A midfield with Neeskens, Didi and Hierro doesn't have the legs to win the ball back? Really? Neeskens is the best and fittest midfielder on the park. Hierro was a box-to-box machine for most of the 1990s, demonstrating his engine by getting on the end of countless runs to score. Didi won two World Cups playing in a midfield two. See no issues with the design of our midfield three - looks well set to take control of the game and provide the platform for our wingers to feed Golden Head.
Road Trip Draft II 1st Round: GSTQ vs Gio
- Thread starter Moby
- Start date
What? You do see that Big Dunc is on the pitch right?
And I mention again, he was an attacking B2B, not a defensive one. When it comes to winning the ball back, he is 3rd behind Edwards and Bastian.
Again, he is your DM. We are talking about winning the ball back. I don't see how the goals he scored or his runs are relevant. I have already harped on about his lack of mobility to win it back.
Firstly, national team performances don't count and secondly, he had Zagallo there who constantly made it a midfield three. In fact, Zagallo worked harder than Didi.
I don't even see this as a competition when it comes to winning the ball back.
Obviously you wont agree, so lets leave it to the neutrals again
Gio, how much of Joya have you honestly watched? If you think he is rigid, I already know the answer to that question
Damn, I am late. I'll be back in a couple of hours.
Hopefully the remaining of the couple other voters who I know will as always vote against me are done too with their votes by the time I am back 
Been a fun discussion so far.
Been a fun discussion so far.
Yes, Neeskens is the best and fittest midfielder on the park. Ask your man Cruyff.
Nah you questioned his legs - which are perfectly fine when he played in different midfield roles including that of a box-to-box midfielder. Now you've shifted the goalposts to his ball-winning ability - well he's pretty good at that too, being the only midfielder on the park who is just as comfortable in defence - where you have to able to win the ball and read the game. And is he a proactive player who reads the game well? Yes, quite clearly.
Not really problem solved, is it.
True that. Although 2/10 is much easier than 6 or 7/10 to plan for.Not really problem solved, is it.
13th actually, but to be fair I rate him highly enough.Regarding Dzajic giving Gerets twisted blood, I love Dzajic too much to say he won't have any influence here but I think a slow aged Dzajic would be contained well enough by Gerets who wasn't a defensive nut. In fact, even on the counters, peak Gerets would have enough time to catch a slow Dzajic. There is a reason why everyone including you added him in their Top 10 right backs of all time
But I don't think he's good enough to stop Dzajic, who's unfairly getting a hard time here. I'd accept that the pinnacle of his career would have been Euro '68, but there's nothing to suggest in the footage I've watched and accounts I've read from the 29-year-old Dzajic at Bastia to indicate he wasn't anything but the finest winger in the game. He was never a kick-and-run speedster - he always preferred to twist the full-back inside and out. As well as providing that stream of crosses, he could also cut inside and link up with his striker - both avenues would be relished by Kocsis. So the footage you see of him at Euro '76 is the same tricky and inventive style of play he had at Euro '68.
The post-peak narrative doesn't stack up IMO and if you want to bring international tournament performances into it to justify that line of argument, then it's worth noting that he scored against both Holland and West Germany that summer - the two best teams in the world - and shone to the point where he got another Team of the Tournament nomination. After causing Vogts and Suurbier all sorts of problems, even him mugging off Camacho in a famous piece of skill was only a couple of months before he moved to Ligue Un. All of that was either midway through or around his spell in France so there's very little evidence to suggest he had some sort of early fall from grace I'm afraid. Even moreso when we take into account the high praise he received from the French for his talismanic performances there.
France Football said:
Report after Bastia's 4-0 win over OM said:
France Football in 1977 said:
Bastia midfielder Pierre Cazuhac said:
Bastia striker Claude Papi said:
Not a lot of footage of Bastia online, but in addition to the PSG game where he just looks unplayable, have a gander at this gorgeous free-kick against St Etienne (1.05) - and worth a watch at his kicky-uppy fest at 1.37.
Plenty of sexy wing play away to Lyon here:
I don't think it's unfair at all. He was 30+ years old. Almost any footage of that time shows Dzajic lost most of his pace. Almost looks like a playmaker at times although could still pull strings from the wings.
When you consider his peak, this is nothing. Not even a patch on that. For comparison, he was 3rd in Ballon Dor list in 1968 and not even in the top 50 in 1976.
Now to say Gerets, who spent all his peak physically prime years in Belgium, who won the best player of the Belgium first division in 1982 from right back, is not good enough to stop an old slow Dzajic makes it quite apparent as to who is getting treated unfairly there.
