Dont rate Ibra at this level and him being a player that needs the whole team built around him is just a suicide at all-time level but im also aware im in big minority regarding that opinion. Midfield from the 2mufc is fantastic but i also like moby team, strong core at the back(including midfield) with wild fluid trio up front, i like it.
Reality-Monopoly Draft - R1: Moby vs 2mufc0
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
While I get your point, your higher grade shouldn't be "sweeper" but libero, which was the point Enigma was making.
Last edited:
Libero is an Italian word which means "free": he is free to attack.
The Sweeper is stationed behind the other defenders so he isn't "free" because he has to cover 1 or 2 other defenders.
Now, the terminology or the arrow don't really matter. Sanchis is asked here to be comfortable with the ball and have good distribution skills.
I don't know Sanchis, nor Janes. I will follow the discussions.
The Sweeper is stationed behind the other defenders so he isn't "free" because he has to cover 1 or 2 other defenders.
Now, the terminology or the arrow don't really matter. Sanchis is asked here to be comfortable with the ball and have good distribution skills.
I don't know Sanchis, nor Janes. I will follow the discussions.
It totally looks that wayI may as well spill the beans here as this is way too funny and you are all missing the point here.
While Moby questioned the XI I posted for lacking midfield control he PMd me the teamsheet above as a better 3-5-2. I told him only Tardelli, Nasazzi and Maier would get into mine. He told me none of my players would get into his...
vs
Seems he got so fixated with it he forgot he was playing an entirely different team.
I'd have this as the combined XI
Maier
Zanetti Förster Popescu Krol Nilton Santos
Keane Davids
Sivori
........Mazzola
Vieri.........
Tough to leave out the likes of Vidic Zanetti Förster Popescu Krol Nilton Santos
Keane Davids
Sivori
........Mazzola
Vieri.........
Tardelli, Nasazzi and esp Nedved, whom I rate higher than Sivori - prefer Sivori with that midfield and Mazzola.He has been inspired by the way @RedTiger overcame Team harms/Joga
That reminds me, I still haven't done my write-up for tomorrow....He has been inspired by the way @RedTiger overcame Team harms/Joga
That reminds me, I still haven't done my write-up for tomorrow....
Not necessary to do some research. Just explain why you have chosen these players.
Fair enough re: Nilton if Krol moves to LCB. That may be better than Nasazzi for Lucio, although I'd rather Krol on the flank tbh. That's the key role, not outside CB.
I'd have this as the combined XI
MaierTough to leave out the likes of Vidic
Zanetti Förster Popescu Krol Nilton Santos
Keane Davids
Sivori
........Mazzola
Vieri.........
I'd have Tardelli ahead of Keane for this and the potential switch to a diamond.
I couldn't drop Futre. Mazzola is better, but then, if I could drop Futre I'd play Enzo.
Nedved/Sivori is an interesting one. I did have Sívori as a backup option throughout but didn't feel he was quite right as the SS or tip of the diamond. Lovely little player though. I value having the on/off switch in that role (attack vs. defend mode), which is why Nedved started ahead of Enzo there. As I told him, nothing to do with X>Y, just tactical/style preference.
It's called "silent domination". That game thoughHe has been inspired by the way @RedTiger overcame Team harms/Joga
aye it's exactly right. It requires a bit of additional skillset and also extensive reading of the game.
I agree with Edgar's graph, but and put Sanchis between Picchi and Rio/Nesta.
While I agree in terms of Picchi's role, I'd argue putting him at the lowest level is a disservice to his passing ability. He was head and shoulders better than any regular base-level sweeper for that very reason and I can't for the life of me see what Sanchís has on him (other than mostly playing CB and not sweeper, which is irrelevant to their defensive/attacking contribution).
Picchi is obviously the better player of the two and his passing ability and actual libero role he's also better at Sanchis. Purely as an attacking threat I'd have Sanchis above him as he's more of a threat in the box (at least what I've thought of Edgar's graph goes to show).
