Different topic- how well to the CBs match up to the strikers?
The Double Draft: FINALS - harms vs Invictus/Theon
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Before peak Figueroa played against the peak Pele and he cope quite well - his defensive nous mixed up with his physical qualities makes him pretty much a perfect choice for handling him. Desailly made it to 2 Euro team of the tournament and 1 WC TotT in this stopper role, paired with Blanc in the great French defence of the late 90's, he is a beast who will be very touch to go through with his precise tackling, agility and strength.
Baresi and Nesta are brilliant. There is a point that in C. Ronaldo and van Basten you have two of the greatest attacking headers in history (alongside or slightly behind Kocsis) and it may play some role in the encounter, although both Baresi and Nesta were more than competent in that aspect.
What do you think about it yourself? Seeing as you've voted already
Franz Beckenbauer said "I am the Figueroa of Europe"
Pele said "if Figueroa had won a World Cup would be the best defender in history"
Daniel Passarella said "Figueroa and Beckenbauer They have been the best I in history plants unique "
César Luis Menotti said " is the best center I saw in my life "
More so - when in 2004 FIFA celebrated their 100th anniversary, they named Figueroa the best player in the World in 1976 (ahead of Beckenbauer) - sadly, Ballon D'Or was European-only that time.
Just a little addition to Theon's claim that Figueroa was inferior to Baresi and Nilton Santos, who was voted by FIFA in 1998 for its "XI of the Century" was inferior to Facchetti
Pele said "if Figueroa had won a World Cup would be the best defender in history"
Daniel Passarella said "Figueroa and Beckenbauer They have been the best I in history plants unique "
César Luis Menotti said " is the best center I saw in my life "
More so - when in 2004 FIFA celebrated their 100th anniversary, they named Figueroa the best player in the World in 1976 (ahead of Beckenbauer) - sadly, Ballon D'Or was European-only that time.
Just a little addition to Theon's claim that Figueroa was inferior to Baresi and Nilton Santos, who was voted by FIFA in 1998 for its "XI of the Century" was inferior to Facchetti
Nice to see Zito and Andrade feature in the final, cracking players.
Straight off the bat, regarding the di Stefano vs Zito encounter, I actually think a triangle pointing forward would be more representative of the actual midfield dynamics of harms, as opposed to Zito in a lone holding role of sorts. Masopust-Zito, with the younger version of Suarez as the free roaming AM seems like the probable way it would pan out. Can't see it functioning like a Busquets-Xavi-Iniesta like midfield trio for example but rather veering towards a van Hanegem-Neesken-Jansen type of a midfield trio. So whilst di Stefano would have the upper hand against Zito in a 'standalone encounter', I'd say it's much more of Zito-Masopust against di Stefano, with Andrade playing a supporting B2B role. Likewise, Varela-Andrade against Suarez, with Masopust going forward in a supporting manner.
On the Andrade issue, it seems quite unfair that he can both equally be regarded as a top notch RWB and as a RCM but from what I've read about him, he seems like he had the complete skill-set to pull of both roles, and his right wing-half role had overlaps in both the above mentioned positions. I don't know which position I prefer him in myself, and I have read sources which paint him as more of a central B2B influence, and I was of the opinion that he was primarily a midfielder but someone who was complete enough and uniquely could play potentially the full-back role to a lesser degree - sort of like Edwards. However, there are other reputable sources which paint Andrade as a wing-back of sorts.
Ultimately, it's hard to pin-point from his wing-half role whether he was more of a midfielder or a wing-back, (esp since each historical set-up had its own nuances and quirks) but I'd say he was versatile enough and had overlaps in both these positions to play either of these positions.
Straight off the bat, regarding the di Stefano vs Zito encounter, I actually think a triangle pointing forward would be more representative of the actual midfield dynamics of harms, as opposed to Zito in a lone holding role of sorts. Masopust-Zito, with the younger version of Suarez as the free roaming AM seems like the probable way it would pan out. Can't see it functioning like a Busquets-Xavi-Iniesta like midfield trio for example but rather veering towards a van Hanegem-Neesken-Jansen type of a midfield trio. So whilst di Stefano would have the upper hand against Zito in a 'standalone encounter', I'd say it's much more of Zito-Masopust against di Stefano, with Andrade playing a supporting B2B role. Likewise, Varela-Andrade against Suarez, with Masopust going forward in a supporting manner.