Last edited:
Not really problem solved, is it.
Feck, that should have been my first response
So you are still going to stick to 2/10 and not 3/10? Give Joya a chance mate, watch that video.
And unless you are playing Total Football, all the fluidity in the attack comes from the players behind the strikers in most football teams. Only once in decades GOAT teams have 6-7 unpredictable players to plan for. You don't even have one every era. Not really normalcy to expect any team to have 6-7 unpredictable players even in the biggest games or teams of the generation
Reading the game well is what you expect of a reactive player. A proactive player needs to do a lot more and constantly close down his opponent. If you expect Hierro to do that all over the pitch following Cruyff, we have not watched the same Hierro.
I guess this is another thing the neutrals could weigh in on. How do the neutrals see the Cruyff vs Hierro battle?
Voted for GSTQ, mostly because I like the thought of Cruyff and Muller playing together. Two excellent teams by the way.
EDIT: Chumpitaz vs Kocsis almost swung it the other way for me.
EDIT: Chumpitaz vs Kocsis almost swung it the other way for me.
Sorry but this narrative about Dzajic is completely unfounded. If you can find some testimony from Ligue Un that backs up what you’re saying then that would be fair enough. But every piece of research is nothing but glowing about his level and effusive in its praise from that period. It would be no different from me banging on about the young and raw Gullit or the young and inexperienced Edwards in every post.
Except I don't have any negative narrative. All I say is he had slowed down and was not at his peak anymore. He wasn't the blistering fast winger who could turn the best of defenders at will. He was not an all time great winger.
That doesn't mean he was anywhere near bad. He still had a great cross on him based on what I have seen from those years, could still pull a few tricks, his free kick was as sharp as ever and he was a psuedo playmaker at times.
None of that paints a negative picture. Comparing his 3rd in Ballon Dor in 1968 to not even in top 50 in 1976 is a fact, not an opinion.
It's not uncommon for great players to do well even beyond their 30s. Take Ibra, scored 20+ with United. He was still nowhere near his prime was he?
Last edited:
No Hierro isn’t going to follow Cruyff all over the park. He’ll be passed on. That way we keep a compact structure off the ball, Hierro mopping up any space in front of the defence, with Neeskens and Didi in close attendance. And with Zanetti, Bergomi and Neeskens all on Cruyff’s favourite side, I see no easy way through.
If by proactive player you mean a man marker who follows Cruyff all over the pitch, then that’s not really how modern football works. Everyone operates zonally as it’s more efficient in covering space and doesn’t leave gaps for the opposition to exploit. Now Cruyff could have a Vogts style man marker, but I don’t think it’s optimal here given the calibre of the defence [the best RB and 2 best CBs on the park behind] or the ball-retaining quality of the midfield ahead. Any man marking gig disrupts the ability of teams to take control of the game with the ball, which is why it is typically used best by reactive teams.
But Dzajic wasn’t 35 when he joined Bastia, he was 29.
And Ibra is a weird example - his peak probably was around that Milan/PSG period when he was older than Dzajic was when he joined Bastia.
Countless players maintain their peak to 29-31. Very few don’t unless they’ve been ravaged by injury or not looked after themselves. Even one of the French reports I read from the time praised his physical condition.
The passing on part is easier said than done, especially in midfield. Below is why I feel so
1. Cruyff is not the only midfielder on the pitch who is good on the ball. There is Bastian and Edwards too. So the whole midfield can't just operate trying to contain Cruyff's movement as that will free up the others.
2. Hence a bit of man marking is needed even in zonal midfields when it comes to dealing with the Cruyff's, Di Stefanos and Charltons of the world.
3. Even in zonal systems, the three players need to be mobile enough. I don't consider Hierro mobile enough.
I would still love hearing from neutrals rather than you and me repeating stuff while both of us not backing down. Obviously one of us is not in the right on the subject
Ibra was a fitness freak with a God body. Dzajic was from an era when players retired or slowed too down way too early as compared to these days. Dzajic retired aged 32. That should be an indication enough.
And again, slow players don't mean they are in bad physical condition. He played 30+ games in both seasons and that shows having a fit body. It's not an indication of his speed or peak.
There is video evidence on YouTube to say he was not that fast anymore and there is a distinct difference between his late 60s and mid 70s videos.
Anyone who wants to check them out and verify what I am saying just needs to enter Dzajic on YouTube. Trust your eyes rather than 2 vote hungry drafter's
Very tough to separate here. Two well crafted teams and either of them deserve to go forward.
