Serie A 90's draft

If I'm to play counter-attacking football I need someone who can fly up the pitch and with great movement across the frontline.

This bird (Pájaro) can fly!


  • EAP - 1. M. van Basten 2. R. Donadoni 3. M. Tassotti 4. D. Stankovic 5. G. Pessotto
  • Onenil - 1. R. Baggio 2. A. Costacurta 3. D. Baggio 4. L. Minotti 5. Careca
  • harms 1. Ronaldo 2. C. Ferrara 3. P. Montero 4. Y. Djorkaeff 5. C. Seedorf
  • Moby/Pat Mustard 1. G. Batistuta 2. F. Cannavaro 3. R. Mancini 4. M. Almeyda 5. E. Chiesa
  • MJJ/Sjor 1. A. Del Piero 2. J. Veron 3. Aldair 4. A. Conte 5. S. Katanec
  • 2mufc0/Invictus 1. Z. Zidane 2. P. Vierchowod 3. Z. Boban 4. O. Bierhoff 5. J. Angloma
  • Lord Sinister 1. P. Maldini 2. G. Signori 3. A. Winter 4. V. Montella 5. M. Torricelli
  • Gio 1. F. Baresi 2. G. Weah 3. D. Deschamps 4. P. Sousa 5. R. Sosa
  • Enigma/The Red Viper 1. L. Matthäus 2. G. Bergomi 3. G. Vialli 4. R. Ferri 5. Dunga
  • idmanager 1. F. Rijkaard 2. E. Davids 3. H. Crespo 4. A. Di Livio 5. R. Ayala
  • antohan 1. M. Rui Costa 2. J. Kohler 3. A. Benarrivo 4. S. Mihajlovic 5. R. Sensini 6. C. Caniggia
  • prath92/Crappy 1. P. Nedved 2. C. Vieri 3. D. Albertini 4. D. Savicevic 5. M. Iuliano 6. P. Ince
  • Tuppet 1. R. Gullit 2. A. Brehme 3. L. Blanc 4. T. Hassler 5. R. Voller 6. N. Berti
  • Cal? 1. M. Desailly 2. F. Totti 3. J. Klinsmann 4. C. Panucci 5. G Zambrotta 6. A Pirlo
  • Oaencha 1. A. Nesta 2. J. Zanetti 3. G. Zola 4. F. Inzaghi 5. V. Candela 6. A. Tacchinardi
  • Raees 1. Cafu 2. L. Thuram 3. D. Simeone 4. V. Jugovic 5. F. Couto 6. A. Möller
@idmanager
 
  • EAP - 1. M. van Basten 2. R. Donadoni 3. M. Tassotti 4. D. Stankovic 5. G. Pessotto
  • Onenil - 1. R. Baggio 2. A. Costacurta 3. D. Baggio 4. L. Minotti 5. Careca
  • harms 1. Ronaldo 2. C. Ferrara 3. P. Montero 4. Y. Djorkaeff 5. C. Seedorf
  • Moby/Pat Mustard 1. G. Batistuta 2. F. Cannavaro 3. R. Mancini 4. M. Almeyda 5. E. Chiesa
  • MJJ/Sjor 1. A. Del Piero 2. J. Veron 3. Aldair 4. A. Conte 5. S. Katanec
  • 2mufc0/Invictus 1. Z. Zidane 2. P. Vierchowod 3. Z. Boban 4. O. Bierhoff 5. J. Angloma
  • Lord Sinister 1. P. Maldini 2. G. Signori 3. A. Winter 4. V. Montella 5. M. Torricelli
  • Gio 1. F. Baresi 2. G. Weah 3. D. Deschamps 4. P. Sousa 5. R. Sosa
  • Enigma/The Red Viper 1. L. Matthäus 2. G. Bergomi 3. G. Vialli 4. R. Ferri 5. Dunga
  • idmanager 1. F. Rijkaard 2. E. Davids 3. H. Crespo 4. A. Di Livio 5. R. Ayala 6. M. Salas
  • antohan 1. M. Rui Costa 2. J. Kohler 3. A. Benarrivo 4. S. Mihajlovic 5. R. Sensini 6. C. Caniggia
  • prath92/Crappy 1. P. Nedved 2. C. Vieri 3. D. Albertini 4. D. Savicevic 5. M. Iuliano 6. P. Ince
  • Tuppet 1. R. Gullit 2. A. Brehme 3. L. Blanc 4. T. Hassler 5. R. Voller 6. N. Berti
  • Cal? 1. M. Desailly 2. F. Totti 3. J. Klinsmann 4. C. Panucci 5. G Zambrotta 6. A Pirlo
  • Oaencha 1. A. Nesta 2. J. Zanetti 3. G. Zola 4. F. Inzaghi 5. V. Candela 6. A. Tacchinardi
  • Raees 1. Cafu 2. L. Thuram 3. D. Simeone 4. V. Jugovic 5. F. Couto 6. A. Möller

