Am fairly confident I know the elephant you mean.
The Americas Draft, QF4: M/M/R vs M. Goodman
- Thread starter Chesterlestreet
- Start date
Scan votes are the worst
Regarding Didi now, when opposing teams faced Brazil, they would try their best to close down Didi and prevent him from exerting an influence in the match.
Take the match against England in the 1962 World Cup. Whenever Didi would get the ball, the English midfield would close him down and try to double-team him. However, his skill and technique meant that expending this much energy to stop him was useless, and they gave him time to dictate the game. The final result? 3-1 to Brazil.
Take the match against England in the 1962 World Cup. Whenever Didi would get the ball, the English midfield would close him down and try to double-team him. However, his skill and technique meant that expending this much energy to stop him was useless, and they gave him time to dictate the game. The final result? 3-1 to Brazil.
By the way, Periera played as LCB for Brazil in '74, unless I'm mistaken there. Ze Maria started over Nelinho, though Nelinho had three starts to his name. Anyway, unless I'm wrong here, there isn't much understanding between Nelinho and Periera, as one was a RB and the other a LCB.
Nope, Luis Pereira was always the RCB for whatever team he played, be it Brazil, Palmeiras, or Atletico Madrid, and he was playing as the RCB in the 1974 World Cup as well, renewing his partnership with Ze Maria, who honestly didn't look defensively solid at all to me when I watched him play against West Germany.
Can you provide me with sources on that? I honestly can't find any.
One mistake, and that makes Bravo a liability?
On that note, Maspoli was lucky that Brazil was misfiring in the first half of the 1950 World Cup, fluffing their lines when they could have beaten him on countless occasions.This is the same Claudio Bravo who kept 17 clean sheets in a row in his first season with Barcelona. Not even Valdes managed that in Guardiola's Barcelona. This is the same Claudio Bravo who won 2 Copa Americas facing an Argentina team consisting of some of the best attacking players in the world, keeping them at bay for the whole match.
He'll be used to relieve the pressure from the my defence, so yeah, he'll be distributing when needed. That won't happen too much as my defenders, Tito, and Didi are all very comfortable at keeping the ball under pressure and playing it out.
The only Ardilles of any repute seems to be a super hero of some kind. Possibly a super villain, I'm not sure. But his name is Diego Ardilles - so I suppose he could be a super hero (or villain) whose main power is that he's a combination of Maradona and Ardiles. In which case, the outcome of this match should be a given.
http://www.rsssf.com/tables/74full.html#grb
http://www.everyfourthyear.com/worldcup1974/
In all of the matches listed in both sources, Luis Pereira is the first central defender named after the right back, making him the RCB of the team.
So? I have hardworking players as well. Ghiggia and Zagallo will ensure that you won't have it easy building from the back, and Zagallo will make sure Carlos Alberto won't have that much of an influence going forward. Didi himself played in a midfield 2 and won 2 World Cups in such a setup. He even played in a midfield 2 for Real Madrid, but Di Stefano's ego ensured that Didi wouldn't last longer there.
By the way, Mascheroni wasn't really a left back in the way that you portray him there. In the 2-3-5, Mascheroni played on the left side of the 2 beside Nasazzi. That role is more akin to that of a central defender. How will he fare in a left back role here facing a quick, tricky, and pacy Ghiggia? How will he react to the runs Nelinho makes beyond Ghiggia? I really don't see him working out that well over there. His natural inclination will be to come inside to the area where Hurtado will be. I don't know if that's such a good idea when facing a dangerous old-school winger in Ghiggia.
This isnt black and white for me. The game v Scotland has Danny Mcgrain ( right back) as the second player and billy bremner (centre mid ) next to him
Check the second link. It has McGrain at left back, Jardine at right back, and Bremner in midfield with Buchan behind him.
Bold claim. Would like to hear more on that as by all accounts it was Didi that rubbed people the wrong way.
