It's a basic mistake to assume that, it usually just means a teamsheet has been matched, more than the tactics and execution. E.g. see how "Brazil 82" played nothing like Brazil 82 in the last draft.
RedCafe Sheep Draft - Jayvin vs Thisistheone
- Thread starter Moby
- Start date
It's a basic mistake to assume that, it usually just means a teamsheet has been matched, more than the tactics and execution. E.g. see how "Brazil 82" played nothing like Brazil 82 in the last draft.
It's more likely that he starts defending your team and then votes against you in the end.
Very much so, which is why my voting looks odd at times. I stick up for the absent manager being a timezone-aware manager myself. Doesn't necessarily mean I'll vote that team
Like I said, TITO got tricked into 'I want to keep possession' and it exposed the flaws in his team.
Finding your views quite interesting here Balu, what were the weaknesses that were exposed?
Defensively there were concerns no doubt, but firstly I get the impression that wasn't what you were on about and secondly those were overplayed. The most dominant midfield of the last twenty years has been a duo of Xavi and Iniesta ahead of one defensive midfielder, and of course it only seems a matter of time before this Bayern side begin smashing records with midfields of Kroos and Gotze, for example, ahead of a single defensive midfielder. So I'm not sure what the big issue here was - in fact I would argue that Scholes/Deco is better defensively that both of those partnerships.
From reading your posts though the concern you have seems to be something to do with countering, or the team trying to keep possession. It sounds an interesting point man but I'm not too sure I understand it fully. There seems to be a general argument in there that you can't dominate possession and counter attack - this is not true. In general these drafts have a very strange tendency to portray any side that says they'll dominate the ball as trying to imitate Barcelona and tika takka it across the pitch, which is of course ludicrous. You can play technical football and knock it around whilst also counter attacking.
Scholes played this way. In the majority of games Scholes would dominate the ball and spray it around the pitch, but United were still a counter attacking side. Deco was very similar, that Ronaldinho era Barcelona side were nothing like this one and didn't employ the same tempo or approach to the build up - with players like Henry, Ronaldinho and Eto'o they were fantastic on the counter attack. This didn't stop Deco controlling the ball.
The point here is that you can play nice, intricate football and still transition quickly. It isn't one or the other.
Do you consider Bayern a team that doesn't counter well?
This has been dead for ages now. Bump!
I kind fo saw this as an easy win for Jayvin. Complete turn of events. This is a close one
Jay's gone to sleep so its difficult to say too much now when he can't defend himself.
I'll just end today with some words on Totti. He was afterall the man I wanted to build my side around from the moment the draft began.
Totti was always meant to be the facilitator. That is, to get the best out of those around him while also doing his own thing that has made him one of the Italian greats. The players in the side suit him down to the ground imo. Suarez inparticular will revel in a side where Totti is, basically orcastrating.
He's been an incredibly gifted footballer. He made his Roma debut at 16, scored his first Serie A goal at 17. Captained the side aged 21. A truely unique talent that we may not see the like of again.
In regards to this particular draft game,playing in a side that has Suarez, Savicevic, Scholes, De Rossi and a mean & proven back line, he would achieve something very special.
Totti was always meant to be the facilitator. That is, to get the best out of those around him while also doing his own thing that has made him one of the Italian greats. The players in the side suit him down to the ground imo. Suarez inparticular will revel in a side where Totti is, basically orcastrating.
He's been an incredibly gifted footballer. He made his Roma debut at 16, scored his first Serie A goal at 17. Captained the side aged 21. A truely unique talent that we may not see the like of again.
In regards to this particular draft game,playing in a side that has Suarez, Savicevic, Scholes, De Rossi and a mean & proven back line, he would achieve something very special.
I think I called it flaws, not weaknesses. Mainly, I saw problems with the roles the midfielders have to play in that particular set-up and how to get the fullbacks involved in the game.
I agree with this and I never said anything different. Your post is slightly confusing, you use so many different examples, but I try to answer. Let me know if I misunderstood something or didn't answer the question you were asking
.First of all, I don't really understand your comparisons to Barca's midfield in recent years (or Bayern's at the moment). The key defensive concept in these teams was a high defensive line with pressing as a huge team effort. It was about controling the space and demanded a fair share of defensive work from every single player. It doesn't matter if Deco/Scholes individually offer more defensively than Xavi/Iniesta if they have different roles to play in defense.