@Enigma_87 @The Red Viper
 
My list literally has 2 players left on it. Don't think they will survive the next 18 picks :lol:

Moller was a good pick. Wanted him and was fairly hopeful since only 1 out of the 6 below me needed a player in that position. And he picks him :(
 
antohan said:
I was actually surprised Dunga lasted that long. There's several options in midfield, but few so easy to match up with almost anyone.
Click to expand...

Enigma_87 said:
We had him pinned down at round 4 along with Ferri, but reckoned that the CB pool would be even slimmer, considering how many teams are lacking CB’s.

Dunga indeed is a great partner for Matthaus and one of the few from that era that provide defensive stability, energy and passing range.
Click to expand...

oneniltothearsenal said:
Yeah I almost went with Dunga instead of Minotti but came to the same conclusion about the CB pool being slimmer. Of course it could backfire on me as everyone picks midfielders now
Click to expand...

antohan said:
He is, but you now reminded me why I thought he was in the bag. You can pick tonnes of players next to Matthäus so thought you would look elsewhere.

Nothing wrong with that, mind (your midfield is final ready), but it's a bit greedy. He would have been very handy for anyone starting a midfield pair (like me :mad:) in that you can pick any type of midfielder next to him.

That's why someone like Albertini takes longer: he makes your next midfield choice a lot more specific. It's what Gio has been doing masterfully as well: Baresi? Anyone. Weah? Could get a striker or supporting forward. Deschamps? Anyone. As opposed to, say, getting Paulo Sousa first as he would then narrow down partners to a handful really.
Click to expand...

The Red Viper said:
True.

But we need a good defensive minded midfielder/holding midfielder alongside Matthaus to give him the license to make greats runs into the box, join the attack and be in and around the penalty box to latch on to second balls etc.

Matthaus was complete as feck but he was at his peak when he had kinda, a free role in midfield. Dunga frees him up to do what he does the best. We decided there's no point picking Matthaus if we don't put him in a role to thrive. With Dunga, he will.
Click to expand...

antohan said:
Leave it for gamethreads but I think you have the wrong idea of Dunga. Mauro Silva was the sort of DM you describe for Brazil.
Click to expand...

These posts don't sound like people focussing on what these players did in Serie A instead there overall careers especially what they did for the NT by bringing in their larger overall skillsets into the discussion. Whereas it should be more about how consistently they brought that into Serie A, for how long, against what opposition, etc.

Hopefully this improves in the game threads and this doesn't turn into just another regular draft with the same old discussions and little homage to the theme in hand.
 
Moby said:
These posts don't sound like people focussing on what these players did in Serie A instead there overall careers especially what they did for the NT by bringing in their larger overall skillsets into the discussion. Whereas it should be more about how consistently they brought that into Serie A, for how long, against what opposition, etc.

