Remake Draft R16 | Raees vs harms

[Chesterlestreet]

Actually I gave harms the blueprint of a random CL match (quarter final) from 1995 so as to ensure that Kluivert was in the blueprint as opposed to De Boer, who imo was a rather difficult and an unique player to recreate (several players of that ilk in this draft but an utility player with the versatility of De Boer was something else imo, as reflected by the discussion on his role in harm's last match). Kluivert was a relatively more feasible recreation as such and he was thus assigned to the Ajax blueprint.

Aha - well, that makes it somewhat different. I thought he was in because of the - well - story of the '95 final: It would've been a bit awkward NOT having him there, given how the match went.

Anyway, I think enough has been said about this - the Seedorf/Kluivert pair aren't entirely unproblematic, I suppose that will have to be the conclusion. But I still feel that including the '95 team was the right call - we had to have a Dutch side, and it was (actually) the best alternative. It was either that or Holland '78, I think (anything with Cruyff in it was impossible).

 

[Enigma_87]

Aha - well, that makes it somewhat different. I thought he was in because of the - well - story of the '95 final: It would've been a bit awkward NOT having him there, given how the match went.

Anyway, I think enough has been said about this - the Seedorf/Kluivert pair aren't entirely unproblematic, I suppose that will have to be the conclusion. But I still feel that including the '95 team was the right call - we had to have a Dutch side, and it was (actually) the best alternative. It was either that or Holland '78, I think (anything with Cruyff in it was impossible).

hmmm, what about the Dutch in 1988 winning the EURO's under Michels:

 

[Chesterlestreet]

hmmm, what about the Dutch in 1988 winning the EURO's under Michels:

Don't think that was ever considered, actually - which it could have been, of course, but the most obvious argument against it is that all its high profile players were already represented (Gu-Ba-Ri for Sacchi's Milan and Koeman for the Dream Team).

 

[harms]

Actually I gave harms the blueprint of a random CL match (quarter final) from 1995 so as to ensure that Kluivert was in the blueprint as opposed to De Boer, who imo was a rather difficult and an unique player to recreate (several players of that ilk in this draft but an utility player with the versatility of De Boer was something else imo, as reflected by the discussion on his role in harm's last match). Kluivert was a relatively more feasible recreation as such and he was thus assigned to the Ajax blueprint.

Kluivert and Seedorf shall be chosen

http://www.transfermarkt.com/spielbericht/index/spielbericht/1019796



However, I do agree that Kluivert wasn't exactly a crucial player for them, nor a critical cog for them in the LVG's machinery - as opposed to the likes of Rijkaard, Blind, Litmanen etc. Whilst Kluivert was the safe and straightforward choice, I definitely think he was up-gradable in that system and someone like Lewandowski, who boasts the same impressive all-round game that Kluivert did - albeit to a higher level - could have easily slotted in seamlessly there. Hard to go wrong with Kluivert though, obviously.

Haven't considered Lewa as the first four or five picks in my ideal XI were from Bayern anyway
But yeah, Kluivert is one of the easiest players to replace in that side. Seedorf was much tougher, but still not at Platini/Matthaus level obv