Cheers harms, Kopa was the only attacking midfielder I wanted due to the way he would hypothetically gel with Baggio and once I had him voronin was the logical choice. Risked a chain roll into wilderness to get him.
Roulette Draft final: MJJ vs 2mufc0
- Thread starter harms
- Start date
Cheers harms, Kopa was the only attacking midfielder I wanted due to the way he would hypothetically gel with Baggio and once I had him voronin was the logical choice. Risked a chain roll into wilderness to get him.
ThisVote for attacking football, draft innovation, personality, style and swagger instead of the everyday 5-3-2 we see every draft - it is soulless and bland.
And 4-2-3-1 is shite
I've never read that he was slow. The descriptions of how he earned his nickname "Double Wide" definitely imply some degree of solid pace/acceleration at the least. No one would be described as covering the amount of ground he covered while being slow per se.
Always take this nicknames and anecdotes for these pre war players with a pinch of salt. Almost all of the great ones get described as ones who could play in any position and had all offensive and defensive skills rolled into one and what not. Pretty certain that these claims were partly due to the evolutionary stage the sport was in and any groundbreaking player would have drawn such OTT praise. If more footage was available I highly doubt a few of them would come out as looking massively better than the run of the mill midfield players we are used to watch.
Of course for draft purposes we have to compare them to their peers and no more but the overall point still remains.
If you take eras into account on an absolute level no one pre-war would be selected because the game was just slower then.
For me I always try to normalize between eras, otherwise there is not much point in picking anyone pre-1970
I agree hence my closing statement. Just wanted to point out that almost all these anecdotes and biographies etc are massively romanticised and exaggerated. Bet if the same viewers watched someone like Edgar Davids in action they would probably think he's an alien.
I agree hence my closing statement. Just wanted to point out that almost all these anecdotes and biographies etc are massively romanticised and exaggerated. Bet if the same viewers watched someone like Edgar Davids in action they would probably think he's an alien.
Yeah agree with this, i think it comes down to bias and wanting to find faults to justify your vote. Monti was rated very highly for a while around here, it's only since this draft all of a sudden he's slow, static etc..
Voronin for example also played in a slower era but no question marks about his ability to handle one of the best athletes in football history in Gullit here.
Just because someone is pre footage doesn't mean they were bad athletes or automatically slow. The human body hasn't changed that much within 60/70 years.
I used to think like this too but @idmanager brought up a very good point that there were plenty of players in those periods but the few that get praised the most are done so for a reason.
With Voronin, you have actual footage of him handling eusebio who is similar to gullit from an athletic pov.
No, I agree to that and have argued the same before, and that was to highlight that they should be legit treated as GOATs or whatever their reputation suggests for a voting purpose. So I am not suggesting that they should be criticised for the era they played in. So, Monti here should be considered a top quality DM, no doubt.
Having said that, and sure that they were the best of that bunch, the tactical, physical and mental demands in the sport cannot be considered the same as it is today, and we were to compare a player from that era, say Sarosi to a player similarly rated in this era, say Griezmann, then I'd any day bank on the latter to deliver. Different discussion anyway.
And it's not the same since Best, Pele, Maradona etc era. A bit of consistency would be good.
Just proved my point really, there's no footage or any sources of Monti being slow and static yet he's being labelled as such here.
The problem is people only see one side of the coin.
Sure, no one could match Tigana or Gullit's energy back in the day, but those same pre war players back then would have thrived with modern technology and the developed state of football as a game and training regimes/tactics etc.
Put Tigana and Gullit in the 1930's and if you dont think their game would be no where as energitic as its now, no one could convince you of any pre war player ever.
As onenil said, you need to normalize stuff over decades because you are playing drafts with the current state of football in mind.
I can bet that most of the great drafters here too cant name more than 20 highly rated players from 1930 to 1950. I would probably struggle to even reach 20. That is on average less than a player a year which says a hell lot.
Either you block them or you dont dismiss them just because they are pre war players. You cant have it both ways.