Maybe there's a bit of a problem with the (or my) definition of counter-attacking football. Quick transitions after forcing the opponent to loose the ball is a very active way of defending and attacking. In my opinion, counter-attacking describes soaking up pressure to force the opponent to commit more players in attack, which opens up gaps in his defense that you can exploit. It's a reactive strategy. Of course teams often can do both, but usually one is the plan, the other happens incidentally.
Neither has necessarily to do with dominating possession though. I really hate Guardiola's Barca for putting so much focus on those meaningless possession stats. Teams can control the pace of the game with and without the ball, play wonderful technical football with 40% possession and boring football with 60%. A team is successful when possession has a purpose and can be used efficiently.
Last season we were an exeptional counter-attacking team, this season not so much. We're still great in transition, but we rarely play a game like for example last season against Barca.
I hope that answers your question(s)?
the problem with the midfield though was that it was up against a better set up one, which would have completely controlled the match and still will in my opinion.
I strongly disagree. And I'm getting a bit fed up of going over and over the same thing here.
This Baraja, seedorf boban and Deschamps love in is incredible, it really is. None if these would lay a claim to being one of Utd's best ever players of the last twenty years. This is the calibre of player we're talking about here with Scholes.
I'm honestly stunned I'm having to stick up for players as brilliant as Scholes, Deco, Mascherano, Totti and De Rossi. It's as if I'm playing against Rijkaard, Didi, Falcao and Zico.
I think I called it flaws, not weaknesses. Mainly, I saw problems with the roles the midfielders have to play in that particular set-up and how to get the fullbacks involved in the game.
I agree with this and I never said anything different. Your post is slightly confusing, you use so many different examples, but I try to answer. Let me know if I misunderstood something or didn't answer the question you were asking
First of all, I don't really understand your comparisons to Barca's midfield in recent years (or Bayern's at the moment). The key defensive concept in these teams was a high defensive line with pressing as a huge team effort. It was about controling the space and demanded a fair share of defensive work from every single player. It doesn't matter if Deco/Scholes individually offer more defensively than Xavi/Iniesta if they have different roles to play in defense.
Maybe there's a bit of a problem with the (or my) definition of counter-attacking football. Quick transitions after forcing the opponent to loose the ball is a very active way of defending and attacking. In my opinion, counter-attacking describes soaking up pressure to force the opponent to commit more players in attack, which opens up gaps in his defense that you can exploit. It's a reactive strategy. Of course teams often can do both, but usually one is the plan, the other happens incidentally.
Neither has necessarily to do with dominating possession though. I really hate Guardiola's Barca for putting so much focus on those meaningless possession stats. Teams can control the pace of the game with and without the ball, play wonderful technical football with 40% possession and boring football with 60%. A team is successful when possession has a purpose and can be used efficiently.
Last season we were an exeptional counter-attacking team, this season not so much. We're still great in transition, but we rarely play a game like for example last season against Barca.
I hope that answers your question(s)?
I'm still trying to full understand what you were/are saying, I think I have a better idea but I can't pinpoint what the problem is. I agree with the comment on pointless possession. I do think we were using a slightly different definition of counter attacking, because I was never talking about sitting deep and defending the box before launching a counter. That isn't usually how top sides play. I guess a big question would be why that sort of deep, pure counter attacking was ever brought up in the first place? Is that how you saw his side playing? I thought the description and the team looked like a more natural fit with a much more offensive style that that.
Anyway moving on, you called it weaknesses here! But yeah, specifically I was wondering what they were. You say there was a problem with the roles, what do you specifically mean by that? I've always rated your opinion but I just can't get my head around this. There was nothing wrong with it IMO - though I think for votes he probably made the right move in changing it. Solidity seems to go very far in these drafts.
We seem to be discussing two main points, the first is whether defensively that midfield three was okay, the second is the issue you had with countering/possession football. I don't understand the problem with the latter - the former I've already suggested was over stated and would really be repeating myself. In brief the reason I mentioned these midfields,
----- Kroos --- Gotze -----
----------- Lahm --------
------ Xavi --- Iniesta ----
--------- Busquets -----
Is because they were so successful i.e instead of trying to say you could 'get by' with an offensively minded midfield, I was suggesting you can completely dominate. These teams didn't win in spite of a weak midfield - they just were fantastic set ups and they have/are breaking records left, right and centre. Hence it isn't an inherently bad way of playing. Hopefully that makes it clear why I used them.