To me the difference was Kocsis against Chumpitaz/McGrath as others also said and Dzajic vs Gerets - Gio should have advantage there.
On the other hand I can understand Cruyff being passed on and not man marked but GSTQ has an advantage there.
At the end Gio would probably edge it just as I can see his forwards troubling the opposition back line a tad more.
Passarella is a good fit against Muller and can see Neeskens/Hierro as a collective effort slowing the opposition midfield down.
That and personal favorite flank - Zanetti/Garrincha is also something I've done in the past and to me is still nothing short of brilliant.
To me the difference was Kocsis against Chumpitaz/McGrath as others also said and Dzajic vs Gerets - Gio should have advantage there.
On the other hand I can understand Cruyff being passed on and not man marked but GSTQ has an advantage there.
At the end Gio would probably edge it just as I can see his forwards troubling the opposition back line a tad more.
Passarella is a good fit against Muller and can see Neeskens/Hierro as a collective effort slowing the opposition midfield down.
That and personal favorite flank - Zanetti/Garrincha is also something I've done in the past and to me is still nothing short of brilliant.
This is probably semi-final worthy match-up looking at the strength of both teams.
Can see Cruyff giving problems to Hierro. Not to the extent he will walk all over him, but it is a bit of unfortunate match up. And not only in the defensive phase, Cruyff aggressivity will somewhat unable Hierro to provide intended platform at the base of the midfield which was gio plan all along.
Since my opinion is that the one who grabs hold of the midfield will have more chance I would have already voted for GSTQ, but then again gio has Passarella from behind too.
Very tough, Cruyff at 10 is a brilliant choice though. Will follow discussion.
Can see Cruyff giving problems to Hierro. Not to the extent he will walk all over him, but it is a bit of unfortunate match up. And not only in the defensive phase, Cruyff aggressivity will somewhat unable Hierro to provide intended platform at the base of the midfield which was gio plan all along.
Since my opinion is that the one who grabs hold of the midfield will have more chance I would have already voted for GSTQ, but then again gio has Passarella from behind too.
Very tough, Cruyff at 10 is a brilliant choice though. Will follow discussion.
I'd like to point out that Gullit will be as much or even more involved in midfield as Passarella. So that is not really an extra body. The midfield battle IMO stands won. At least in my eyes.
Well if Gullit is dropping into the centre of the park in the build up, that makes it a lot easier for us to defend that side of the park. Ideally you’d want to keep the park as big as possible in the build up which can’t happen if Gullit is helping out as you’ve described.
As I said, our 3 man midfield unit of Neeskens, Didi and Hierro, plus the support of Passarella and Zanetti when the opportunity arises is likely to give us more control. It’s part of the reason why I opted away from starting a traditional #10 as three more natural central midfielders lend themselves better to controlling the centre of the park, particularly with the support of the ball playing defence behind them. That’s generally how the modern 433 works in controlling the centre of the pitch.
That is the thing we love about Gullit isn't it.
1. World class in multiple positions
2. Enormous stamina and brilliant pace to cover tons of grass
3. Knew when to be where
We have that vote as discussed for top 20 multi functional players and I'd wager good money on him ending up on the top position with Beckenbauer.
Okay, time to get into my biggest criticism of team Gio. Its this area of the pitch.
1. Firstly, with a GOAT playmaker like Cruyff who was mobile as feck, Hierro is in instant mismatch. But lets moves past the obvious.
2. You have Hierro in a false CB role here where he has to cover for Passarella. He already has Cruyff to keep an eye on which he won't be fully able to dedicate himself to with this tactic. Lets not forget not being that mobile/agile defensively was a weakness in Hierro's game.
3. Now, one would argue you also have Briegel covering for Passarella. But the problem with that is he not only has Gullit waiting on that side of the flank, he also has Gerets who wouldn't miss an opportunity to double up on him. Could Briegel really afford to leave that flank?
4. In fact, I would be worried for Briegel even if he had a defensive CB there instead of Passarella. Who exactly is helping him in 2 vs 1 situations against Gullit and Gerets? Dzajic won't help him and neither will Didi (yea Didi had some work rate in midfield but it was not the kind where he'd constantly cover for a FB)
5. Both Briegel and Hierro already look like they have their hands full and to assign them more tasks to cover for Passarella would not just leave them short of numbers but would spoil the shape of the defense to no ends which is suicidal against a team operated by Johan Cruyff of all people.
