everyone else. And the reason for that? Not just because of Henry's quality, but because stylistically he's a challenging fit for Terry and Carvalho. That isn't just draft nonsense, it's statistically true. Now up against much the same defence - throw in Laudrup's slipperiness and creativity, Giggs and Best bamboozling past their full-backs - and he could be even more devastating yet.
I've already given plenty on Mackay and the defensive shape of our midfield. Mackay's credentials are rock solid - an absolute tour de force of a midfielder, massively influential on his teammates, and proven against the best in the world in Eusebio. Not once but twice. And with Baxter, they faced Charlton-led midfields and, not only held their own, but bossed the game. So plenty of confidence that having solid evidence of stopping Eusebio and Bobby Charlton they can do a job here.
More to the point though, where's the evidence that:
- Terry and Carvalho will stop Henry and Laudrup (with both bad fits for them and Henry proven to come out on top)?
- Evra will stop George Best. I've heard not a smidgeon about how that will happen.
- Cohen will stop Ryan Giggs and Juan Mata to stop Paulo Maldini. That's a ridiculously stacked flank and Mata is the absolute worst possible player to offer any sort of defensive support amongst this company.
It is just absurd to make a football game as a series of 1vs1 battles.
Mata will cut in. I certainly do not see Maldini following Mata around the centre of pitch.
Duncan Edwards will move up. McGrain isn't really the cutting in type of fullback.
It's will never be a Mackay vs Platini battle that you are keep repeating here. Giggs and Best will at best help defensively in flanks, but they really won't provide support against Edwards and Mata/Litti through the middle. I definitely see Edwards having a great game here. Once I have Mata/Litti to support Platini, Mackay will be lost in the shuffle.
When Best has the ball, Desailly will drop back to squeeze space and support Evra and cut off passing lanes to Laudrup. When Giggs has the ball, Edwards will be there to support Cohen. The whole Giggs is better than Cohen is something that certainly is your personal interpretation that I don't agree with.
Plus the biggest mismatch is having the weakest player in the pitch playing one of the most important positions, i.e keeping your goal. Henderson is a sheep for all practical purposes in this draft. No getting around that!
And finally, the both positionally and tactically, your formation isn't suited to get the best of Laudrup and Best. They are versatile and can do a good job there...but nowhere close to their peak performance. Best has good workrate, but I really can't see him tracking back and putting a shift in defensively. It's be a gross misuse of his talent if he's supposed to that.
Last edited:
Indeed. That's why we laid out our strategy for the game early on. It was about turning those 1v1 advantages we clearly hold on the flanks into results on the park. So a 4-4-2 where the ball can be fed wide and early by players used to doing just that. A 4-4-2 where we could double up on the flanks and overwhelm your beleaguered full-backs. At the same time, it was about taking the game away from that strong central midfield core of yours, funnelling it wide and into our most dangerous players. That's a clear gameplan that maximises our strengths and reduces yours.
Don't forget this is the older version of Marcel Desailly who never even played in midfield during this time period (1997-2000).
In his final season at Milan he played CB and carried on there at Chelsea. He also played France '98 at CB.Marcel said:
Clearly he'll still do a steady job there, but it's not peak midfield Desailly of the mid-90s because, as he has admitted himself, his legs weren't quite as sharp as they once were. So his ability to cover both the centre of midfield and cover the full-backs if/when they get beaten might not have been what it once was.
Don't forget this is the older version of Marcel Desailly who never even played in midfield during this time period (1997-2000).
Ffs, last game he was at CB, so I chose CB peak years for him. Forgot to change for this game. I have passed on instructions to him personally. Just a team sheet typo
Consider his peak as 1993-96. Surely that should not count as a tactical change!
Naturally Ramsey's going to be loyal to his 1966 boys of course.
But my point stands - I've watched him at the 1966 World Cup where he was pretty solid, and in ties against Scotland in that period where he was less solid. As I said above, that piece of defending for Scotland's third is pretty dreadful, while Law and Baxter caused all sorts of problems down that side of the defence that day. It may not be a fair representation of the player, but it would be interesting to see evidence to the contrary, and I can only go on what I've seen.
And if we thought old-man Marcel was bad, don't get me started on Cohen's peak period. 1 year? That's shorter than Deano ffs.