The comment then became that Deco and Scholes offer as much defensively as both of those parings, so it shouldnt be seen as a liability. I agree that the reason Barcelona were so successful defensively was the use of a high press, but I'm not sure why a similar assumption is not made for this team. To be clear - I don't think this team would use a press as incredibly high as Barcelona's (and if they were going to then TITO needed to mention it) but it wouldn't need to in order to cope defensively. A normal-to-high line with pretty standard tactics would work fine here, there isn't really anything special required IMO.
But anyway, the main part of my post was really responding to the second point though - the issue/question over a possession game vs quick breaks. As I said Scholes and Deco both played in teams in which they controlled the play but still utilised counter attacks with quick transitions - this has been a part of United's play for years (less so now), and Barcelona pre-Pep were the same. When TITO said Scholes and Deco were going to control the play that does not mean they would play a slow tempo style or not utilise the counter attacking of Suarez/Savicevic. Bascially I think there is a tendency in these drafts to assume that any comment suggesting a side will try and keep the ball immediately = Pep's Barcelona tika takka, when it is rarely as extreme as that. If Scholes just played his usual, standard United style then he would look to knock the ball about but still initiate quick attacks.
The confusion I had with your post is what you were meaning with this general point, I think your exact words were that he got "sucked into keeping possession" instead of countering.
If you mean countering as in literally sitting deep and soaking up possession then I dont think his team would ever have done that and he never suggested it would, that I can see. It really wouldn't suit the midfield so it would be a strange one. If you just mean countering the way that teams like United have countered, with quick breaks and fast attacks - then keeping possession doesn't stop this from happening. I think you agree with this which brings me back to the issue you actually had with it.
Last edited:
It's nothing new, mate. Scholes has never been appreciated in these drafts, and I cannot understand why. Such a unique player, rarely matched by anyone in ability or style over two decades. You see players and coaches all around the globe raving about how good he was, we all saw how good he was day in day out. It's a bit tragic yeah.
I really get your frustration, and I've been there myself. Statements like Baraja will take him out or Seedorf would take him out are just simply rubbish, that ain't gonna happen, as good as players they were. When you have a player like Scholes in the team you know you are gonna have the control of the game more often than not, and it would take a great effort by the opposition to stop that from happening. But it gets taken for granted and Scholesy's reduced to someone who would just be playing diagonals while in reality he took the game by the scruff of it's neck, a lot of times against quality opposition and changed it completely.
I like the change as well, while I didn't particularly see a massive issue in both Deco and Scholes starting, he did look a bit surplus to the needs and having someone like Mascherano does give more balance. Plus if you consider Masch's ability to slot into defense when the fullbacks bomb forward it makes even more sense.
Thanks for posting that. Was beginning to think I was insane. It really has baffled me reading some posters here and how much it's effected the vote count.
I think I called it flaws, not weaknesses. Mainly, I saw problems with the roles the midfielders have to play in that particular set-up and how to get the fullbacks involved in the game.
I agree with this and I never said anything different. Your post is slightly confusing, you use so many different examples, but I try to answer. Let me know if I misunderstood something or didn't answer the question you were asking
First of all, I don't really understand your comparisons to Barca's midfield in recent years (or Bayern's at the moment). The key defensive concept in these teams was a high defensive line with pressing as a huge team effort. It was about controling the space and demanded a fair share of defensive work from every single player. It doesn't matter if Deco/Scholes individually offer more defensively than Xavi/Iniesta if they have different roles to play in defense.
Maybe there's a bit of a problem with the (or my) definition of counter-attacking football. Quick transitions after forcing the opponent to loose the ball is a very active way of defending and attacking. In my opinion, counter-attacking describes soaking up pressure to force the opponent to commit more players in attack, which opens up gaps in his defense that you can exploit. It's a reactive strategy. Of course teams often can do both, but usually one is the plan, the other happens incidentally.
Neither has necessarily to do with dominating possession though. I really hate Guardiola's Barca for putting so much focus on those meaningless possession stats. Teams can control the pace of the game with and without the ball, play wonderful technical football with 40% possession and boring football with 60%. A team is successful when possession has a purpose and can be used efficiently.