On the Andrade issue, it seems quite unfair that he can both equally be regarded as a top notch RWB and as a RCM but from what I've read about him, he seems like he had the complete skill-set to pull of both roles, and his right wing-half role had overlaps in both the above mentioned positions. I don't know which position I prefer him in myself, and I have read sources which paint him as more of a central B2B influence, and I was of the opinion that he was primarily a midfielder but someone who was complete enough and uniquely could play potentially the full-back role to a lesser degree - sort of like Edwards. However, there are other reputable sources which paint Andrade as a wing-back of sorts.
BY the time the first World Cup was played in Uruguay in 1930, English football was already in thrall to the third back game, or WM formation, introduced by Arsenal in 1925 as a response to the radical change in the offside law. Whereas in the past an attacker needed three players, in effect two defenders and the goalkeeper, between himself and the opposing goal when the ball was kicked, now he needed just two which in turn effectively meant one man and the keeper. But Germany apart, it would still be many years before the world game at large accepted, even understood, the new strategy, with its stopper or third back centre-half, flying wingers, so called wing halves moved into the middle of the park to play just behind the inside forwards, and full backs now out on the flanks pivoting in turn to cover the centre half. It is arguable that the Brazilians, most successful of all in World Cups, never really mastered the third back game at all. And the Italians, who would in time become obsessed by tactics, were incredibly slow to understand it.
Not till 1939, when he wrote an article on the subject in the Roman daily, Corriere dello Sport, did Fulvio Bernardini, once an outstanding attacking centre half himself, "explain" to Italy the difference between the old school which he called metodo and what an England team had just displayed in Milan against Italy, the third back game which he christened sistema. Yet England had played in Rome in 1933!
So in Montevideo there was never any doubt about what methods the 13 contestants would use. It was still a case of the two full backs covering the middle, the wing halves playing up and down the flanks rather like the wing backs of today, the centre half being fluid, always ready to support his attack, and what could often amount to a five man forward line though obviously its two inside forwards had to be ready to drop back to lend a hand in midfield. The wingers stayed wide, the centre forward would plie his trade through the middle. (Almost sounds like a modern 4-3-3 off the ball doesn't it?)
Uruguay, who had resplendently won the 1924 and 1928 Olympic titles, would still be wedded to such methods in the World Cups of the 1950s. Perhaps their chief strength, besides their dazzling technique, was their half back line known as The Iron Curtain long before Winston Churchill supposedly minted the phrase after World War II. The so called la costilla metallica consisted of Jose Andrade and Alvaro Gestido in the flanks, Lorenzo Fernandez in the middle. Billy Meredith, the famous Wales and Manchester United outside right, whose amazingly long career spanned World War I, was wont to say, "Show me your half back line and I'll tell you what kind of a team you've got." In the case of Uruguay, it was a very strong one indeed.
Andrade, something of an exhibitionist at times, and the broad shouldered Gestido were exceptional ball players and Gestido's passing was immaculate. That left Fernandez to break forward when he chose. The bulwark of the strong defence was Jose' Nasazi who as the right back played in the centre as full backs then would.
Not till 1939, when he wrote an article on the subject in the Roman daily, Corriere dello Sport, did Fulvio Bernardini, once an outstanding attacking centre half himself, "explain" to Italy the difference between the old school which he called metodo and what an England team had just displayed in Milan against Italy, the third back game which he christened sistema. Yet England had played in Rome in 1933!
So in Montevideo there was never any doubt about what methods the 13 contestants would use. It was still a case of the two full backs covering the middle, the wing halves playing up and down the flanks rather like the wing backs of today, the centre half being fluid, always ready to support his attack, and what could often amount to a five man forward line though obviously its two inside forwards had to be ready to drop back to lend a hand in midfield. The wingers stayed wide, the centre forward would plie his trade through the middle. (Almost sounds like a modern 4-3-3 off the ball doesn't it?)
