His position in Santos was deep middle forward (with Coutinho just ahead in Tostao role) in a 4-2-4, similar position-wise to the World Cup side.
The Double Draft: FINALS - harms vs Invictus/Theon
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
His position in Santos was deep middle forward (with Coutinho just ahead in Tostao role) in a 4-2-4, similar position-wise to the World Cup side.
If it is a three year period I'd probably say 63-65. He was at(or at least very close) to his physical peak, but also dominated games in the way only he could.
Yes, but what is the actual argument? They worked in setups with other great players (some of whom were comparable in terms of this ball hogging issue - others were obviously not, like Dennis Law or Zagallo), hence they will work together here, all of them? It's the latter which has been questioned - nobody has suggested they're all egomaniacs who can't play with others at all. On the same note, nobody expects a bunch of selfless runners and water carriers in an all-time final - nor is anyone saying that harms' team is perfectly balanced in that regard either. It's what was said above: The problem isn't the ball hogging itself as much as a lack of first rate runners (by which I mean players who are experts on taking up the right positions as targets - both Ronaldo and Van Basten can be said to be just that).
And the Pelé argument isn't 100% convincing - you can't expect people to simply presume that he will have the "glue" function he had in '70 here: It's a different setup, and he - himself - is playing a different role.
Last edited:
We have several players with that attitude - I already quoted Puskas on Di Stefano, for example, how he had to let him score the goal (to make Di Stefano top scorer with 22 goals against Puskas 21) because it would've been a massive scandal other way.
Best said:
A story about Best's ego:
In 1976, Northern Ireland were drawn against Holland in Rotterdam as one of their group qualifying matches for the World Cup. Back then the reporters stayed at the same hotel as the team and travelled with them on the coach to the game. As it happened I sat beside George on the way to the stadium that evening.
Holland - midway between successive World Cup final appearances - and Johan Cruyff were at their peak at the time. George wasn't. I asked him what he thought of the acknowledged world number one and he said he thought the Dutchman was outstanding. 'Better than you?' I asked. George looked at me and laughed. 'You're kidding aren't you? I tell you what I'll do tonight... I'll nutmeg Cruyff first chance I get.' And we both laughed at the thought.
A couple of hours later the Irish players were announced one by one on to the pitch. Pat Jennings, as goalkeeper, was first out of the tunnel to appreciative applause. Best, as No 11, was last. 'And now,' revved up the PA guy, 'Number 11, Georgie [long pause] Best.' And out trotted George. Above him, a beautiful blonde reached over with a single, long-stemmed red rose.
Given his nature, his training and his peripheral vision there was no way he was going to miss her or the rose, so he stopped, trotted back, reached up to take the flower, kissed her hand and ran out on to the pitch waving his rose at the punters as the applause grew even louder.
Five minutes into the game he received the ball wide on the left. Instead of heading towards goal he turned directly infield, weaved his way past at least three Dutchmen and found his way to Cruyff who was wide right. He took the ball to his opponent, dipped a shoulder twice and slipped it between Cruyff's feet. As he ran round to collect it and run on he raised his right fist into the air.
Only a few of us in the press box knew what this bravado act really meant. Johan Cruyff the best in the world? Are you kidding? Only an idiot would have thought that on this evening.
The fact that you are witnessing Ronaldo now and all the greats of the past look like superheroes today doesn't mean that they were better characters. I also think that Ronaldo, with his insane determination, is more likely to prove himself worthy in front of the crowd than to become frustrated, but it's just an assumption and your thought is understandable. Just don't think that it doesn't work the other way - with Pele being the best player in the team Di Stefano and Best won't be too happy with it, although it's unlikely to influence the result in one game
Yes we did. We defeated the attack of Cruyff-Diego-Garrincha in the semi using the same argument harms is beating the drum about right now.
Kudos for convincing voters Pele/Maradona combo will work. I thought that was generally known as a no go.I'm not really sold on Masopust/Cristiano. Masopust is himself a big dribbler apt to going on solo slalom runs...something that'll piss Cristiano to great extent. Cristiano will be more happy with a traditional water carrier or a Suarez type CM behind him feeding him the ball imo.
People used to take anto seriously back then.