Last season we were an exeptional counter-attacking team, this season not so much. We're still great in transition, but we rarely play a game like for example last season against Barca.
I hope that answers your question(s)?
I've no idea what you are talking about. What question? I agree with very much all of it though.
I agree with most of what you've written there. Re my issues. Aldo said it perfectly here:
I think you focus way too much on controling the game and forgot that you're up against a damn strong well balanced midfield and need to win the ball back a lot.
I think Aldo is pretty much spot on though and I wouldn't disagree with him much there - I said myself I can see the logic is TITO moving to Mascherano.
I didn't think that was at all what you were talking about though. Specifically it has nothing to do with the countering/possession stuff you were saying, how he was 'sucked into keeping possession'. This was the main thing I was confused and curious about. It doesn't matter though, it seems like we agree anyway so maybe we were just on different wave lengths there.
Deco and Scholes could still play quick football, is my point. Knocking it about doesn't preclude a midfield from doing that - footall is a more fluid and flexible game. Scholes himself was an absolute master at controlling the game in that way - he would knock it around for five or six passes before just spontaneously threading a through ball or hitting a cross field 40 yard pass to instigate an attack.
Seriously? He was awesome for me in the 70s draft. The problem usually is that people play a 4-2-3-1 with Scholes as one of the two and little support/protection (usually an uber attacking fullback-winger combo on the left which makes you look for whether the CM will cover and you go "oh, bollocks, poor Paul").
He is absolutely fine here and pretty much running the show for Tito. Paring him with Deco made them look a defensive liability and it is a testament to Paul's quality that no one sees any need for Deco to be in there at all.
For some reason being able to win the ball back is no longer part of controlling a game. Nope, you just need good passers so that you never lose it. Barca/Spain have fried people's brains, it's like a hundred years of football went out of the window in the space of 4-5 years.
Ignore it like you do with the question
Oh, I get it now.
I read that twice and kept wondering "what the feck is he yapping on about?" It's been a bit of up and down for him, more down than up I'd say. You used him in a very particular way like you said, but again that's my point, what's the issue in him being in a 4-2-3-1? Why do you need 2-3 hardworkers/teamplayers/whatever to surround him to bring the best out of him? I don't get why he's seen that way. Was he lazy? Ever? Not a chance. He played in a 2 man midfield and yes while Giggs and Becks did plenty to support, he also played in a 2 man midfield later when we had all out attacking players like Cristiano. I really don't remember it ever affecting him that he only has one ball winner next to him, that's plenty more than he needs.
As I said when you have a player like Scholes you are inevitably going to see most of the ball, that's exactly what he was great at, that's why when Guardiola was asked which player he would take from United if he had to choose one he said Scholes without hesitating for a second, because he sees the same "keep the ball" philosophy running in him, and given how intelligent Scholes was, even when he's not creating chances or pinging it around he would always manage to keep possession. People are saying he won't do much in getting the ball back which is rubbish as he was a massively hard working player who did everything to close down as soon as he lost the ball, and more importantly he won't have to win at those many times because it is him who is going to dominate the game, the proceedings, the possession. It is the opposition, that has to worry and put men across to ensure they win the ball enough times when they are playing Scholes, never the other way round.
Here he's playing against the likes of Baraja, Boban and Seedorf, all excellent players and without a doubt a good match as a unit but the argument that Scholes will be chasing them to win the ball is outrageous, at least for me.
But do you agree that you don't have to win it every single minute if you are the one dominating possession, controlling the game and dictating play?
It's not like there's no ball winner here, is it? There's De Rossi and Mascherano who came on. Which I agreed was a better option than having another playmaker on the pitch but it shouldn't be made out as everything will fall apart if that wasn't the case.
We are both talking of two extremes though, you are giving way too much emphasis on work rate, running around, the old fashioned British eye candy on a football pitch who covers every blade of glass always being preferred.
When it comes to brains or brawn, I always, always, go for brains, more so in football.
Went with TITO.
Read the points made in the thread and plenty of good ones from both the sides but I'm not completely sold on Jayvin's midfield like everyone else. It's an overkill for me and to top it off you need someone better than Boban was, with all due respect because without any width you'd need that player to do more or less most of the creative work. And there's not much source from creativity from deep either with the lack of a deep lying playmaker. The midfield won't be run over and will have plenty of energy but when it comes to going forward it lacks the edge you need.