Uruguay, who had resplendently won the 1924 and 1928 Olympic titles, would still be wedded to such methods in the World Cups of the 1950s. Perhaps their chief strength, besides their dazzling technique, was their half back line known as The Iron Curtain long before Winston Churchill supposedly minted the phrase after World War II. The so called la costilla metallica consisted of Jose Andrade and Alvaro Gestido in the flanks, Lorenzo Fernandez in the middle. Billy Meredith, the famous Wales and Manchester United outside right, whose amazingly long career spanned World War I, was wont to say, "Show me your half back line and I'll tell you what kind of a team you've got." In the case of Uruguay, it was a very strong one indeed.
Andrade, something of an exhibitionist at times, and the broad shouldered Gestido were exceptional ball players and Gestido's passing was immaculate. That left Fernandez to break forward when he chose. The bulwark of the strong defence was Jose' Nasazi who as the right back played in the centre as full backs then would.
Ultimately, it's hard to pin-point from his wing-half role whether he was more of a midfielder or a wing-back, (esp since each historical set-up had its own nuances and quirks) but I'd say he was versatile enough and had overlaps in both these positions to play either of these positions.
Last edited:
Regarding the match-up, I'm generally not a fan of Pele playing up top but it's di Stefano behind him playing his all-encompassing role here, in what promises to be a tight encounter - where he would frequently drop deep and held the midfield/defense or contribute to the build-up play and provide plenty of room for Pele to breathe in the attacking third. Can't see Pele up top working with a more classical #10 or a less dynamic player for example.
Really like harms forward trio and how his midfield and wing-backs complement each other very well. It's a great foundation for Messi to shine in. Messi and Luisito Suarez is just a brilliant combination and you can see it clicking from a mile off. There is a nice blend of directness, class and incisiveness in that formidable attacking trio, with all three in well-defined roles with minimal overlaps. I for one don't quite think Messi needs a wing-back behind him for him to excel and think he would actually do better with a more cerebral/complete full-back as opposed to a buccaneering one. He isn't really an narrow inside forward imo but more of a wide playmaker, who can also cut in and pose a direct goalscoring threat - sort of like a hybrid of Ribery-Robben if you will. To say I would have probably preferred to see a more cerebral influence behind Messi would be nitpicking to the extreme, and Cafu is a great foil for him. As much as I do love Brehme, I'll probably give the edge to Cristiano in that flank duel and it's probably harms best route to goal, although of course he will have to deal with Nesta cutting in. Likewise, I'd also give van Basten the slight edge aerially against the Baresi-Nesta duo, esp with Cafu and N.Santos providing the service. On the deck he'd find it tough going against that Italian duo, but in the air he's one of the most formidable forwards to ever grace the game, and whilst Nesta is pretty good at heading, he's will probably find himself losing an aerial battle or two at times. Same applies for Ronaldo too.
I/T's team has some lovely flanks, with the direct and explosive Facchetti behind Best being a match truly made in heaven. It's truly a multi-faceted duo with either of them capable of making a mark on both the wings or the central areas (the Italian's occasional goalscoring threat). Brehme and Garrincha is a different sort of a flank but one that I can see working well too. Brehme would probably have to curb his overlapping runs to an extent but he was never a pure overlapping wing-back but a cerebral full-back, who had so much more to his arsenal. His intelligence and classy play should complement the more individualistic play of Garrincha imo. A truly imposing spine with some cracking players, with Baresi commanding the defense, and a favourite of mine in di Stefano.