Those are similar to the years I would go for but I'd probably start a bit earlier - he was definitely at his peak going into the '62 World Cup.
But in general I think that 1970 cultured version gets overrated when looking at Pele. I mean which do people think is the better Pele here?
I much prefer the younger version and this is't Pele is his peak role as a forward - this is when he was 17 years old.
Last edited:
I'm going with the theory that CR would work as such in the attacking setup, though - that's the premise.
If it does work, he'll be focused on making the right runs - getting himself into finishing positions. He won't be too worried about what the others get up to as long as they give him the ball when it matters (i.e. when he has a clear shot on goal).
I'm not convinced it would work, though - as I've said. But I'm presuming it would - benefit of the doubt and all that.
Have you seen my compilation of him? He usually dribbles his way through the opponent near the halfway line and passes the ball forward - most likely to the left winger - Cristiano would love him, actually. He rarely goes all the way forward into the opponent's box
I constantly thought of Iniesta while watching him (sadly I didn't have the time and the enthusiasm to make the whole WC compilation) - more defensive and physical although a slightly inferior passer. And Iniesta dovetails quite nicely with Neymar for Barca - who isn't the same player as Cristiano, of course, but I can easily imagine him in that role
between those 2 it would probably work even though i think one of them would suffer(which isnt the case in this setup) but both wide players are not suited to that game as i dont see the point of having a classic winger on the pitch and playing a false nine. The whole point of false nine is to create space for inside forwards and hit them with their movement from areas they are not used to.
Loads of expected hyperbole centered around balance, who makes the runs, and whatnot - as if Pelé and Best never made runs at all, and didn't get on the end of Didi and Charlton's passes, or Garrincha's crosses. Pelé not being a target striker, as if teams without a pure stereotypical target striker have never existed or succeeded, or that Pelé in his prime was a devastating final third threat - in a mobile role with supernatural movement off the ball and immense goalscoring prowess - all skills that will be brilliant in the current setup.
Anecdotal, void of context (not definitive) evidence about 'selfishness' and 'ego' (travesty that the discussion has fallen so low that quotes from biographies is being dug up to gain leverage) - whilst ignoring the biggest ego on the pitch - one Cristiano Ronaldo, who starts pouting when he's not the center of attention. Forgetting the fact that Best co-existed with Charlton and Law, The Don with the Galloping Major and Gento and Kopa, Garrincha with Pelé, Didi and co. - whilst forming arguably the most devastating attacking partnership of all time with Pelé.
Anyway, moving forward, the opposition attack hinges on Messi - and his failure or success will be the decisive factor in terms of them scoring goals. Van Basten (great striker, but a target here - who won't create a lot on his own). Ronaldo in his Madrid role, as opposed to the United 2007 peak (where he was at his best - a delectable mix of creativity and production). Both of them are supposedly going to benefit from the creative work of Messi in the final, third, and you have to wonder if that's asking too much of him again the caliber of defense he's facing.
Facchetti needs no introduction. Messi is up against him. Once he bypasses that barrier, there's Varela on the inside left channel. If he manages to bypass that, waiting for him is the best defender (central or wide) on the pitch:
FRANCO BARESI
Master of the zone trap, arguably the best defensive reader ever, nimble on his feet, quick to diagnose plays, and partnering someone who's arguably the most complete centerback in European football history. As addressed in the OP, Messi with Ronaldo with the Henry/Villa/Neymar pass is supposed to be the way forward.
And it might not be that effective against Baresi and Nesta given the Italian pro-activeness they displayed in defense - turning a mundane task into an artform, in terms of stepping up and cutting off horizontal/vertical routes. The whole world knows Messi coming in on his stronger foot and laying the ball off for Ronaldo is the staple pass, they don't have a telepathic understanding like Messi and Neymar do - or infact Pelé and Garrincha do - a partnership that's getting criminally overlooked for some reason while tangential narrative is thrown about.