Not sure what Edgar exactly meant by attacking contribution and if that includes the build up and passing ability or rather threat in the box. If it is the former Picchi is the better of the two.
There are also a lot more sweepers who are worse than Picchi on the ball so being at the base of that comparison doesn't do him service indeed.
Two pretty even teams. Not the formations I would have gone with but some nice ideas.
I like Moby's wing backs and the Keane/Tardelli duo. The defence is pretty solid too.
I also like the Davids, Gerson, Falcao combo. I'm not really feeling the defence though. The centre backs are pretty exposed as your wing backs are so high up. Also, why is Thuram playing at centre back? He's a right back isn't he?
I like Moby's wing backs and the Keane/Tardelli duo. The defence is pretty solid too.
I also like the Davids, Gerson, Falcao combo. I'm not really feeling the defence though. The centre backs are pretty exposed as your wing backs are so high up. Also, why is Thuram playing at centre back? He's a right back isn't he?
That's what settled it for me.
For all the talk on the various ways Moby's frontline could line up, the players in it aren't static and will work out the right balance between them (likely Sivori-Sindelar-Mazzola with no designated CF). I'm not at all convinced Thuram and Hansen can deal with that while the WBs pin the fullbacks away.
Still surprised that Moby hasn't defended his ideas.
Question of interpretation really. It's a fair point that 2mufc0 raises that someone who sits behind the defensive line mopping up isn't particularly in keeping with the modern game. And that's a literal interpretation of Moby's team-sheet. Then again if the idea is simply a spare man at the back then it works well in any era.
Bit like 2mufc0s full/wing-backs - they're very high on the team-sheet. But if it's a case of doing the job of a full-back in a back four then arguably we shouldn't be so literal in our interpretation of the team-sheet.
I voted for him just now, because I objectively find his team stronger, but it doesn't sit well with me to vote for a manager who hasn't said a word in the thread. That said, there could be legitimate reasons - beyond going for the "silent domination" approach, that is.
I have no issue with Thuram as a CB, he was brilliant there (too). But the setup on the whole looks too shaky. Wingbacks and Gerson as the deepest midfielder - I don't think that's solid enough.
I don't like M's configuration up front, as such, but I agree with anto's suggestion above: They'd be moving around, shifting positions, regardless - so it's partly a cosmetic issue.
You raise fair points. It's just the way Moby described him in the op so thats what I went for.
And it appears I need to work on my formation presentation skills as my full backs are not meant to be wing backs but full backs as you've described. In future I'll keep this in mind.
Thuram played both centre back and right back in his career, and was great in both positions imo.
Has played enough times as a center back, for Parma and Juve, in different systems too — back 3 and back 4. Outstanding player and one of the top choices for a physical stopper in the pool.
Fair point, actually.
Carboni was pretty solid defensively, iirc. Don't know much about Janes beyond what I would call generic praise, so he's a bit of an x-factor, but given the era I suppose we should assume he was defensively sound.
Presentation is important, though. They look like decidedly offensive fullbacks (wingbacks, practically) and there isn't anything very helpful in the OP description either.
Yeah that's my bad, just to clarify they aren't wing backs.
Fair enough.
It appears much sounder if you consider them as proper fullbacks in a four. If you picture them as wingbacks it looks a bit odd (I don't know how well suited Carboni is for the role as such) and a bit shaky (because Gerson emerges as some kind of crucial shield - which he wouldn't shine as, imo).
What still counts against you is the initial Thuram feck-up, but that would have been a rational move if the gamble had paid off (i.e. if M had played Robben).
So, given that your opponent hasn't shown up - I'm changing my vote.
Thanks for the feedback and reconsidering. I had to play Carboni as he was my 'legacy' player, and as I thought he would be up against robben I wanted Thuram next to him.
As for Gerson I know he's not a tough tackler, but always had him down as an intelligent defender, more in the Carrick style, but better.
