Surveillance Draft - R1- Physiocrat vs mazhar13/Enigma_87

Who would win?

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Some questionable choices and combos, but there's a gap in quality here, especially after the injury. Maznigma would win this match, one way or the other, IMO.

Seems to me people are focusing too much on whether Raul/Sheva reflect any actual precedent - rather than asking whether they'd work well enough as a striker combo. I think they would myself. Well enough, that is. Which is sufficient at this stage (and in this particular match).
 
antohan said:
Makes no sense to me. I'd also rather swap Sol and Thiago. And, while I understand why De Rossi is LCM, I prefer Modric on that side.

You can't just swap players around like that. If you have Modric you should think twice about Serginho and his apparent need for a DM there, because you risk getting less Modric, which is my reading here.
Click to expand...

Why would you swap Campbell and Silva? I don't remember him either being particularly one sided as CBs. Also when you have two right footed CBs the better ball player at LCB.

I can see your point to some extent with Modric but he's very central all game which gives him loads of options to pass to.
 
Very even. For Physio I like the Serginho/Signori flank, would actually say that offers more going forward than Pessotto/Giggs. On the other side, Jorgensen is a little underwhelming as a sub, I'm assuming Joaquin was blocked?
 
Enigma_87 said:
What do you mean? We have 2 CM's with 2 fullbacks, 1 winger and one free roaming winger/forward. Why do we need the CM's to create width for us? If you look at Physio's flanks, which are really underwhelming considering Thuram is in defensive role and he has Jorgensen, Serginho and a CF/SS Signori who hates being shunted on the wing to create the width for his team?

I'm looking forward to some feedback as I really can't see Physio winning this one. The only area where he has advantage is IMO the keeper.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of creating width. Lefties in midfield will always, invariably, work better on the left. I don't think I've ever seen Cocu on the right of a midfield pair, and I would be surprised if he was ever deployed there.
 
antohan said:
It's not a question of creating width. Lefties in midfield will always, invariably, work better on the left. I don't think I've ever seen Cocu on the right of a midfield pair, and I would be surprised if he was ever deployed there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, one of the most appetising features of Cocu's game was him opening up onto his left peg and fizzing one into the bottom corner from 30 yards. I see the rationale for Vidal having some space to hit, but that aspect of Cocu's game wouldn't happen here. Still, he's rounded enough to do a good job there.
 
Gio said:
Very even. For Physio I like the Serginho/Signori flank, would actually say that offers more going forward than Pessotto/Giggs. On the other side, Jorgensen is a little underwhelming as a sub, I'm assuming Joaquin was blocked?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about whether Joaquin was blocked or not, I can't remember. I picked Jorgensen mainly for his versatility across the front line.
 
Raees said:
Yes the loss of Kanchelskis is huge IMO. Hasn't been talked about at all.. for me he was one of the big reasons I was in two minds as to who to vote for.
Click to expand...
While I find Jorgensen on the decidedly underwhelming side, I wasn't sold on Kanchelskis-Ruud. Andrei was a joy to watch, but rather selfish and often went for individualistic moves with better options available/running into the box.

Jorgensen will just aim to feed Ruud.

In any case, the flank I was more attracted to was Serginho-Signori. That could cause real problems, even for Zanetti.
 
Physiocrat said:
Why would you swap Campbell and Silva? I don't remember him either being particularly one sided as CBs. Also when you have two right footed CBs the better ball player at LCB.

I can see your point to some extent with Modric but he's very central all game which gives him loads of options to pass to.
Click to expand...
Simply the fact when Serginho bombs forward I'd rather the trio was Campbell-Thiago-Thuram.
 
antohan said:
While I find Jorgensen on the decidedly underwhelming side, I wasn't sold on Kanchelskis-Ruud. Andrei was a joy to watch, but rather selfish and often went for individualistic moves with better options available/running into the box.

Jorgensen will just aim to feed Ruud.

In any case, the flank I was more attracted to was Serginho-Signori. That could cause real problems, even for Zanetti.
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of my left flank too. Serginho bombing on with Signori cutting inside would be an absolute pain for any full-back.

Re-Kanchelskis- he was a bit selfish he'd still provide a lot of balls for Ruud
 
Gio said:
Yeah, one of the most appetising features of Cocu's game was him opening up onto his left peg and fizzing one into the bottom corner from 30 yards. I see the rationale for Vidal having some space to hit, but that aspect of Cocu's game wouldn't happen here. Still, he's rounded enough to do a good job there.
Click to expand...