Hopefully this improves in the game threads and this doesn't turn into just another regular draft with the same old discussions and little homage to the theme in hand.
Click to expand...
What a pedantic post. We are largely discussing drafting tactics and trying not to discuss what belongs in a gamethread. I even point it out in the last message you quoted.
 
antohan said:
What a pedantic post. We are largely discussing drafting tactics and trying not to discuss what belongs in a gamethread. I even point it out in the last message you quoted.
Click to expand...
There's loads of 'who fits with who' in there, which is pretty much what you'd want to see in the game thread, which isn't really my gripe with it, but the lack of focus on anything related to the league but the million year old generic descriptions of the same players which you'd see in any other draft ever. If there's no scrutiny related to their league performances/longevity/impact/legacy strictly related to the period taken then it's basically a 'shiny names who played a game in a Serie A club in the 90s' competition.

For example I would consider most of Matthaus' impact on Serie A to have been done in the 80s, and there are a few names in midfield who define the 90s decade in the league more for me, and something I'd hope people to put more weight on.
 
I dont think Longevity is a criteria.

A player who played for 2 seasons and performed at 8/10 should be rated similarly as a player who was 8/10 for 6 seasons. At least that is what my understanding is.
 
idmanager said:
I dont think Longevity is a criteria.

A player who played for 2 seasons and performed at 8/10 should be rated similarly as a player who was 8/10 for 6 seasons. At least that is what my understanding is.
Click to expand...

I think everyone will interpret it differently when they come to vote, which is probably okay and goes on in any draft (longevity vs peak).

For me the duration of Serie A performances will likely be a factor I’ll take into account, but probably won’t be defining.
 
Moby said:
That goes against the spirit of the draft for me.
Click to expand...

Theon said:
I think everyone will interpret it differently when they come to vote, which is probably okay and goes on in any draft (longevity vs peak).

For me the duration of Serie A performances will likely be a factor I’ll take into account, but probably won’t be defining.
Click to expand...

I assumed since a 40 game limit is defined, the peak, average performance level, position played at etc in the period they appeared is what matters.
As long as its more than 40, there is enough of a time frame to judge.

I maybe wrong, but that is what my understanding of the criteria was.
 
Moby said:
That goes against the spirit of the draft for me.
Click to expand...
We've discussed this before and overall there's no set rule beyond the 40 games so everyone will basically go with their gut on that.

I tend to agree, but there's no point arguing it as positions will largely be drawn around who people have picked already. I guess you can state it as an issue or rationale for a vote but it's probably best if we don't spend entire games banging on and on about such philosophical arguments.
 
Moby said:
That goes against the spirit of the draft for me.
Click to expand...

How exactly? Draft rules say minimum 40 games so that means we go with 40 games peak, if you want a draft that celebrates longetivity then you use different rules.

Not fair for the proper legends of the league that played well for a decade but thats our fault in a way al though not sure what can we do as its difficult to reward that type in a draft game.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
How exactly? Draft rules say minimum 40 games so that means we go with 40 games peak, if you want a draft that celebrates longetivity then you use different rules.

Not fair for the proper legends of the league that played well for a decade but thats our fault in a way al though not sure what can we do as its difficult to reward that type in a draft game.
Click to expand...
Like you say, it cannot be enforced by a rule, which is why we are having this discussion.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
How exactly? Draft rules say minimum 40 games so that means we go with 40 games peak, if you want a draft that celebrates longetivity then you use different rules.
Click to expand...

That’s not what it says actually - the rule only states that a player requires 40 games to be eligible. It does not state that you judge players on a 40 game peak.
 
Is there any point arguing about this? You can’t make any voter take your specific criteria into account before voting, everyone will apply their own logic to come at a rating for the players. I remember in my first draft, WC one, how Pippa insisted that Fontaine should be rated higher than likes of Eusebio, Puskas but it wasn’t so. At best you can put your argument forward and hope voters agree with you.
 
antohan said:
We've discussed this before and overall there's no set rule beyond the 40 games so everyone will basically go with their gut on that.