These same drafters who demand more than anecdotes ofcourse would love Nilton Santos in all his various roles without an iota of footage to even put their attacking game on par with Marcelo let alone at all time GOAT levels.
Its just a prejudice at times of some who just dont like seeing or acknowledging players pre 1950 even though they wont mind having similar anecdote based players born post 1950. Not to blame them as such. We all have our prejudices.
You are comparing playing in the 60-70s with playing in the 30s. You can see how much the game has evolved in the last 30 years so there is no logical reason to assume both Monti and Voronin played in similar conditions.
Plus, if Monti was deemed overweight by the semi-professional 30 era I wonder what kind of shape he was in
I generally always avoid picking pre-war players because the times are well different compared to the 50's 60's etc. The game developed a lot and if you compare the 60's to 70's, 80's the difference is more tactical than anything else.
Da Guia, Nasazzi are considered some of the best CB in SA, but considering the era they played in and the limited footage, which doesn't really make them look good, I can't rate them that high.
It's a problem with all past greats in that era.
Andrade, Monti, Renzo De Vecchi etc - all fall in that category.
Watch some 60-70 and even 80's the games were slow as feck compared to today's standards. Watch the 1970 WC finals and see the number of players loitering around.You are comparing playing in the 60-70s with playing in the 30s. You can see how much the game has evolved in the last 30 years so there is no logical reason to assume both Monti and Voronin played in similar conditions.
Plus, if Monti was deemed overweight by the semi-professional 30 era I wonder what kind of shape he was in
And he wasn't overweight, read the fecking quote, he turned up after pre season not fit but got into shape. Happens in the modern era too.
Far more evidence available for them to back up the claims made for them. And it still applies to them as well, but to a far lesser degree. The tactical revolutions that happened in 60s and 70s would prepare them a lot better than lumps of 5s running back and forth in 20s or 30s.
At the end we always come to the same conclusions that you can never objectively compare different eras. Everything is conjecture, nothing more.
Agree mate, it was you who actually changed the perspective on this issue
On another draft in the future it will be Varela's turn.
Think it's been taken wrongly despite multiple clarifications. No one is dismissing Monti in this game for all draft purposes involved. That's a proper strawman post.Agree mate, it was you who actually changed the perspective on this issue
On another draft in the future it will be Varela's turn.
Nope it's not, i can't be arsed to quote all the messages from this thread and the semi.
Well done @MJJ , excellent team mate.
You can quote them, and find that the entire discussion was around his style of play or ranking in the game just like for every player in any draft ever. Can you show someone who used the fact that he was a pre war player to dismiss him?
They were, but still faster than the 30s and Eusebio's athletic physique cannot be disputed.
I was messing with that quote hence the smiley.
You specifically were banging on about his lack of pace in this very thread, even though he's clearly the DM who isn't being instructed to push forward, so the amount of ground he would have to cover going back wouldn't be much at all.
Also, its funny but I think I was the first person to pick monti on this forum. Didnt get much recognition back then
Well Enigma a few posts up pretty much said he wouldn't pick any pre 50's.
Can you quote about me talking about his pace in particular?
And again, whoever did it, maybe it was their perception of him and not a prejudice against pre war players in all likelihood.
On the first page talking about Baggio 'rimming' Monti and specifically mentioning 'pre war legend' - so obviously the era he played in was a consideration for you otherwise why would you even mention it?
This Monti discussion is why I had the requirement of a link to a full game for the older players in the P&G draft
I do sometimes think they should all just be blocked. A bit harsh, but the exact same discussion happens every time and it really is the hardest task to align them next to the rest of the group. There is a really sharp curve in terms of tactics that is around the beginning of the European Cup, which is a bit of a discontinuity for me.
Every few drafts this debate opens up. It's always the case that ultimately the pre-war stars fall a little short when it comes to the voting at the business end of the draft. Clearly we are not assessing each era as equal and we are giving some preference to post 1960. It's a really tricky discussion though because it's more nuanced than we often give it credit. For example, is our hypothetical draft match played under 2018 conditions? So many factors have changed over the decades:
- Refereeing - Tightened up massively from 1994 and again in the 2010s in favour of attacking players.