While on the other hand Tito has a lot more threat going forward. He is using Totti very well which I am glad of and if he starts getting into his groove which is set up quite well here he can really be the match winner you need in such a tight affair.
Read the points made in the thread and plenty of good ones from both the sides but I'm not completely sold on Jayvin's midfield like everyone else. It's an overkill for me and to top it off you need someone better than Boban was, with all due respect because without any width you'd need that player to do more or less most of the creative work. And there's not much source from creativity from deep either with the lack of a deep lying playmaker. The midfield won't be run over and will have plenty of energy but when it comes to going forward it lacks the edge you need.
While on the other hand Tito has a lot more threat going forward. He is using Totti very well which I am glad of and if he starts getting into his groove which is set up quite well here he can really be the match winner you need in such a tight affair.
Damn right.
That's all I have to say at the moment. Ain't in the mood, really. Will try to swing by again tomorrow before the poll closes, though.
Jayvin is going to sub off a forward for Liam Miller to win this
Jeez, I'd been following the draft (fleetingly, may I add) and was interested to see how the final line-ups looked. This match-up is a real corker. Either one could win it; it's really that hard to call.
I went for Tito in the end, purely because that back five is superb (I'm a sucker for Juventus defences of the '90s) and I can see Savicevic and Suarez causing havoc up the other end. Shearer and Ibrahimovic are a heck of a frontline in their own right, but I fancy the Juve defence to at least hold their own there.
Incredibly tight game, but Tito for me.
Just.
I went for Tito in the end, purely because that back five is superb (I'm a sucker for Juventus defences of the '90s) and I can see Savicevic and Suarez causing havoc up the other end. Shearer and Ibrahimovic are a heck of a frontline in their own right, but I fancy the Juve defence to at least hold their own there.
Incredibly tight game, but Tito for me.
Just.
One thing I find funny in these drafts is if one side lines up with a lot of flair players, or play makers, it's instantly labelled over kill, and rightly so. But when a team lines up with too many ball winners or grafters, it's not?
On the caf you can get away with three defensive minded midfielders. Play two creative players though and it's suicide.
There's a real lack of creativity in Jays midfield. Nothing coming from deep. Deschamps won't create. Baraja won't and seedorf won't. They're all busy trying to win the ball back apparently. That's huge pressure on Boban and with the lack of width it all gets a bit crowded in there and fizzles out for him.
On the caf you can get away with three defensive minded midfielders. Play two creative players though and it's suicide.
There's a real lack of creativity in Jays midfield. Nothing coming from deep. Deschamps won't create. Baraja won't and seedorf won't. They're all busy trying to win the ball back apparently. That's huge pressure on Boban and with the lack of width it all gets a bit crowded in there and fizzles out for him.
Good man! Finally some love for the Juve back line.
Eventually went with Tito, Scholes is the best midfielder on the pitch and has the requisite support around him in order for him to control the game.
It would be tight, but he would be the difference for my money.
It would be tight, but he would be the difference for my money.
Come on, a real lack of creativity!? Seedorf and Boban are both creative players and Seedorf can make something happen from deeper positions while Boban can drift around at will to exploit any space left when TITOs fullbacks get forward.
Baraja can play box to box and with his energy is more than capable of getting forward and troubling TITOs backline.
Also, going back to what Balu was saying about my fullbacks needing to track TITOs wide men when they start their runs from deep, I don't really think that is necessary to be honest. TITO only has Totti in the centre, and he's got Deschamps for company. So if TITOs men stay wide, it's not really a threat - what are they going to do, cross it in for Totti?
All Hierro and Thuram need to do is pick them up when they cut inside. Let's say Suarez is attacking down the right, Thuram can track him and even push out to RB himself because TITO has no presence in the centre that pins my defenders back. So I think my fullbacks will be able to get forward quite a bit more than everyone initially thought.
All Hierro and Thuram need to do is pick them up when they cut inside. Let's say Suarez is attacking down the right, Thuram can track him and even push out to RB himself because TITO has no presence in the centre that pins my defenders back. So I think my fullbacks will be able to get forward quite a bit more than everyone initially thought.
Jeez this is close, only 1 vote in it at the moment. Penalties?
Sure, but do remember most games "dominating possession" is a 60-40 matter. The other 40 can get much closer to 50 if you aren't well set to get it back.