I tend to agree, but there's no point arguing it as positions will largely be drawn around who people have picked already. I guess you can state it as an issue or rationale for a vote but it's probably best if we don't spend entire games banging on and on about such philosophical arguments.
Click to expand...
The initial point wasn't how 2 great seasons weigh against 6 great seasons, but basically reminding people that it is the only the 90-92 InterMilan Matthaus that has to be considered, not the 88-90 InterMilan Matthaus or the West Germany WorldCup winning Matthaus which wasn't really reflective in those discussions. If you just look at those three incarnations of Lothar, the one considered here would come out as third best for me, for example.
 
crappycraperson said:
Is there any point arguing about this? You can’t make any voter take your specific criteria into account before voting, everyone will apply their own logic to come at a rating for the players. I remember in my first draft, WC one, how Pippa insisted that Fontaine should be rated higher than likes of Eusebio, Puskas but it wasn’t so. At best you can put your argument forward and hope voters agree with you.
Click to expand...
You are such a nihilist these days.

Edit: Also, it was Pippa. :lol:
 
Theon said:
That’s not what it says actually - the rule only states that a player requires 40 games to be eligible. It does not state that you judge players on a 40 game peak.
Click to expand...

Its common sense though, if you allow certain players to be judged on 40 games because they only have that amount its only fair to do the same with a player that spent few years in a league
 
idmanager said:
I assumed since a 40 game limit is defined, the peak, average performance level, position played at etc in the period they appeared is what matters.
As long as its more than 40, there is enough of a time frame to judge.

I maybe wrong, but that is what my understanding of the criteria was.
Click to expand...
My thinking here is:

1) Performances should be assessed relative to the period (the most tricky bit sometimes)

2) You can't hold longevity against anyone as the rule is 40 games

3) You can look more favourably on those which you feel define the period.

For example, someone like Berti gets extra kudos from me. I also have a softer spot for foreigners that were there (anywhere) under the 3 foreigner rule than the foreign invaders that really just made up the numbers post-Bosman (i.e. not Ronaldo but the ones filling up squads as minor upgrades on run-off-the-mill Italians).
 
Don't think that longevity matters that much. If the game is so close that the only difference between the teams are the longevity of player's peaks, it would probably give them an edge in my book, but not more.

But I would expect a serious discussion regarding the players like Pirlo or even Cannavaro/Seedorf, of course. Especially regarding the positions, as some of the picked players would be quite tricky.
 
Šjor Bepo said:
Its common sense though, if you allow certain players to be judged on 40 games because they only have that amount its only fair to do the same with a player that spent few years in a league
Click to expand...

I don’t think it is to be honest, though I can see where you’re coming from. For me they’re two very different things, one is about the eligibility of players for the draft and the other is about the degree to which you choose to value longevity vs peak performance.

As I said though for me it’s not defining. It’s just one of a number of factors I would look at (probably not a particularly influential one).
 
harms said:
But I would expect a serious discussion regarding the players like Pirlo or even Cannavaro/Seedorf, of course. Especially regarding the positions, as some of the picked players would be quite tricky.
Click to expand...
Eh? Seedorf barely has 40+ games split over 2 clubs.

Cannavaro has 7 seasons out of the 10 considered in the decade in which he played 27, 29, 29, 27, 31, 30, 31 league games. Out of his 13 full seasons in Serie A he has 7 full seasons in the 90s as opposed to 6 full seasons in the 00s. He also won the Coppa Italia in the 90s which is a part of the assessment.

Bizarre comparison.
 
Moby said:
These posts don't sound like people focussing on what these players did in Serie A instead there overall careers especially what they did for the NT by bringing in their larger overall skillsets into the discussion.
Click to expand...

naw, IF I was rating based on that then Dunga I would have picked before Minotti and not gambled on getting him at end of 6th round.
 
Moby said:
The initial point wasn't how 2 great seasons weigh against 6 great seasons, but basically reminding people that it is the only the 90-92 InterMilan Matthaus that has to be considered, not the 88-90 InterMilan Matthaus or the West Germany WorldCup winning Matthaus which wasn't really reflective in those discussions. If you just look at those three incarnations of Lothar, the one considered here would come out as third best for me, for example.
Click to expand...
Wow, really? Name me one better season Matthaus had at club level than 90/91? The 90 WC level winning one was 2 months away from starting the 90/91 season.