- Ball - Became lighter and more responsive up to the 1970s, then more engineered from 2000s on to allow the long-range shot flight to wobble to beat goalkeepers.
- Pitches - Mudbaths and bobby parks common up to the 1990s, evolved groundkeeping practices from then enabled the short possession game that otherwise would have been impossible.
- Boots - ultra-light boots from the 2000s on, now typically weighing almost half of those in the 1990s, and probably about a quarter of the weight of the rugged boots of the 1960s and earlier. Good luck having quick feet in them.
- Tactics - increased adaptability post 1960 and again in the modern generation with training methods focused on universality (eg ball-playing defenders) having positive and negative impacts.
- Athleticism - has clearly improved gradually over the years. Worth noting that someone like Joseph Bican would still be the fastest player on the park today in the same way he was in the 1930s. The difference probably is the base level of the competition will have improved somewhat.
- Cardiovascular fitness - evidenced improvement through distance covered up until 1970s or so. Training methods in the 1970s-1990s conducive to improving stamina and less so for strength and power, so I don't think this has continued to improve as much as is often suggested. Perceptions coloured by watching World Cups at altitude in burning midsummer heat (eg 1970) that were nowhere near representative of the club game at the time. A few of the party animals of the 1970s have fallen by the wayside. Repeated sprint endurance improved during the early to mid 2000s, reflecting the style of play, but became less essential for success post 2008. Modern template for centre-forwards, centre-halves and some central midfielders is fast-twitch dominant, which does not lend itself to high VO2 max figures.
Yeah and I stand by it. From memory Erico and Planicka are probably the only players I've picked that didn't play in the 50's or after WW2 and I've used them in games.
I always feel a bit unease trying to sell pre war players and would only pick them up at absolute must.
Of course nobody should follow this example, but it's just my opinion on the matter.
Now goalkeepers like Planicka etc is ok, as it's the least important position in drafts, but players who would have key roles I'd always stick to ones I know better and seen more.
I like to imagine the matches as part of an ongoing series of the World XI matches from the 60s. The concept is the same, GOAT players coming together to form a side with overwhelming individualism and lesser collectivism than any club side. The 60s is also the age where like three generations of players come together, embodied by Di Stefano, Pele and Beckenbauer, and it was a very attacking era, which fits the GOAT overload attacks of today's draft matches.
I am a strong advocate against blocking pre-war players, they are punished enough by attracting fewer votes. But if you want to block them in some drafts, just say "no drafting of players based on performances earlier than 1950", because if you do the "1 full match televised rule", you lose out on some brilliant Uruguayans from the 1950s.
I am a strong advocate against blocking pre-war players, they are punished enough by attracting fewer votes. But if you want to block them in some drafts, just say "no drafting of players based on performances earlier than 1950", because if you do the "1 full match televised rule", you lose out on some brilliant Uruguayans from the 1950s.
A bit of both actually.
From what I know about him he was never the spring chicken time and players at the time are obviously used to much slower pace to what football became 20-30 years later.
Monti himself played in amateur era in the 20's and various reports have him turning up overweight at Juve when he was 30. In any case I doubt his athleticism would've improved massively after his 30's given the era and medicine at the time.
yes, agree with all that. From 50's on you have more contemporary reports and more sources where you can read about those players. Before the 50's is very biased sources with only few journos, relatives and teammates talking and bigging up those legends.
Also a nice lecture — not about football but a lot of its points can be projected on it.
The strikers are okay-ish — by definition they will have a more thorough description of them and their actions (as most reports will mention them scoring and the way that they did it), and perhaps even a few goals caught on camera. Unless they are someone like Sarosi, who can apparently do everything at the same time. It's such a shame that we'll never get to see the likes of him though, I've been so invested in him since I've picked him for the Euros draft.