Anyway, that pass is not taking anyone by surprise and cuts off one of Ronaldo's biggest routes with Nilton not overlapping like Marcelo and Van Basten not setting things up on a plate like Benzema. Infact, that one pass isn't that hard to counter - and could be easily intercepted, and lead to counter-moves by Baresi:
Anecdotal, void of context (not definitive) evidence about 'selfishness' and 'ego' (travesty that the discussion has fallen so low that quotes from biographies is being dug up to gain leverage) - whilst ignoring the biggest ego on the pitch - one Cristiano Ronaldo, who starts pouting when he's not the center of attention. Forgetting the fact that Best co-existed with Charlton and Law, The Don with the Galloping Major and Gento and Kopa, Garrincha with Pelé, Didi and co. - whilst forming arguably the most devastating attacking partnership of all time with Pelé.
Anyway, moving forward, the opposition attack hinges on Messi - and his failure or success will be the decisive factor in terms of them scoring goals. Van Basten (great striker, but a target here - who won't create a lot on his own). Ronaldo in his Madrid role, as opposed to the United 2007 peak (where he was at his best - a delectable mix of creativity and production). Both of them are supposedly going to benefit from the creative work of Messi in the final, third, and you have to wonder if that's asking too much of him again the caliber of defense he's facing.
Facchetti needs no introduction. Messi is up against him. Once he bypasses that barrier, there's Varela on the inside left channel. If he manages to bypass that, waiting for him is the best defender (central or wide) on the pitch:
FRANCO BARESI
Master of the zone trap, arguably the best defensive reader ever, nimble on his feet, quick to diagnose plays, and partnering someone who's arguably the most complete centerback in European football history. As addressed in the OP, Messi with Ronaldo with the Henry/Villa/Neymar pass is supposed to be the way forward.
And it might not be that effective against Baresi and Nesta given the Italian pro-activeness they displayed in defense - turning a mundane task into an artform, in terms of stepping up and cutting off horizontal/vertical routes. The whole world knows Messi coming in on his stronger foot and laying the ball off for Ronaldo is the staple pass, they don't have a telepathic understanding like Messi and Neymar do - or infact Pelé and Garrincha do - a partnership that's getting criminally overlooked for some reason while tangential narrative is thrown about.
Anyway, that pass is not taking anyone by surprise and cuts off one of Ronaldo's biggest routes with Nilton not overlapping like Marcelo and Van Basten not setting things up on a plate like Benzema. Infact, that one pass isn't that hard to counter - and could be easily intercepted, and lead to counter-moves by Baresi:
Not to mention the fact that Andrade will have a keen eye on the right flank, and Ronaldo's movement. The way to goal is going to be very, very tough when you consider the defensive details, despite the overarching emphasis on supposed chemistry and 'ease of access' of the opposition trio.
Last edited:
I also have Luis Suarez who is one of the best playmakers in history and Josef Masopust, who offers different but still a lot of creativity to my side. Not to forget my fullbacks (and not, not every time when a fullback goes forward a "free" winger scores a goal like it's usually argued on here).
And using your own argument regarding my fullbacks - if Andrade is helping with Ronaldo and Varela - with Messi, who is looking after Suarez and Masopust? It's not that simple, of course, but I just wanted to answer you with the same hyperbole you made in the OP.
But still, Masopust lead his country to the World Cup final, receiving a Ballon D'Or for that, Luis Suarez played on a ridiculously high level for years, winning trophies with Barca and Inter, not only winning Ballon D'Or, but also coming second 2 times and 3rd once - incredible record for a midfielder. Not to forget that he led Spain to their first international title with an amazing all-rounded performance
Or this one. Doesn't really play up front at all to be honest in the sense of a traditional number 9, pretty similar to what you'd expect from someone like Luis Ronaldo
Any response to this harms?
Well first point is I'm not quite buying what you're selling with Van Basten and Ronaldo being such a perfect mix - Ronaldo at Madrid is a goal poacher, he's a striker who starts from the left wing and comes centrally so I think there a clear overlap with Van Basten in terms of the role and positions that they'll take up.
It goes without saying Van Basten is nothing like Benzema or anywhere near as selfless (something you keep bringing up for our side).
The second point is that you don't have any great width in that front three - as already stated Ronaldo cuts inside and plays centrally, whilst Messi is going to make those same movements on the other side. Messi is your best source of width but he's no real winger and he does his best work in central areas.