Furthermore, name me just one player that had better season from midfield since the 90's than Matthaus?

Matthaus had more than 5000 minutes in the league in those two seasons, more than the two seasons before.

Rejecting his overall impact in the league in those two seasons is like frowning upon Fenomeno's impact in the league, as he played 400 minutes less in his three seasons in the 90's, which is IMO far from what the theme is about.

Those two seasons which Matthaus took part are fair share of the theme in question and arguably was the most competitive part of the era considering he came against Maradona's Napoli, the end of Sacchi's Milan, the rise of Samp, the everpresent Juve, etc...

Besides Matthaus is not some journeyman on purple patch. His level in 90/91 was as high as possible in his club career and it's hard to imagine he'll be some inferior version of him fielded here.

Not a bad impact on the league here, against non other than Maradona himself:


I wanted to keep those discussions for the match thread, but Matthaus name is really far too often mentioned around here, which is frankly bizarre considering you can't look away from 90/91 season at his highest ever peak at club level.
 
Moby said:
Eh? Seedorf barely has 40+ games split over 2 clubs.

Cannavaro has 7 seasons out of the 10 considered in the decade in which he played 27, 29, 29, 27, 31, 30, 31 league games. Out of his 13 full seasons in Serie A he has 7 full seasons in the 90s as opposed to 6 full seasons in the 00s. He also won the Coppa Italia in the 90s which is a part of the assessment.

Bizarre comparison.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: And here we go. If you weren't so defensive you would've seen my point and not an attack on one of your players.
 
Moby said:
Eh? Seedorf barely has 40+ games split over 2 clubs.

Cannavaro has 7 seasons out of the 10 considered in the decade in which he played 27, 29, 29, 27, 31, 30, 31 league games. Out of his 13 full seasons in Serie A he has 7 full seasons in the 90s as opposed to 6 full seasons in the 00s. He also won the Coppa Italia in the 90s which is a part of the assessment.

Bizarre comparison.
Click to expand...
It's not. Not that I disagree with the main point.
 
idmanager said:
I dont think Longevity is a criteria.

A player who played for 2 seasons and performed at 8/10 should be rated similarly as a player who was 8/10 for 6 seasons. At least that is what my understanding is.
Click to expand...
This is how I'm voting.

If longevity comes into it, you could have 7 or 8 out of 10 players who played 8 seasons in the decade potentially being judged as 'better' than 9 out of 10 players who played 2.

If they meet the qualifying criteria, that's it for me. I'll judge them on their Seria A performance (and how the team gels obviously).
 
harms said:
:rolleyes: And here we go. If you weren't so defensive you would've seen my point and not an attack on one of your players.
Click to expand...
That's why having the discussion is fruitless. The moment you name a player or mention an angle affecting one those managers get defensive. We aren't going to get anywhere as there's no room for consensus.
 
harms said:
:rolleyes: And here we go. If you weren't so defensive you would've seen my point and not an attack on one of your players.
Click to expand...
What? You just chucked a guy who has loads of Serie A performances, more than most, with someone who barely had over one season to make a point about players who don't have enough 90s pedigree? How does he belong in this discussion?
 
Moby said:
What? You just chucked a guy who has loads of Serie A performances, more than most, with someone who barely had over one season to make a point about players who don't have enough 90s pedigree? How does he belong in this discussion?
Click to expand...
I think he was referring more to peak form than pedigree. Both examples are notorious for 00s exploits.
 
Moby said:
What? You just chucked a guy who has loads of Serie A performances, more than most, with someone who barely had over one season to make a point about players who don't have enough 90s pedigree? How does he belong in this discussion?
Click to expand...
Cannavaro, as well as Seedorf, is a player that peaked in 00's, even though Cannavaro unarguably has a better 90's pedigree than Seedorf.

You see that your criticism of Matthäus and defending of Cannavaro is a bit hypocritical, right? You're literally forgetting your own arguments. Matthäus is still the best midfielder in the pool, even though you can say that his best form was in the late 80's; Cannavaro is still one of the best defenders in the pool, even though his best form was in the 00's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.