That, yes, but also that a leftie on the right is mote likely to run into traffic accommodating for his preference. And that a leftie with such a great left peg will place great diagonal crosses (not width, you don't need to go to the touchline to loft a curveball (literally) into the box. All this is out of the wundow on the right. It's ridiculous. You pick Cocu to play him on the left, else pick somebody else.
 
antohan said:
It's not a question of creating width. Lefties in midfield will always, invariably, work better on the left. I don't think I've ever seen Cocu on the right of a midfield pair, and I would be surprised if he was ever deployed there.
Click to expand...
So Cocu on the left and Vidal on the right is decisive for this game although we probably have advantage in every line bar the keeper? :confused:

Very surprising score given the disparity in quality I guess Raul/Shevchenko somehow not working together was the decider.
 
antohan said:
While I find Jorgensen on the decidedly underwhelming side, I wasn't sold on Kanchelskis-Ruud. Andrei was a joy to watch, but rather selfish and often went for individualistic moves with better options available/running into the box.

Jorgensen will just aim to feed Ruud.

In any case, the flank I was more attracted to was Serginho-Signori. That could cause real problems, even for Zanetti.
Click to expand...

True could be similar to the Ronaldo and Ruud dynamic..

In Kanchelskis favour, he does have history of playing with old school strikers and big ego's and dovetailing with them quite well.
 
Enigma_87 said:
So Cocu on the left and Vidal on the right is decisive for this game although we probably have advantage in every line bar the keeper? :confused:

Very surprising score given the disparity in quality I guess Raul/Shevchenko somehow not working together was the decider.
Click to expand...

I think it was probably your defence if anything which was the deciding factor against you.

His defence is outstanding - imo the best in the draft so far.
 
Physiocrat said:
Why Campbell on the left? Extra pace?
Click to expand...
1. Ball player in the middle

2. I prefer a covering defender that will come out and break up a move while it's best for the central one to be more sweeperish/game reader type

3. Pace could be one to consider. Not sure pace was the reason, but Campbell always covered his flank very well, that much I'm 100% clear about.
 
Raees said:
True could be similar to the Ronaldo and Ruud dynamic..

In Kanchelskis favour, he does have history of playing with old school strikers and big ego's and dovetailing with them quite well.
Click to expand...

Early Ronaldo was never a proper right winger in the way Kanchelskis was. I see why such a comparison would be made but Ronaldo was much more of a roaming forward even early on. He rarely did the full-back in the way the vid I posted shows him doing
 
Physiocrat said:
Early Ronaldo was never a proper right winger in the way Kanchelskis was. I see why such a comparison would be made but Ronaldo was much more of a roaming forward even early on. He rarely did the full-back in the way the vid I posted shows him doing
Click to expand...

Out of interest do you have any good vids of Kanchelskis.. a player I have always wanted to develop my understanding of in more depth.
 
Enigma_87 said:
So Cocu on the left and Vidal on the right is decisive for this game although we probably have advantage in every line bar the keeper? :confused:

Very surprising score given the disparity in quality I guess Raul/Shevchenko somehow not working together was the decider.
Click to expand...
Your statement, not mine.
 
antohan said:
1. Ball player in the middle

2. I prefer a covering defender that will come out and break up a move while it's best for the central one to be more sweeperish/game reader type

3. Pace could be one to consider. Not sure pace was the reason, but Campbell always covered his flank very well, that much I'm 100% clear about.
Click to expand...

I'm generally in agreement with that. I'll have a think about it.
 
Raees said:
True could be similar to the Ronaldo and Ruud dynamic..

In Kanchelskis favour, he does have history of playing with old school strikers and big ego's and dovetailing with them quite well.
Click to expand...
I mentioned it back in the gamethread, that I didn't pick Andrei to go with Ruud because it didn't sit right with me. Can't tell if it would or wouldn't work, that was all, so I went with McManaman
 
antohan said:
I don't think I've ever seen Cocu on the right of a midfield pair
Click to expand...
2000px-Italy_vs_Netherlands_2000-06-29.svg.png
 
Enigma_87 said:
Couple of draft regulars suggested it as well, not only me ;)
Click to expand...
More individual quality I'd agree with, but not having the beating in every line, whatever that means. It's a team sport, not an individual quality contest.
 
At anyone who was in the thread. Engima really didn't like my use of Signori. Anyone else got thoughts on the matter as he seems perfect in my opinion?
 