That is why my fullbacks will defend first and overlap as secondary only. You really won't have spaces to exploit gaps behind them. If either of your fullbacks cut in, they will be shepherded to the DMs like any game. I don't see the overlap as anything out of ordinary for a normal game. Not a extra advantage.
Plus I have Van Der Sar who at his peak was a machine holding fort against errant shots...something that you don't have!
That was an instance when the whole team including a certain Bobby Moore was playing shit. And it was 81 minutes and 2 goals down, so no wonder the effort was lackluster overall.
I certainly don't see how that could be taken as a representation of his peak years. Again 8 times vs Best over 3 years without conceding a goal. Now that stat I can base off as a decision making trend. Not an one off game!
That's fine, but I don't think it changes the fact I'd back Best to get the better of Evra and Giggs to get past Cohen - regardless of where their starting position is.
And of course there remains the tactical issue of a narrow attack, which is then compounded by full-backs staying back - probably the last thing Platini wants to play in. He wants runners to stretch the play, Bonieks and overlapping Cabrinis.
Sure, in a modern game, total shut out of a player is rare and players of caliber of Best and Giggs will have their moments. I just don't think it'll be that often or that material.
In the same way Platini will have his moments and compounded by your weak keeper, probability of a shot from outside the box not stopped is pretty high!
I don't really have to take your defence on everytime. Shots from outside the box will be sufficient with Dean manning the goal. Far easier and simpler.
NT Platini didn't need wingers. He's versatile to not be tied to a specific formation.
Don't forget this is the older version of Marcel Desailly who never even played in midfield during this time period (1997-2000).
But Platini liked play-stretchers because (a) it allowed him to unfurl his beautiful long passing, and (b) it gave him space to make runs forward. Narrowing the park doesn't help with either.
And Henderson is still competent, he isn't going to start letting in shots he never let in as the Premier League's Best Goalkeeper last season, or Sunderland's Player of the Season the year before.
Pretty sure people were saying that about Joe Hart couple years earlier too.
Plus the quality of opposition here is way above anything he might have faced.
Non-issue. The likes of Kane, De Bruyne, Salah and Aguero would not look out of place in this draft. And certainly can pack a similar punch in their shooting at goal as anyone on the park.
Even a move as simple as getting the ball to Maldini's feet, he can pass it to Giggs, support him and Mata won't keep up. Then you've got a likely 2v1 against Cohen, probably the weakest defender on the park.
On the other flank Best can get the better of anybody and isn't facing Maldini here but Evra - who as good as he was isn't really the GOAT level defender to shut out Georgie.
And then in the middle Henry and Laudrup are mobile, slick, sharp with quick-fire acceleration and impeccable technique. Problematic for any defence.
Great game that, enjoyed reading all of it and almost changed my mind loads of times.
Well played there - argued and drafted. Kudos.
Congrats Edgar
Great game & interesting discussion everyone, couldn't decide on a clear winner in the end.
This is first time we faced each other?
I can't believe you pulled out a 1967 video! Amazing.
Picking this up from earlier on:
As for the 1966 World Cup, Edgar was right, Cohen gained his starting place a good deal earlier due to Armfield's severe injury (leg break, I think), but still kept him out of the England team when he was fit again.
Yeah, I think they can mostly be seen as "balanced" in our terminology. Which is totally fine. But I also think they may have been somewhat shackled by their role, and especially Nilton may have had a lot more in his locker when given the freedom. Would love to see him as a contemporary right back (sic) in a more attacking role. In Sjor's Armfield match comp, he seems to strike a great balance between attacking and defensive presence - and much more so than in other games, where he plays pretty conservatively.
As for the 1966 World Cup, Edgar was right, Cohen gained his starting place a good deal earlier due to Armfield's severe injury (leg break, I think), but still kept him out of the England team when he was fit again.
Last edited:
(Just to be clear, "Nilton as a modern RB" was no lapse, as he was naturally right-footed.)
I was leaning towards 2G, but van der Sar stopped me from voting for them in the end. Nice job @Edgar Allan Pillow, I thought that they were the favourites going in.
Aye, I nearly switched my vote a few times due to the respective GKs. This thread was a very good read. Kdos to all and well played Edgar for upsetting the juggernaut!