Let me require this bit as none of the neutrals have had a word on Briegel here. He is getting a free pass without any support on that side from Didi/Dzajic against Gullit/Gerets while also being expected to cover for Passarella.
Not sure why no one has spoken on it yet.
Joya and Muller are the only two without any defensive duties. I don't think Zanetti can afford to get involved in the control battle. You can't expect Bergomi to cover for him with Passarella already needing as much support as he gets.
Joya's biggest strength was his pace. As good as Zanetti was, unless he stays put there with a close eye on Joya, that side is getting rinsed.
It's not like Garrincha will offer any support anyways from that side.
How are you dealing with Garrincha?
You have a top left back in Nílton Santos against him, but we know that Garrincha has the beating of him. Maybe not every time, but enough to create a clear route to goal. It’s not as if there is another man on the flank who can help out when Zanetti is also there. And Edwards will have his hands full with Neeskens. Kocsis will get chances from Garrincha.
It’s a compelling route to goal.
You have a top left back in Nílton Santos against him, but we know that Garrincha has the beating of him. Maybe not every time, but enough to create a clear route to goal. It’s not as if there is another man on the flank who can help out when Zanetti is also there. And Edwards will have his hands full with Neeskens. Kocsis will get chances from Garrincha.
It’s a compelling route to goal.
Oh we do now do we? Because of the training ground stories?
Beckenbauer said he could never get the better of Muller in training as well. How is anyone else expected to stop him then?
I am not a fan of that argument, I am sorry.
His teammate Franz Beckenbauer has emphasized Müller's unusual speed: "His pace was incredible. In training I have played against him and I never had a chance."
Speaking about not having a chance, Kocsis attacking crosses from Garrincha is going to be brutal to defend against. Especially with a 5ft 5’ centre half in there.
Didn't know Paul Mcgrath was 5'5
Feck am taller than him
And can we stop using 5'5? Chumpitaz was 1.71 m which is a bit more than 5'7 FFS
That's a waste in the case of Müller, I'd say. He could be a real asset against the ball, a tireless worker and smart in positioning to limit the opponent's space.
To me, many of his best games came when he could freely drop, roam, and push up in transition after defending deeper. I feel that kind of role would also mesh better with Cruyff and Gullit.
On a more serious note, I have mentioned this in multiple games before too. Garrincha's fast low crosses were a bigger threat than his floated ones. Watch the footage. And for those, Chumpitaz is perfect to deal with on the near side with his awareness, speed and physicality to get ahead of the defender and the low centre of gravity.
For the ones floated to the head, Mcgrath will deal with them.
It's not like there is a second striker there to deal with. Someone Kocsis would have loved having alongside.
For the ones floated to the head, Mcgrath will deal with them.
It's not like there is a second striker there to deal with. Someone Kocsis would have loved having alongside.
I want him to be ready to pounce on space when Passarella is caught out of position. He is way more valuable there for me considering my midfield already has more workrate than the opposition's.
That doesn't mean he doesn't get to move around. He just won't drop too deep. Not like he is playing a poacher anyways.
Well a lot of sources say 1.68m. Height can be an overblown thing in these types of discussion and Chumpitaz would be fine in many cases. But this is an extreme situation with the best right-winger of all time and a top 3 left-winger of all time feeding crosses to a guy who scored over 400 headed goals in his career.Didn't know Paul Mcgrath was 5'5
Feck am taller than him
And can we stop using 5'5? Chumpitaz was 1.71 m which is a bit more than 5'7 FFS
Wikipedia says 5.7.
Dzajic at Bastia is not top 3 left winger of all time.
I have already put my thoughts on what Chumpitaz and McGrath's roles are with defending against low and floated crosses.
I'll of course be honest and say, there are better options than Chumpitaz that I would have loved to have and you would have an edge if there was another supporting striker with Kocsis to keep my CBs busy. But you don't, so my CBs have enough time to support each other and cover for their weaknesses and strengths.
It's not just crosses though. Imagine Garrincha or Dzajic winning a corner or free-kick. Look at the aerial cavalry you'd have to deal with - Kocsis, Hierro, Passarella, Briegel, Bergomi. Bound to score from a set-piece with that armoury.
Nilton was above 6 feet. Gerets was really tall for a full back. Edwards was known to have a great defensive header in him. During set pieces, it's not like there are just 2 CB's there to defend.
And I gotta ask, if Briegel, Bergomi, Passarella, Hierro are all in the box during set pieces, who is staying back for the counters? Just Zanetti?