The main thing I want to get at though is this criticism of our front four. Let's try and not make vague statements like 'they all love getting on the ball', or daft statements like 'Nordahl would be better than Pele', and let's try and be specific. What specifically do you see happening?
From my view we have one playmaker in the side who is running the show, we have two world class wingers on the flanks and then arguably the best player to lace up a pair of football boots up top. No problems there.
You have Best who thrived with Bobby Charlton and Denis Law, Pele and Garrincha who thrived with each other along with Didi (and never lost a match together), and Di Stefano who is clearly the playmaker here but who also thrived with the likes of Puskas, Gento and Kopa.
If this is such a big issue you must be able to point to some tangible, authoritative evidence for it not working - yet you haven't provided anything. It's all just vague comments that don't actually correspond to what happened in reality.
Well first point is I'm not quite buying what you're selling with Van Basten and Ronaldo being such a perfect mix - Ronaldo at Madrid is a goal poacher, he's a striker who starts from the left wing and comes centrally so I think there a clear overlap with Van Basten in terms of the role and positions that they'll take up.
It goes without saying Van Basten is nothing like Benzema or anywhere near as selfless (something you keep bringing up for our side).
The second point is that you don't have any great width in that front three - as already stated Ronaldo cuts inside and plays centrally, whilst Messi is going to make those same movements on the other side. Messi is your best source of width but he's no real winger and he does his best work in central areas.
The main thing I want to get at though is this criticism of our front four. Let's try and not make vague statements like 'they all love getting on the ball', or daft statements like 'Nordahl would be better than Pele', and let's try and be specific. What specifically do you see happening?
From my view we have one playmaker in the side who is running the show, we have two world class wingers on the flanks and then arguably the best player to lace up a pair of football boots up top. No problems there.
You have Best who thrived with Bobby Charlton and Denis Law, Pele and Garrincha who thrived with each other along with Didi (and never lost a match together), and Di Stefano who is clearly the playmaker here but who also thrived with the likes of Puskas, Gento and Kopa.
If this is such a big issue you must be able to point to some tangible, authoritative evidence for it not working - yet you haven't provided anything. It's all just vague comments that don't actually correspond to what happened in reality.
He has a similar combination of pace and physical strength which is where I can see the similarity. Ronaldo was probably even more extreme in that sense.
Yeah that was the etc I was getting at and anything to deepen the quality of the debate is welcome as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately we don't often get beyond the "but player X isn't playing with shitters here, he's got superstars all around him" which is true but doesn't unpick the root causes properly.
Regarding Nesta it's not necessarily fair to assume that's the standard given the rest of his career, but it's fair to assume that Ronaldo can do that to anyone because he typically did circa '96-99.
What? When you and Invictus are posting the same arguments at the same time I tend to miss out on some posts, it's too much for me.
Van Basten isn't Benzema, but I don't see a problem at all - I have 2 strikers, one - a target man with a great hold-up skills, movement and finishing, and the other one cutting from the left, forming a duo - and Messi in behind them, as a third attacker (btw where Pele he played best)
I don't think that it's possible to provide evidence to Best-Pele-Di Stefano-Garrincha not working and if I were you this is where I'd say that you're posting bizarre or ridiculous points. There were no team in history with such talent up front - with 2 genuine GOATs and 2 GOAT wingers, who all were the main men in their teams, but there is evidence (and I provided lots of it) that Charlton/Law, Puskas/Didi etc had to sacrifice part of their natural game to provide the superstar with full freedom. Here you have 4 players who need such freedom - and no one who is able to provide it to them, even to an extent. It's not only me who see that as a problem btw.
I don't think that relationship and that midfield dynamic looks much different than Ancelotti's Real - same shape and Masopust's ball carrying abilities were in some ways replicated by Di Maria's brilliant form that season. Seemed to work well enough then.
They're quite similar IMO. Van Basten shares Benzema's presence, back-to-goal slickness, touch, a bit more goal threat, etc, all while elevating things a couple of notches.
