Ortega as well, but hard to fit him in front of so many attacking mids from the pool.
The Americas Draft
- Thread starter Chesterlestreet
- Start date
I'm more inclined to the harms camp here. If anyone found Gestido it means they must have found out that Gestido-Fernández-Andrade was known as the "Costilla de Hierro" (Iron Rib, sometimes translated Iron Curtain). One player doesn't make an Iron Curtain, the set does.
Sure, Andrade's credentials are far easier to demonstrate, but overlooking Fernández is absurd. It's simply ignoring the absolutely massive importance the centre-half had back in those days. They were gladiators. Look up any great successful side and you will find a great centre-half, they were literally the spine of the team, more so than these days (and boy could we do with a proper centre-half i.e. CDM).
I probably got it across all wrong saying "if Monti this then Lorenzo that". Lorenzo was the all-conquering champion, Monti the wannabe challenger, and the running joke at the time was Monti had to piss off to Europe and wait for a tourno not featuring Uruguay to get a winner's medal. Of course, that is fans banter. Everything indicates to me that Monti was the better player, and it's a team sport after all, but in very much the same way Keane vs. Vieira became a synonym for United vs. Arsenal, in an age when the centre-half was king the greatest battle around was Lorenzo vs. Monti. Lorenzo won in 1928, and repeated it in 1930.
Such was the prevailing idea that our (River Plate) football was superior that the 1935 Copa América final between Uruguay and Argentina was regarded at the time as a bigger deal than the World Cup final the year before. The tourno had been discontinued as the Argies refused to participate after being twice humilliated before the entire football world. Monti wasn't there any more, and Lorenzo was still coming out the winner.
Colossal.
Yes, but this usually isn't about recognizing the player for what he was, in his historical setup, as much as assessing how plausible he'll look in an all-time XI - usually set up in a more or less modern formation.
Monti is easy to sell for two reasons: 1. He's mentioned all over the place - in easily accessible sources. 2. He is - like practically every player who's mentioned all over the place - often presented as transcending the basic role he played. In his particular case, the latter has sometimes struck me as a bit over-the-top, since being influential in the build-up (playing an important role offensively, in other words) was something many old school centre halves were known for - but regardless, having this trait documented and highlighted, as it were, makes it easier to sell him: It makes him a more plausible figure, because it's a "modern" trait (as perceived by the average voter).
Easy to sell because he played 2 WC Finals: 1934 with Argentina & 1938 with Italy
Yeah, I get that, and that's why I say he was probably the better player/footballer whereas Lorenzo's temperament sets him apart as the bigger character. There's a matter of tastes here. Take Scarone, who rejected an offer from Barca to stay and play for them because that would make him a pro and ineligible for the 1928 Olympics. Admirable. At the other end you have Lorenzo leading the players when football turned fully professional. He was such a single-minded raving lunatic that he clashed with the Board over wages, demanded everyone get better pay or else he was moving to a club in Argentina (think it was River). The Board refused, a General Assembly was called, and the Peñarol Board were sent packing.
Those were the days of real FCs I get his characteristics would make him ill-suited for some of the modern setups, but the fact is we saw plenty of top heavy sides in the first round. The only way top heavy tactics ever worked was with players like Lorenzo behind them not the fannies some of these teams fielded.
Easy to sell because he played 2 WC Finals: 1934 with Argentina & 1938 with Italy
Wrong finals
Easy to sell because he played 2 WC Finals: 1934 with Argentina & 1938 with Italy
1930 and 1934, actually - but yes, of course, his credentials are first rate. Which is the basic requirement - but Fernández' credentials are excellent too.
1. Yeah, I do remember. The message was clear
2. If I was in charge of all the choices, I would have probably picked Rai & Valdo, two former PSG players.
Silas was also a great player. That's the problem here, way too many AM/creative/linkup types.