There is definitely some merit to having too many tricksters/ball-hogging influences in the side, but I do think I/T's midfield does offset it to a certain extent. He has a classic destroyer of a centre-half, a wing-half and one of the less flashy/dominant presences on the ball for a #10/SS great in di Stefano. In the sense that you can see them get the ball to the forwards in a unfussy and relatively straightforward manner and expect them to get on with it. Having said that, there will definitely be a few instances in the game where di Stefano might get frustrated at the individualistic nature of Best-Garrincha, as he simply loved playing those one-twos/dummies and making those combination plays. However, I do feel this is probably a game whereby di Stefano will probably be more involved in wrestling control from the deeper positions, help shoring up things in midfield/defense and orchestrating play from relatively more withdrawn positions as more of a midfield general; as opposed to functioning more as a second-striker of sorts in a dominant side. Which should, in theory, provide more space and room for that attacking trio, I reckon. Think Pele of 1970 would be the better fit here though, the younger version is far too direct and loved dropping deep, whilst the more statesmanlike 1970 version offered relatively more of a well-defined focal point imo, with his link-up play and game inside the box being more developed. Can see that version dovetailing better with Garrincha-Best, and di Stefano too for that matter.
I/T's side is well set-up in dealing with harms primary threats of Messi-Suarez-Cafu with his left side of his defense being nothing short of fantastic - Facchetti-Baresi-Varela, with Best providing great counter-attacking threat. However, both Masopust & N.Santos are class acts on the ball and provide a great supplementary creative presence for harm's side. That's one thing that I love about harms side in particular - you can't exactly pin-point one PRIMARY goalscoring threat or creative outlet whilst the balance and complementarity of the side is bang on the money.
Can see Best being I/T's best route to goal and I think harms might have missed a trick by utilising Desailly as the RCB as I always felt Figueroa was great at covering the flanks and helping out his full-backs. Chile always played with extremely adventurous wing-backs and the centre-backs seemingly had to play a fairly distinct roles, in covering the space left behind by these forays forward. Figueroa was pretty good at mopping up these balls in these areas and frequently drifting to the channels to cover for the inside forward cutting in. There is of course that famous anecdote of Figueroa playing a blinder against Blokhin in the WC qualifier in Moscow, where he dovetailed/combined exceptionally well with his fellow full-back to nullify the Russian - something which I'm sure harms would probably know more about than me. There is plenty of full match footage online, esp in the WC 1966, where Figueroa's covering of the flanks was truly brilliant.
Real tough to decide this one.
Really like harms forward trio and how his midfield and wing-backs complement each other very well. It's a great foundation for Messi to shine in. Messi and Luisito Suarez is just a brilliant combination and you can see it clicking from a mile off. There is a nice blend of directness, class and incisiveness in that formidable attacking trio, with all three in well-defined roles with minimal overlaps. I for one don't quite think Messi needs a wing-back behind him for him to excel and think he would actually do better with a more cerebral/complete full-back as opposed to a buccaneering one. He isn't really an narrow inside forward imo but more of a wide playmaker, who can also cut in and pose a direct goalscoring threat - sort of like a hybrid of Ribery-Robben if you will. To say I would have probably preferred to see a more cerebral influence behind Messi would be nitpicking to the extreme, and Cafu is a great foil for him. As much as I do love Brehme, I'll probably give the edge to Cristiano in that flank duel and it's probably harms best route to goal, although of course he will have to deal with Nesta cutting in. Likewise, I'd also give van Basten the slight edge aerially against the Baresi-Nesta duo, esp with Cafu and N.Santos providing the service. On the deck he'd find it tough going against that Italian duo, but in the air he's one of the most formidable forwards to ever grace the game, and whilst Nesta is pretty good at heading, he's will probably find himself losing an aerial battle or two at times. Same applies for Ronaldo too.
I/T's team has some lovely flanks, with the direct and explosive Facchetti behind Best being a match truly made in heaven. It's truly a multi-faceted duo with either of them capable of making a mark on both the wings or the central areas (the Italian's occasional goalscoring threat). Brehme and Garrincha is a different sort of a flank but one that I can see working well too. Brehme would probably have to curb his overlapping runs to an extent but he was never a pure overlapping wing-back but a cerebral full-back, who had so much more to his arsenal. His intelligence and classy play should complement the more individualistic play of Garrincha imo. A truly imposing spine with some cracking players, with Baresi commanding the defense, and a favourite of mine in di Stefano.