True the false 9 is generally used with inside-forwards (not the Mighty Magyars however) but it's the only real way I can see Di Stefano and Pele working in this setup. Pele is really a second-striker like Rooney but x1000 better. I think the best setup for Pele would either be in a front 5 or the 1958 setup with van Basten as an upgrade on Vava. You could mix round
Astute observations from a holistic standpoint, but since the general narrative seems to be that say Best won't budge even an inch for the others, and neither will they - I wonder if for the sake of fairness, we should extend the same logic towards Van Basten and Masopust (the former being the crown jewel of Milan - with an attack tailored for him, and the latter who was Czech Republic's centerpiece at his peak). Since narrative seems to be that the entire opposition personnel is selfless to a fault and will function at an optimal level with no-one sacrificing anything from their peak. eg. Peak Suárez was as much of a 'general' as Di Stéfano, and Cristiano is as individualistic as Garrincha, and Andrade will provide as much dynamism as Masopust, and Messi needs as much of the ball as Best, and so forth. It all kind of balances out, IMO.
They're both capable technically but ultimately one is a classic centre forward whereas the other is much fluid and often vacates those exact spaces to create room for Ronaldo.
I don't think Benzema is a typical striker at all really, he plays quite a specialised role and was often more of an enabler for the rest of the team. It was always Higuain who was more of a typical #9 (though he was clearly nothing like Van Basten).
He is a superior player, not because he plays with 'a largely underwhelming support cast' (as you said about Maradona) or because he has a big Ego, but because he has superior skills in any circumstances and a ultimate winning mentality.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-the-ultimate-professional-and-a-pleasure-to/
Last edited:
Reckon Di Stéfano's impact on the game needs to be re-emphasized (yet again, happens in every game). If Zito plays the holder role screening the defensive boundary, that gives Di Stéfano a lot of free space in the system; and if he marks him individually, Di Stéfano will realistically evade him time and again because Zito was not your 'destroyer' type who frequently man marked players of Di Stéfano's caliber.
ALFREDO DI STÉFANO
These slalom runs as a defensive midfielder are often equated with his playing style; but that is a reduction of his skills and (even a negative) glorification of his archetype. Very often Di Stéfano is reduced to his goal threat from deep and merely supporting the midfield, but the Argentinian superstar of the 50s was much more than that. He could fill in as a deep playmaker in a variety of roles and styles, possessing the very rare ability to completely steal the game with his rhythm and dynamism and briefly take over a game.
It is often said of playmakers that they “set the tempo,”; yet it is rarely clear what that means. From a tactical perspective, one can imagine that the player is calmly engaged in a very dynamic game with many zone-changes and intense movements. Predominantly creating vertical attacks by leading a calmer and more stable ball circulation before directly or indirectly increasing the pace.
Too high a rhythm can also create problems of a tacticalnature (such as a more wide-ranging and demanding nature of the passing game, unpleasant game dynamics or hasty decisions) and a psychological nature (such as more hectic action in the team’s coordination or a lack of concentration and precision).
Of these various aspects, most players can only exert very little influence and control over the different spaces; some thrive on a fast rhythm, and find that, in general, they can only switch between fast and very fast or influence their environment at these speeds. Others are missing the middle range. They can either be slow or fast; and some may not even realize what they’re missing. To completely take over the pace for a brief moment and then flexibly revive it in varying degrees of intensity is an underrated art; and Di Stéfano dominated them all.
And to address another point, since a battering ram or target type will supposedly be a better fit with the Don in the center:
ALFREDO DI STÉFANO
These slalom runs as a defensive midfielder are often equated with his playing style; but that is a reduction of his skills and (even a negative) glorification of his archetype. Very often Di Stéfano is reduced to his goal threat from deep and merely supporting the midfield, but the Argentinian superstar of the 50s was much more than that. He could fill in as a deep playmaker in a variety of roles and styles, possessing the very rare ability to completely steal the game with his rhythm and dynamism and briefly take over a game.
It is often said of playmakers that they “set the tempo,”; yet it is rarely clear what that means. From a tactical perspective, one can imagine that the player is calmly engaged in a very dynamic game with many zone-changes and intense movements. Predominantly creating vertical attacks by leading a calmer and more stable ball circulation before directly or indirectly increasing the pace.
Too high a rhythm can also create problems of a tacticalnature (such as a more wide-ranging and demanding nature of the passing game, unpleasant game dynamics or hasty decisions) and a psychological nature (such as more hectic action in the team’s coordination or a lack of concentration and precision).