And another.
that explains it. I haven't seen @Gio 's side, but surprised he didn't fancy a bit of Piojo in it.Aye - that's true.
It's a good point: Top heavy teams - and a lack of top, top level defenders, relatively speaking (certainly compared to the European pool - at any rate, what's lacking are defenders you can easily sell as having a crucial impact). In that sort of climate, a no-nonsense, steely centre half (fielded as a DM in a modern setup) should come in handy.
Arguably better, if we consider the importance of the Olympics before 1930
Monti was also scoring in the 1928 Olympics final as well (I think he was the captain of Argentina, it looks like from the handshake), Uruguay was just irressitable with their Andrade, Scarone, Pedro Cea & Nassazi.
Just look at that. 1-2 down at HT during the 1930 Final he told his teammates: "If we lose this game I'll kill you all". He was dead serious. Nasazzi chipped in "El Gallego kills you and I bury you". It remains unclear whether Nasazzi meant to support the statement, or just wanted to find himself a role that didn't involve him getting killed.
Yeah, he was their captain, and his scoring is what sets him apart. He didn't just help build up play but pushed forward himself to take advantage of his powerful shot (much like Varela), and therein lies the difference. Varela>Monti>Lorenzo. In the right tactical setup none of them would look out of place in a SAM final though, which is why I find it the most shocking omission.
Juan Carlos Munoz wasn't picked too, right? Is he rated better than Abbadie? @antohan
The funny thing is, you would think the right strategy then would be to prioritise securing proper defenders as the differences upfront are sometimes much of a muchness. However, some of the better defences crashed out in the first round. I mentioned @Physiocrat before, and I have no idea how @Aldo is out, looks bizarre to me. Who did he play?
Unlucky draw if I ever saw one. Can see it going either way really.
What do think of the following game?
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-americas-draft-r1-p-nut-dcast-vs-boris-5-8.421825/
Well, he was part of one of the most famous forward lines in club football and from what I gather the rest made it so he's a tad unlucky not to be involved. Can't tell without seeing all the teamsheets whether it's a cock up or not. The difference as I see it is how many options Abbadie affords you, which Muñoz doesn't.
Moreno, Pedernera, Labruna, Peucelle & Loustau have been picked.
I thought someone would have tried to collect all the players part of La Maquina.
I think many managers started out with something like that strategy: Many went for defenders as their first/second pick. The problem is arguably this, though: It's very difficult to assemble a truly impressive defence of the sort we usually see in these drafts, i.e. a defence which will win you the match, no questions asked. Simply having an edge defensively won't be sufficient: People will value an offensive edge more highly - which is arguably par for the course in drafts, but quite plausibly an even bigger factor in this particular draft (where it's sort of an unspoken premise that building fluent and impressive attacks is what it's all about).
Another factor is that people probably had some difficulty assessing the XIs in the first round on the whole - many unfamiliar players were involved. Some discrepancies in terms of defensive quality may - simply - have passed without the normal degree of criticism/scrutiny.
I don't want to start dissecting teams still in the running, which makes it hard to comment (even via PM, it would be unfair on Boris).
I can see what you were trying to do with a packed defence and a fluid hard-working attacking trio that (along with the fullbacks) could catch the oppo on the break. I can see it working, sure.
You did give the oppo the initiative though, your midfield is underwhelming (albeit appropriate for the counters) and you stranded the front three up there when I'd imagine they start from deep. The teamsheet doesn't get the message across, and that's a killer.
While I can see the front three working, they are a bit too similar, and you are missing a line leader who offers more of a presence upfront. I'd argue if you got shot of the third CB and had someone like Spencer with those three behind him and Diego pulling the strings you had a better chance of winning it.
I'd agree that is the case, and is usually the case in early rounds where unknown defenders get a hall pass. Problem is, if many of the better defenders got picked early now either you have them or they are blocked and gone forever. I think it would still have been the right strategy to get as good a defence secured as possible as for other positions 3rd+ Round players can still be pretty awesome. You just need to ride your luck in the first round, but they got very tough draws.