Physiocrat said:
At anyone who was in the thread. Engima really didn't like my use of Signori. Anyone else got thoughts on the matter as he seems perfect in my opinion?
Click to expand...
I think it's fine. Serginho is the primary width provider and Signori's job is more of wide forward. There is a difference between a Sacchi 4-4-2 and modern 4-2-3-1 in terms of defensive responsibility and positioning for the wide players.
 
antohan said:
More individual quality I'd agree with, but not having the beating in every line, whatever that means. It's a team sport, not an individual quality contest.
Click to expand...
In which line you see Physio team prevailing in this contest I'm genuinely curious. I don't think anyone has picked Silva or Campbell before Desailly as a CB and Zanetti and Thuram is a subjective that I agree but as a RB usually Zanetti goes first. T.Silva or Campbell I can understand being better than Worns but the rest is a bit of surprising.

Signori looks in the worst position compared to every other player on the pitch while Jorgensen is the worst player on the pitch. That and Riquelme and RvN not the best fit together also tops it.

It was really odd match that turned into whether Raul and SHeva will work together and little to no detail to Physio's team. :confused:
 
Raees said:
I think it was probably your defence if anything which was the deciding factor against you.

His defence is outstanding - imo the best in the draft so far.
Click to expand...
Well probably it's me but I won't take Serginho, Campbell or Thuram in their respective position in a back four(especially since Kanchelskis injury) instead of Pessotto, Desailly and Zanetti.

It was a bit frustrating keep losing votes with only Raul/Sheva brought up and Cocu/Vidal (both who have played on their respective positions and mainly central) and no other direct comparison or weakness mentioned.

Anyway, good luck to Physio forward.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Zanetti and Thuram is a subjective that I agree but as a RB usually Zanetti goes first
Click to expand...
More to do with his all-roundness than with their quality, and even then I'm not sure that it's true.

Agree on Sheva/Raul though, as I already said in the thread I found the criticism of this pairing very strange. It's hard to imagine a significantly better front two in this pool, and they would've complimented each other brilliantly. The "second-striker" debate :wenger:
 
harms said:
Agree on Sheva/Raul though, as I already said in the thread I found the criticism of this pairing very strange. It's hard to imagine a significantly better front two in this pool, and they would've complimented each other brilliantly. The "second-striker" debate :wenger:
Click to expand...
Aye, it's like I have watched two completely different players according to the debate:wenger:
 
I'm saddened to see this match pan out the way it did. Now, I won't be discussing this match as if it was still ongoing as a match but as a football lover who genuinely has questions on how certain setups/scenarios are viewed.

How is it that Raúl and Sheva don't work together? Sheva was always a centre forward first and foremost. When you look at him getting older, he always played as a centre forward and didn't drop back to being an attacking midfielder like Raúl did for Schalke and beyond. Therefore, I still don't understand how they can't work together. If anything, it's like a better Cole-Yorke partnership: both are comfortable drifting out wide, both are comfortable in the box with their positioning and predatory instincts, both are clinical finishers, both are good at dribbling, and both are good at linking up with players. The one thing Raúl has over Sheva is his creativity and final passes, which is why we had him play more of a second striker role as he will have the ability to play through players like Giggs, Sheva, Silva, and Vidal.

Also, how in the world is Cocu-Vidal incompatible because of the sides they're on? Really, you're going to dismiss two energetic, well-rounded, and intelligent midfielders because of the sides they're in? How is that really an issue when good teams are fluid and adaptable to various situations? This isn't a lower-level football match where players remain rigid in their positioning due to their lack of skills or footballing intelligence.

Finally, I'm really surprised that Signori got away with causing potential havoc to our back line. Yes, Serginho and Signori is a great partnership, but we have freaking Desailly and Zanetti, both of whom are excellent readers of the game! Especially Desailly, who has often played as a sweeper for Chelsea to good effect, and Zanetti, who's been a stalwart on the right side as a full back and wing back.

This is not me being bitter or going on a rant. I just want to know what I'm missing regarding the two teams here. Am I not seeing something that others are?

@Enigma_87 You can also help me in answering these questions.
 
Physiocrat said:
At anyone who was in the thread. Engima really didn't like my use of Signori. Anyone else got thoughts on the matter as he seems perfect in my opinion?
Click to expand...

I loved that Serginho/Signori flank going forward. It's weak defensively as Serginho was very much an attacking player, but the way you set up the rest of your defence compensated very nicely, and David Silva wasn't really going to attack the touchline much anyway. I dont doubt Signori's ability to drop to the left side when you're defending either. He'll not be a powerhouse defensively by any means but he can fulfil the tactical remit just fine.

TBH I was seriously considering switching my vote in light of the Kanchelskis injury as it weakened you alot but I missed the deadline. Your initial XI was excellent though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.