Of these various aspects, most players can only exert very little influence and control over the different spaces; some thrive on a fast rhythm, and find that, in general, they can only switch between fast and very fast or influence their environment at these speeds. Others are missing the middle range. They can either be slow or fast; and some may not even realize what they’re missing. To completely take over the pace for a brief moment and then flexibly revive it in varying degrees of intensity is an underrated art; and Di Stéfano dominated them all.
And to address another point, since a battering ram or target type will supposedly be a better fit with the Don in the center:
This is trademark Pelé - movement in the final third, passing up front, technical layoffs, combinations. Except young Pelé was way more mobile, not as fat, and incredibly threatening in front of goal. The combination should be brilliant with ample room out wide to stretch the central defense.
More:
Isn't it just a souped up version of that brilliant Di Maria/Ronaldo link up for Real? The dribbling of the LCM drawing defenders out and creating space for Ronaldo to exploit.
It's weird that the consistent gulf in quality isn't being recognized, with some even going so far as to say the opposition has a better midfield.
Di Stéfano > Suárez
Andrade ~ Masopust
Varela > Zito given that Varela is considered to be the co-best defensive midfielder from SA with Monti.
One might try to dress up in whatever way one wants, but Di Stéfano is in a great central role of authority, Andrade is his favored right sided box-to-box role, and Varela as the deep defensive midfielder. Add that functional plan to the qualitative gulf, and there's little doubting which midfield is better.
Ditto defense, in our opinion:
Facchetti ~ Nilton, close overall but Facchetti was a better defender - could quote other managers, but meh, what's the point
Baresi > Figueroa (slim margins, but the former is probably the best pure defender in football)
Nesta > Desailly, Nesta is a borderline top 6 CB of all time, and the best since Baresi
Brehme ~ Cafu (both have qualities where they're better than the other player)
Kahn ~ Schmeichel (maybe that doesn't hold true on a United board, though)
They're also not bombing forward to the same degree to provide extra width - making the defense even more secure.
Di Stéfano, Pelé, Best and Garrincha are operating in very different zones (central, final third, left channel, right channel) - and to top it all off, Pelé + Garrincha is a legendary partnership which should leave little doubt regarding their chemistry to the imagination - they never actually lost a football match when they played on the same team.. How much more proven can you get?
And Pelé + Best could make as many off the ball runs as Van Basten and Ronaldo, apart from providing greater 'magic' - which can make a world of difference in a cagey match.
Off-the ball headed goal by Best.
Off-the-ball run - offside goal by Best.
Best Goal from a header layoff that Pelé can easily replicate.
Strange overall outcome. Mostly because of some hypothetical ego/chemistry concerns that can't be conclusively proven, while disregarding the quality differential in other areas of the pitch - which is pretty consistent.
Di Stéfano > Suárez
Andrade ~ Masopust
Varela > Zito given that Varela is considered to be the co-best defensive midfielder from SA with Monti.
One might try to dress up in whatever way one wants, but Di Stéfano is in a great central role of authority, Andrade is his favored right sided box-to-box role, and Varela as the deep defensive midfielder. Add that functional plan to the qualitative gulf, and there's little doubting which midfield is better.
Ditto defense, in our opinion:
Facchetti ~ Nilton, close overall but Facchetti was a better defender - could quote other managers, but meh, what's the point
Baresi > Figueroa (slim margins, but the former is probably the best pure defender in football)
Nesta > Desailly, Nesta is a borderline top 6 CB of all time, and the best since Baresi
Brehme ~ Cafu (both have qualities where they're better than the other player)
Kahn ~ Schmeichel (maybe that doesn't hold true on a United board, though)
They're also not bombing forward to the same degree to provide extra width - making the defense even more secure.
Di Stéfano, Pelé, Best and Garrincha are operating in very different zones (central, final third, left channel, right channel) - and to top it all off, Pelé + Garrincha is a legendary partnership which should leave little doubt regarding their chemistry to the imagination - they never actually lost a football match when they played on the same team.. How much more proven can you get?
And Pelé + Best could make as many off the ball runs as Van Basten and Ronaldo, apart from providing greater 'magic' - which can make a world of difference in a cagey match.