Yeah, you get the point. The idea was to offer an unorthodox offensive strategy with no wingers, no attacking/playmaking midfielder.
So, we did want to use Forlan as a false 9 with 2 other hard-working wing-forwards. The idea was also to give free license to Dani Alves & Nilton Santo given the fact we had 3 central defenders & 2 defensive midfielders.
Thanks for the answer.
I agree with this. Especially when I read through threads from modern fans who automatically don't rate older players. I believe most voters in these threads are much more knowledgeable but its still a consideration. Definitely with that pre-WW2 era where very little objective information exists. Even if the manager himself rates the player, it has to be taken into account how easy it is to convince. Even for those who consciously try to be fair, its simply tougher to imagine sometimes without any footage.
One example is a player @Downcast has now mentioned in the unpicked XIs, Herrera the defender. From what I can tell his place on some All Time XIs is based on his allegedly being named 'best player in 53 Copa' but that doesn't jive with the sources I can find from the 50s. They don't even have Herrera rated as the best defender of that Copa let alone best player. That makes me more skeptical of his reputation. I wouldn't draft him ahead of any of the unpicked defenders named so far even if his Wiki reputation appears greater.
I'd guess @antohan probably has access to more archives of Uruguay's EL PAÍS for instance than is available online? I think its easier to asses older players the more different primary sources from the time period you can have access to.
Aye - it's probably what I would've aimed for myself. Go for Passarella rather than 'Dinho, to put it like that - and with a bit of luck you've got a more or less clear edge (that people can't ignore) in the latter stages.
Part that, mostly the help of being able to read the respective native languages (and Italian sources to see how they did once they crossed the pond).
But I've been blessed to know two people who jointly attended all World Cups up to when I was old enough to make my own mind on players.
I agree.
Given the lack of depth at LB the best 1-2 was probably Garrincha + one of Victor/Carlos/Marzolini (off the top of my head) to make it even less likely he can be stopped. It's paramount to cheating.
Marzolini was left back no?
Attended in person? Wow, that is amazing. I want that job!
I'm a bit worried about that, actually - him and the fat boy entering God mode in people's minds. I hope that won't happen - and that people will look at the bigger picture. Like I suggested in the match thread the question shouldn't be "can they stop him?" but rather "what impact will he have in what will likely be an open, high-scoring affair?"
Re: quarter finals
We'll try out the new (or old) format: Results won't be visible before voting - and votes are final (no changing your mind). I'll add a standard phrase to the OPs, instructing voters to read the arguments properly before voting, etc.
We'll try out the new (or old) format: Results won't be visible before voting - and votes are final (no changing your mind). I'll add a standard phrase to the OPs, instructing voters to read the arguments properly before voting, etc.
Yeah I touched on this in my match thread with Joga and Enigma. There's Nilton, Bobby, Marzolini and Andrade who will offer credible Garrincha opposition - two of them went in R1, the other two in R3. And IMO only Victor really cuts it as a defender who might snuff him out. Another 20 players on the park to consider going forward as Chester said though.
Has Ronaldo even been cleansed of the 'bad spirits' he contracted from playing with Romario in '98? Romario might be his jinx.
Last edited:
One was my grandfather, who was in the Uruguayan FA. The other was a journalist that, still a student, cobbled together what is probably the best archive on the 1930 World Cup. I think they both missed 1934 (it was a full boycott after the Italians boycotted the one in Montevideo), but the journo went to all the World Cups from '38 until '86 (I think, don't think he made 1990). My grandad went to 30-50-54-62-66-70, 50-54 as FA, the others out of his own pocket (probably had some perks and good contacts for tickets, etc).
No wonder you are this passionate about football, even in drafts. it runs in family. Brilliant.
I'm the first one in my family to start following football
Who did you have facing Mané?
Gambetta.