I don't see it being a problem. He doesn't get forward, and his sole remit is to defend -- I don't think he'll come inside the area as you suppose. I was tempted to go with a three man defence, truth be told, but overall, it's not something that worries me. I have Sanchez covering that wing as well.
I think Pereira played RCB for club, but can't find anything about him playing RCB for country. The only lineup I can find shows him at LCB.
I think you need conclusive proof if you're going to use his understanding with Nelinho in your OP. Nelinho didn't start every game, of course.
I think you need conclusive proof if you're going to use his understanding with Nelinho in your OP. Nelinho didn't start every game, of course.
So Sanchez is your wing back, essentially? It seems like you're giving him too much to do on the left side.
And regarding Mascheroni, he wouldn't ever have to face up a dribbler and mark him out. Full backs in a 2-3-5 would mainly handle the central players via zonal marking, so they are more akin to sweepers than stoppers. The wide half backs would normally deal with the wingers. Mascheroni is woefully out of position in this case, and his role conflicts with Hurtado's as well, who plays similarly to Mascheroni. There are very few central defenders who can play as full backs, face wingers, and contain them, and Mascheroni isn't one of them.
See Brazil vs. Yugoslavia at the 1974 World Cup. Both Nelinho and Luis Pereira played, and Luis Pereira played as the RCB. In that match, Brazil kept a clean sheet against a strong Yugoslavia team consisting of Dzajic, who was kept quiet throughout the match.
EDIT: link for those who are interested in the full match: http://footballia.net/matches/brazil-yugoslavia
He's not a wing back, no. He's a winger who provides defensive cover. And very little is known of Mashceroni, so I can't credit your claim.
So you pick him yet not claim to know about him? Why pick him if your purpose of using Mascheroni is to manipulate spectators' minds and fool them into thinking he's someone he isn't?
Also, you can't just say that Mascheroni can function as a left back like this when he was a left full back in a 2-3-5. It's common knowledge that full backs in that formation normally stay in their central zones and handle the strikers/inside forwards. You can't just say that any full back at the base of a 2-3-5 can play as a right or left back in a back 4. Why is it that we don't see Nasazzi used as a right back more often? Why is it that the wide half backs are the ones used as full backs more often than the full backs from a back 2?
Luis Pereira definitely played as a RCB in the game against Yugoslavia:
Short highlights:
However, to be fair seeing the ratings that Nelinho got in those games from that site 3,4,3 and being taken off for the second stage I'm not sure if that partnership was that great - or at least in that tournament.
Honestly, Ze Maria isn't really any better. I've watched him play, and Luis Pereira had to cover for him quite often as well. At least Nelinho did a good job against Dzajic and kept a clean sheet against Yugoslavia (I say this because I watched the full match but was unable to capture any clips).
Here's the thing, if we can't play players we know little of, then these drafts become sort of pointless in many respects, especially when dealing with players from certain time periods. I know enough of him, the 2-3-5, etc (I highlighted all of this in my last game, for instance) -- being LB isn't a hindrance here. I don't consider him so much of a liability that your team wins easily or anything.
I honestly haven't got time to research specifics on your team (which is a shame, because I do like the look of it) -- some of it is unknown to me. Suffice to say, I'll happily concede this game if it comes down to votes without reason, or votes predicated on Mascheroni. Fine margins and all that, which is fair enough. But I do think it's very close, will be interested to see if votes reflect that.
Yeah Ze Maria is no better. Haven't watched the full games in the first group stage, only in the latter and the Dutch gave him a torrid time.
As for Nelinho can't really comment on his performance in that tournament, I just saw the ratings in that side and they had him on 3(out of 6) against Yugoslavia. Of course that's always subjective
And yet he was preferred... I love Nelinho, single-handedly gift-wrapped a game for me against superior opposition. Zibi Boniek rodgered him mercilessly that night.
In fairness, the way the Mascheroni-Nasazzi combo worked was that Mascheroni would break up play and Nasazzi swept up. Very similar to the Tejera-Gonzalez setup in 1950.
Essentially, his role was more akin to the stopper coming out to meet an onrushing inside forward than a static one glued to a centreforward. The situations and skills involved aren't miles away from what he would need to do as a defensive fullback, which is not to say that Ghiggia wouldn't regularly leave him sitting on his arse.
Well, from an objective point of view - and as a note of sorts to voters - I suppose I might offer the following, regarding old school formations and positions:
The fullbacks in the 2-3-5 were mainly dealing with the opposition's inside forwards as per the - very often pretty rigid - setups at the time.
So, the basic idea that an old school fullback was a central defender is sound enough. The wingbacks or halfbacks (the lateral players in the "3") were the ones who took care of the opposition wingers (or outside lefts/rights). With the centre half's defensive brief being all about marking the opposition...centre forward.
That was the formula.
In other words, an old school left back (left fullback, that is) is not an obvious choice for an LB berth in a more or less modern style back four.
That said, the purely defensive capability (the marking ability, if you will) of an old school LB should obviously not be underestimated. Nor the fact that these old school fullbacks by necessity operated in a wider area than a certain kind of pure (modern) stopper: They defended, primarily, against inside forwards - who often worked the channels, as the phrase goes, i.e. who operated wide-ish as well as purely centrally.
The fullbacks in the 2-3-5 were mainly dealing with the opposition's inside forwards as per the - very often pretty rigid - setups at the time.
So, the basic idea that an old school fullback was a central defender is sound enough. The wingbacks or halfbacks (the lateral players in the "3") were the ones who took care of the opposition wingers (or outside lefts/rights). With the centre half's defensive brief being all about marking the opposition...centre forward.
That was the formula.
In other words, an old school left back (left fullback, that is) is not an obvious choice for an LB berth in a more or less modern style back four.
That said, the purely defensive capability (the marking ability, if you will) of an old school LB should obviously not be underestimated. Nor the fact that these old school fullbacks by necessity operated in a wider area than a certain kind of pure (modern) stopper: They defended, primarily, against inside forwards - who often worked the channels, as the phrase goes, i.e. who operated wide-ish as well as purely centrally.
It's a shame the Enzo couldn't relive his partnership with Crespo from that great River team. Still it is a hell of a pairing.
I was really tempted.
Was originally working on something like this:
Batistuta won out in the end though.
Interesting synopsis, cheers. That's the sole reason I like these drafts, tbh, it's mostly educational.
I was really tempted.
Was originally working on something like this:
Batistuta won out in the end though.
Crespo-Enzo was a dream pair IRL and I would rate that highly, but you made the right decisions there. That defence looks a car crash and it's all purely to let Carlos Alberto have freedom to provide width... and he was up against Zagallo anyway.
You made the right decision IMO. The current set up is the optimal with that set of players.I was really tempted.
Was originally working on something like this:
Batistuta won out in the end though.
Yeah, the defence looks really vulnerable in that variation -- too much responsibility on both Alberto and Mascheroni (isolated as hell on the left flank). A flat four just made more sense all round to me. But Crespo/Enzo would have been great. I just rate Batistuta higher overall, and don't think Enzo has much problems combining with him as is.
Yeah, I think so too. But after the first round I think it just gets tough, because being optimal doesn't necessarily equate to being the best team -- every side has so much quality.
From a football poll/popularity contest perspective it's the right choice. I know I would be in a minority, but I'd fancy Enzo-Crespo to work better than Enzo-Batistuta. I simply rate peak Crespo better in the box, while Batistuta is better outside of it, and with Enzo there you don't need that.
In fact, if Mazhar goes through he just needs to pick Enzo and Carlos Alberto and he is in the final. Maybe change goalie before that, not much else needed (or possible). Hugol and Enzo would be quite the pair.
He can't tho as he's MG's first pick and I doubt Enzo will make it to him tbh.
Don't know all the specifics. The point was Enzo+Hugol would be awesome and he also needs a RB, CA was just a bonus.