Off-the ball headed goal by Best.
Off-the-ball run - offside goal by Best.
Best Goal from a header layoff that Pelé can easily replicate.
Strange overall outcome. Mostly because of some hypothetical ego/chemistry concerns that can't be conclusively proven, while disregarding the quality differential in other areas of the pitch - which is pretty consistent.
Last edited:
If this consistent gulf in quality you refer to had been real, the vote would have reflected this. People who vote in these things aren't complete idiots.
Good match. Tied even now.
Not sure what you're biting his head off for. Gulf is the wrong word but there's a clear edge in quality across the midfield and defence.
I would add Facchetti being better than Santos to the list that Invictus posted.
Because it's not enough to stack all the GOATs together, you have to create a working team - and that's the main issue with your team, at least for me (and I'm not alone, as you can see).
Also, it's not you or Theon (nice contribution about Facchetti being better than Nilton Santos btw) who should "objectively" compare players, if anyone should compare players with each other (which is a pointless exercise because players aren't competing 1 on 1) it's the neutrals.
When you compare Baresi and Figueroa, for example, you should also take note that Figueroa is better in the air, for example, which is important, given that they are facing Pele, van Basten and C. Ronaldo; if Nesta is better than Desailly (I'd say that he is, probably, but not by much, especially if we comparing defensive qualities), then Cafu is better than Brehme on the right, but I don't think that those margins can be described as a gulf. That's why we don't have a table with ><~ deciding every game but two tactical formations.
I'm surprised to see you using that argument tbf.
Nesta is comfortably a better centre back than Desailly - it's not that close IMO. I wouldn't say that Desailly was a better centre back than Rio Ferdindand and there are many people who think that Desailly picked in that midfield role at Milan (which is where you yourself used him previously).
Not sure what's so strange about him posting a very brief comparison of the individual players. Ultimately that's one of the main aspects of what we are doing here.
In terms of the first part and 'making a working team', you need to actually provide reason/justification for the players Invictus highlighted not working well as a unit. I agree with him that we have an edge in both midfield and defence and I can't see anything going on which will make those players lesser than the sum of its parts.
This is gold, really.- Provide proof that Best, Pele, Di Stefano and Garrincha aren't going to work as good as they look on paper. What? You can't because no one had ever assembled an attack remotely close to this one in real life? Well then your accusations are false, obviously.
- "I agree with my co-manager that my team is better". After this argument I think we should close the discussion all together.
- Provide proof that Best, Pele, Di Stefano and Garrincha aren't going to work as good as they look on paper. What? You can't because no one had ever assembled an attack remotely close to this one in real life? Well then your accusations are false, obviously.
What on earth are you talking about?
You clearly know that we're talking about the defence and the midfield, yet you're bringing up the attack.
Let's recap here - Invictus made a post highlighting how we have a better defence and midfield based on individuals. There is no mention of they attack anywhere (where I think we have an edge also) and you respond with this:
I'll ask again - is there any reason you see the defensive unit or midfield not working as a collective?
I'm talking about your team in whole as it won't work collectively - not about your units.
You defence is nicely balanced, although Brehme on the right is, in my opinion, the weakest fullback on the pitch (not by far). Cafu and Santos feature in lots of different all-time XI and so is Facchetti, can't say the same about Brehme as in his original position it's between Maldini, Facchetti and N. Santos.
Your midfield is alright, I guess, but I'm not a huge fan of it - especially with Di Stefano being effectively the part of your attacking unit, which I have a problem with.
Agree on Cafu probably edging out Brehme at right back - but I don't see that as a massive issue and as noted above I think all three of Facchetti / Baresi / Nesta have the edge on the counter parts in your side.
Overall I don't have any doubts on which team has the better defensive unit.
Disagree on Di Stefano and you're misrepresenting him by implying he's part of the attacking unit - he's much more of a midfielder and the fact that he scored so many goals whilst having that overall influence on the game is one of the reasons he's generally regarded amongst the best five players ever.
Well, after you said that Pele peaked as a number 9...
Meh, we're going in circles again, it's boring.
Meh, we're going in circles again, it's boring.