I never said it all fell apart, I just said Deco looked unnecessary and that he would be better off playing Mascherano. Nothing else.
Where exactly did I do that? Where have I criticised any of the midfielders on either side? All I've said was one unit was a bit lightweight and would likely require dragging di Livio into the midfield. I have had nothing but praise for Scholes. I was even the first (by an entire page) to point out better DMs than Baraja couldn't cope with Scholes.
You are completely making shit up now.
I'm not saying any of them compare to Scholes, but they certainly don't lack creativity. What a load of toss. Ever heard of a "complete midfielder"? They tend to be able to do more than one thing. You are painting these guys as if they were some sort of one-dimensional Claude Makelele.
And, by the way, quite a few teams got criticised during the drafting for lacking creativity or lacking it in the right places.
I don't care about the percentage, with Scholes on the pitch most of the time it is the team with him who will have the ball in midfield, percentages are covered up by having possession elsewhere, but I cannot see Baraja, Seedorf and Boban having more possession in midfield than Scholes, De Rossi and Deco/Masch.
Moreover, who in Jayvin's team is controlling the tempo if they do get the ball? That diamond really doesn't make sense to me. When Milan implied it, they had a deep lying playmaker, an absolutely exceptional one, at the heart of it which made it work. There was no way it would have worked without him. You need a true genius to manouver the ball in such tight spaces when everything is congested and someone who can boast of not just vision and creativity but also the ability to dictate the tempo. Scholes is that player, he will enjoy every bit of the battle and the fact that the ball is most often being played in the area he is dominating.
How does a diamond with a DM at the back and two energetic midfielders on the side work in terms of breaking up the opposition? Nevermind there's Gary Neville a fullback cum CB asked to provide width, and attacking wingbacks are absolutely essential to a diamond, a correct one that is.
It just looks like 4 CMs lumped in together with a lack of clear strategy or plan on how to open up the opposition defense. Relying on Boban for that doesn't do it for me, nor does he have enough options to do that.
As for the lightweight part, I don't agree it was lightweight. I agreed that he didn't need Deco there which is a different issue but it was not at all defensively lightweight. It's cringeworthy to think Scholes would need at least two more defensive minded players with him when he made a career out of playing alongside a box to box midfielder.
Nor does every team need an out and out DM. The Barca team you are so obsessed with that played under Cruyff, did they have a dedicated ball winner? They did fine with having a deep lying playmaker and central midfielders who would more than help out and close down the space, well enough.
I think you are being a bit pedantic, what he clearly meant was that vision, creativity and unlocking a packed defense isn't their strengths, more so without the right setup. I am a big fan of Baraja and followed him at Valencia throughout his career but isn't really gonna provide what the team is missing here. The midfield is good enough technically to pass the ball around but without any sort of ideas on what to do next.
From what I see, the midfield is actualy Scholes/Di Rossi vs Baraja/Seedorf. Deschamps will be watching Totti and Mascherano doing the same for Boban.
The difference being the forwards of Jayvin vs inside forwards of Tito.
Also with the abuse on Valencia and Young in real life, I surprisingly find width ridiculously overrated in here. Whenever somebody sees a diamond, it is an reflex comment that the team will suffer from lack of width and defaults to full back discussions irrespectives of the make up of the diamond. Both formations have their positives and negatives, but in here it seems lack of width is a genuine flaw rather than a different strategy.
The difference being the forwards of Jayvin vs inside forwards of Tito.
Also with the abuse on Valencia and Young in real life, I surprisingly find width ridiculously overrated in here. Whenever somebody sees a diamond, it is an reflex comment that the team will suffer from lack of width and defaults to full back discussions irrespectives of the make up of the diamond. Both formations have their positives and negatives, but in here it seems lack of width is a genuine flaw rather than a different strategy.
As on all of my previous draft, I love seeing those no. 10s who can play interchangebly across the attack. That's how I see Savicevic-Totti-Suarez capable of, and make it hard to man-mark any of them.
Surprisingly this isn't discussed by TITO as one of his strongest point.
But the same can be said about Seedorf and Boban, who both really versatile and can provide width if necessary.
Surprisingly this isn't discussed by TITO as one of his strongest point.
But the same can be said about Seedorf and Boban, who both really versatile and can provide width if necessary.