I don't think that's necessarily true - and certainly not in a fantasy context. He has often appeared in that light because it has been perfectly natural to, as you say, build the team around him. But his attributes don't indicate a player who needs tailor made teams around him: He's more complete than your standard #9.
I'm 99% sure that an Ibra style player with comparable credentials who played, say, in the 1960s - would have been regarded as an absolute genius by drafters: Big fecker with brilliant technique, capable of second strikery (cute flicks and passes), prolific as feck, infamous for scoring impossible goals, etc. Too much personality for some managers - which could be used as an excuse for why he hasn't won the very biggest prize. Yeah, sounds plausible enough.
I'd call him positionally sound, etc. in terms of his defensive game - sure. He was slow, though, and clearly not suited to anything like a pure DM role (least of all if it involves much "pure" defending). But this doesn't matter if you field him as a DLP of sorts with an ordinary bank of four behind him.
What i meant, when you have Ibra in the team everything goes through him, he is the main guy and never in his career(peak) he showed a bit of selflessness nor he played with another player that had a main role next to him. Thats completely fine though, in a draft with lower level of players he would be fine but not at this level, at least IMO.
With other part i fully agree even though he is seen as a GOAT by many people today...i always had that theory for Maicon, if he played back in the day he would probably be up there with the best fullbacks of all time.
But he doesn't have that here either - he's free to operate as, precisely, a "more complete" striker. Not exactly a false nine, but something not too far off. He's got a trickster to his left who may, possibly, want the ball a bit too much for Ibra's liking, but that's it. There's no standard No 10 behind him to take away from his more creative game.
exactly, he will have a lot to do(the role he prefers) but in my opinion he isnt good enough for this level. I dont question his qualities to be the main guy or the perform the role mufc2 has for him, dont even question the tactical use of him i just dont rate him as a player for this level thats all. Great, pretty much God level player for the tier below highest but not good enough to play at the highest stage and that stage is even higher here then it is where he played.
Right, I see.
Well, then I guess I'd call it a bit harsh given this is a R1 match (after all).
Depends what you mean by "tier below highest", of course.
Would you rate Sindelar above Ibra? In a different tier? I'd be tempted to do so myself, but that has very much to do with his historical significance - or status. He isn't a GOAT, by common consensus. So, if "highest" is GOAT level, the opposition doesn't boast anyone on said level either (hardly anyone does, in this draft - as far as attackers are concerned, they've been duly blocked).
I'd have Henry for example who isn't blocked a tier above Ibra to be honest.
I don't rate Henry. Seriously.
But even more seriously, yes - sure, that's fair enough.
But it seems odd to me to dismiss a player in a first round match because he's below the highest level - in a draft with multiple blocks. As in, he's a top notch player as such, and a good tactical fit, but he's simply not good enough. That sounds more like "final worthy" talk to me.
Highest level are the top teams in the world so competing against or for them at highest level against other top teams via knockout CL stages or top leagues(Spain and England through Ibra's time).
Dont know where i rate Sindelar tbh as there is no footage of him nor i am that familiar with that era of football so have no clue how highly rated were Mitropa Cup or CEIC so even on paper i can really make a proper decision but i said that many times, older/classic players get a much easier ride then the modern ones without any footage where you cant actually see them play.
Problem with Ibra is that IMO he needs to be that main player, he plays that way and acts that way and its obvious he thinks of him very highly which isnt a bad thing tbf but thats the reason why at this level id rather go with lesser player that will have no problems with sacrificing himself for the team and providing support for the proper greats.
Its a first round game yes but its a all-time draft, team and player quality are higher then in your usual top tier game so it doesnt really matter is it a first round game or a final, i look whats the quality on the pitch.
Imo Ibra is getting under rated, but i guess it comes down to personal opinion in the end. He's not Pele level but has been consistently one of the best strikers of his generation with a complete skillset and performed pretty much everywhere he's been. I also think he's comparable and even better than some of the other strikers picked in this draft e.g Batistuta, Rooney, Neymar, Totti, Bergkamp, Lewandoski, Papin etc .
Last edited: