Moby
Dick
I feel a lot better now. Had lost the will to live for a second there after Ancheta got picked.
I feel a lot better now. Had lost the will to live for a second there after Ancheta got picked.
Honestly literally nothing between the teams at the moment. The draft has been cut-throat. Most of the games would come down to tactics and personal preferences.I've been trying to work out the strongest and weakest teams and it's abit of a struggle at the moment. @Mciahel Goodman is at a bit of a disadvantage with having to get all his pool 2 players now and obviously missing a pick but he should be able to turn it round.
Calm down with this FFS people will pick when the my are ready
I've been trying to work out the strongest and weakest teams and it's abit of a struggle at the moment. @Mciahel Goodman is at a bit of a disadvantage with having to get all his pool 2 players now and obviously missing a pick but he should be able to turn it round.
Yeah I like both Anceta and Branco picks. Both bring balance I the back line and have won a fair few accolades during their careers.Nice pic @Enigma_87 he was next up for me . One of the few defenders in this draft to win any kind of individual award
Cheers mate. We thought it over with Joga with a couple of other quality defenders from pool 2 still to be picked.Nice.
I agree with this.Absolutely looking forward to reading about a lot of these players but I'll have to say, I'm a bit wary about the immense hyperbole that might be carried along with that, specially a few of these older names who by most accounts seem to come across as 3-4 players rolled into one who never made an error on the pitch. I hope that there's some sort of balance in evaluation between the modern and older players where usually the former get criticised for every little error due to us watching them day in day out or there being loads of footage as opposed to those who have a couple of articles telling us about their entire careers, etc.
It was my own mistake, though. And, as Aldo says, these things are mostly due to tactics and whatnot. I'm just taking part to see how this thing works, not expecting to win anything. Just fun for me.I've been trying to work out the strongest and weakest teams and it's abit of a struggle at the moment. @Mciahel Goodman is at a bit of a disadvantage with having to get all his pool 2 players now and obviously missing a pick but he should be able to turn it round.
Absolutely looking forward to reading about a lot of these players but I'll have to say, I'm a bit wary about the immense hyperbole that might be carried along with that, specially a few of these older names who by most accounts seem to come across as 3-4 players rolled into one who never made an error on the pitch. I hope that there's some sort of balance in evaluation between the modern and older players where usually the former get criticised for every little error due to us watching them day in day out or there being loads of footage as opposed to those who have a couple of articles telling us about their entire careers, etc.
Absolutely looking forward to reading about a lot of these players but I'll have to say, I'm a bit wary about the immense hyperbole that might be carried along with that, specially a few of these older names who by most accounts seem to come across as 3-4 players rolled into one who never made an error on the pitch. I hope that there's some sort of balance in evaluation between the modern and older players where usually the former get criticised for every little error due to us watching them day in day out or there being loads of footage as opposed to those who have a couple of articles telling us about their entire careers, etc.
That's a great point. It is 'easier' to be a revolutionary when the sport was still very much growing and developing than it would be after decades of every method and tactic being tried and tested. As much as that contributes to ones greatness, in a hypothetical match up involving players across generation, should that be a big advantage on the pitch for the said player?One luxury modern players don't have is the chance to be downright revolutionary when it comes to transcending their nominal positions. Whereas this – being a positional trailblazer of some kind or another – is a trait shared by many old school greats: It's part of the reason why they're remembered – not the only reason, obviously, but part of it. They stood out in the often rigid systems of old – which is nice. But standing out in a rigid system is in one sense much easier than doing so in a fluid, modern system.
Absolutely. I was thinking more about the match-ups where there are bound to individual battles and while such compliments and congratulations are great while presenting an obscure player in a rather dramatic manner, but during a game it is important to look at BOTH strengths and weaknesses, and the latter are rarely pointed out of the classic players.Another consideration (and something people should always be aware of) is that a certain type of "praise piece" for old school players is very much driven by a desire to give a potentially overlooked player his due: It isn't scientific by any stretch, in other words - closer to eulogy than anything else, really. It may serve as a good starting point for further research - but should never be treated as gospel.
Aye, I think it was the British/Irish and the Euros drafts where loads of pre-war legends were often described as a super-human combo of Stam and Cristiano Ronaldo. It's a turn-off when you don't get a feel for the type of player because even the most complete players of this generation for instance (e.g. Zanetti, Thiago Silva) still had specific qualities which stood out.Absolutely looking forward to reading about a lot of these players but I'll have to say, I'm a bit wary about the immense hyperbole that might be carried along with that, specially a few of these older names who by most accounts seem to come across as 3-4 players rolled into one who never made an error on the pitch. I hope that there's some sort of balance in evaluation between the modern and older players where usually the former get criticised for every little error due to us watching them day in day out or there being loads of footage as opposed to those who have a couple of articles telling us about their entire careers, etc.
It's difficult. If anything the lack of footage tends to work against many of the earlier stars - kudos to yourself for gambling on a few of those who lack any video credentials.That's a very good point, like a (e.g.) Di Maria level player from the sixties is probably going to be higher rated than current day Di Maria in this, I'd probably even do it myself sometimes, it's hard to know how to give a fairer judgement when comparing eras.
"
Yeah. I used Sarosi only as a CF iirc as I thought that his skillset (from what I've read) is suited to this role the best but I don't know what to think when I see him in midfield of defence. He was clearly world class there too but he is a completely unknown quality there. The only exception are strikers - you sometimes can watch their goals even from the 30's-40's or you get a better picture of them just by reading about their famous goals. No such information about midfielders or defenders, sadlyAye, I think it was the British/Irish and the Euros drafts where loads of pre-war legends were often described as a super-human combo of Stam and Cristiano Ronaldo. It's a turn-off when you don't get a feel for the type of player because even the most complete players of this generation for instance (e.g. Zanetti, Thiago Silva) still had specific qualities which stood out.
More than questioning the quality or achievements, it is more about having a better idea about their strengths AND weaknesses. If someone played in the 1920s and is still being respected in 2016 even if in a draft game, he must have done something right, of course. The thing is a lot of articles and write ups only revolve around their 'greatness' and achievements, which no one is questioning. In a match up and given how detailed the tactical discussions are these days with the smallest of errors being criticised heavily, it is more relevant to talk about their skillsets and what they were great it, specifically. In your example, Meazza was an undoubted legend of his time and is of the sport, a star of WC winning teams among others, we get it. But that is neither here not there, unless we actually talk about what made him great and how much of that would affect a particular match up. Someone who made his name in the game for being an amazing target striker with aerial prowess for example and scored a ton of goals at all levels thanks to those qualities, if he's played in a team that requires other skills and not exactly what made him great, then in normal circumstances that would termed as a good enough argument against the said player. But if we simply stop at - oh look he scored a few hundred goals and no matter what he will score here - that is simply counter productive to the idea.On the hyping of older players I agree with the general sentiment but just to balance I would say there's also a flip side of the golden oldies argument, that somehow their achievements were easier and inferior. I think being revolutionary in any field should definitely count in a match up. And even if its a cross generational hypothetical game, the ability and skill of a player should be judged by his superiority around his peers rather than against 21st century players. There are kids in Brazil probably who can pull off a better Elastico than Rivelino or overhead kick than Leonidas, but the originality, daring and creativity to think and then execute these moves should count for something. Same goes with tactical, positional innovations.
The other thing is to not to demean the accolades of older players. If Meazza for example was star of two world cup winning squads than saying that those world cups were not as good as others is neither here nor there. So while I agree that the 'articles' which are written like love letters from some random forum posters should be taken with pinch of salt but at the same time the accolades, the stats and the well written articles from respected journalists could be taken on face value where we don't have the video proof.
On the hyping of older players I agree with the general sentiment but just to balance I would say there's also a flip side of the golden oldies argument, that somehow their achievements were easier and inferior. I think being revolutionary in any field should definitely count in a match up. And even if its a cross generational hypothetical game, the ability and skill of a player should be judged by his superiority around his peers rather than against 21st century players. There are kids in Brazil probably who can pull off a better Elastico than Rivelino or overhead kick than Leonidas, but the originality, daring and creativity to think and then execute these moves should count for something. Same goes with tactical, positional innovations.
The other thing is to not to demean the accolades of older players. If Meazza for example was star of two world cup winning squads than saying that those world cups were not as good as others is neither here nor there. So while I agree that the 'articles' which are written like love letters from some random forum posters should be taken with pinch of salt but at the same time the accolades, the stats and the well written articles from respected journalists could be taken on face value where we don't have the video proof.
Doesn't work in defence, where the full back and Half back discussions happen. Also without video, it'd be near impossible to pull out stats to make an argument. Purely opinion based judgement imo. Can't be helped.But that is neither here not there, unless we actually talk about what made him great and how much of that would affect a particular match up. Someone who made his name in the game for being an amazing target striker with aerial prowess for example and scored a ton of goals at all levels thanks to those qualities, if he's played in a team that requires other skills and not exactly what made him great, then in normal circumstances that would termed as a good enough argument against the said player.
The way I see it either you make a case of your player not only being great but great in the role you have given him with the same degree of criticism that modern players would receive in the same situation, or you simply give the same degree of freedom to modern players as well of being used outside their comfort zone based on being a 'great attacker who scored 5 goals in WC xxxx'. There has to be consistency.Doesn't work in defence, where the full back and Half back discussions happen. Also without video, it'd be near impossible to pull out stats to make an argument. Purely opinion based judgement imo. Can't be helped.
The way I see it either you make a case of your player not only being great but great in the role you have given him with the same degree of criticism that modern players would receive in the same situation, or you simply give the same degree of freedom to modern players as well of being used outside their comfort zone based on being a 'great attacker who scored 5 goals in WC xxxx'. There has to be consistency.
In a more strict manner - the fact you cannot back up the role you gave a player with strong evidence should count against your team and his impact on the match, irrespective of how many love letters he received from the journalists of his time. Again, it is about consistency. 'Being great' cannot be a fair argument for one player while for someone else you demand incredible amount of evidence else hold it against the manager for 'misusing' the player.