There is definitely some merit to having too many tricksters/ball-hogging influences in the side, but I do think I/T's midfield does offset it to a certain extent. He has a classic destroyer of a centre-half, a wing-half and one of the less flashy/dominant presences on the ball for a #10/SS great in di Stefano. In the sense that you can see them get the ball to the forwards in a unfussy and relatively straightforward manner and expect them to get on with it. Having said that, there will definitely be a few instances in the game where di Stefano might get frustrated at the individualistic nature of Best-Garrincha, as he simply loved playing those one-twos/dummies and making those combination plays. However, I do feel this is probably a game whereby di Stefano will probably be more involved in wrestling control from the deeper positions, help shoring up things in midfield/defense and orchestrating play from relatively more withdrawn positions as more of a midfield general; as opposed to functioning more as a second-striker of sorts in a dominant side. Which should, in theory, provide more space and room for that attacking trio, I reckon. Think Pele of 1970 would be the better fit here though, the younger version is far too direct and loved dropping deep, whilst the more statesmanlike 1970 version offered relatively more of a well-defined focal point imo, with his link-up play and game inside the box being more developed. Can see that version dovetailing better with Garrincha-Best, and di Stefano too for that matter.
I/T's side is well set-up in dealing with harms primary threats of Messi-Suarez-Cafu with his left side of his defense being nothing short of fantastic - Facchetti-Baresi-Varela, with Best providing great counter-attacking threat. However, both Masopust & N.Santos are class acts on the ball and provide a great supplementary creative presence for harm's side. That's one thing that I love about harms side in particular - you can't exactly pin-point one PRIMARY goalscoring threat or creative outlet whilst the balance and complementarity of the side is bang on the money.
Can see Best being I/T's best route to goal and I think harms might have missed a trick by utilising Desailly as the RCB as I always felt Figueroa was great at covering the flanks and helping out his full-backs. Chile always played with extremely adventurous wing-backs and the centre-backs seemingly had to play a fairly distinct roles, in covering the space left behind by these forays forward. Figueroa was pretty good at mopping up these balls in these areas and frequently drifting to the channels to cover for the inside forward cutting in. There is of course that famous anecdote of Figueroa playing a blinder against Blokhin in the WC qualifier in Moscow, where he dovetailed/combined exceptionally well with his fellow full-back to nullify the Russian - something which I'm sure harms would probably know more about than me. There is plenty of full match footage online, esp in the WC 1966, where Figueroa's covering of the flanks was truly brilliant.
Real tough to decide this one.
Last edited:
To be fair it's not a traditional RCB-LCB combo in my eyes, Figueroa has a complete freedom to move around and Desailly's position depends on where Figueroa is at the moment - at least that's pretty much how he played for Chile
Great analysis, thanks!
Fair enough then.
Which is what the award was for, not Desailly individually. The whole defensive unit of a back four shielded by the two defensive midfielders collectively did the job. You conversely have two attack minded fullbacks and one defensive midfielder shielding them, it hardly provides the same amount of cohesiveness or watertight nature that was the main reason behind the success of the French of defense. I would have definitely voted for you if you had that sort of setup with your current attack, or at least something more pragmatic than your current configuration. Playing two attacking fullbacks in a back four against that attack was one of the main reasons I couldn't see you not getting outscored.
I think you underrate Masopust's defensive game and my fullbacks are not that bad defensively, they are among the most balanced fullbacks around, actually. Do you mind IT's defensive approach too, with two even more attacking fullbacks, holding midfielder and defensive box-to-box (just like mine)?.
I'm not underrating anyone, just pointing out the comparison that you made with the French team. That had way more defensive cautiousness than anything here by either team. They had two out and out defensive midfielders and even the third one was defense minded box to box midfielder, who would stay at the back the whole time with the back four rarely venturing forward. In short you will get a difference performance from Desailly than what he won those awards for.
Alright. I don't think that Desailly was that dependent on the system but I get what you're saying.
There's a big difference between having Lilian Thuram defending next to you and having Cafu instead of him. Thuram was essentially a CB playing out wide and especially against central threats he was always there to defend, which is what you would have needed in this game. Thuram was actually the best defender of the lot, no way France would have won the WC without him even if you don't count his two legendary SF goals.
Could have sworn he was a LCB and he played beside Lizarazu? If Desailly were playing in his LCB role here (which he should be imo), then you could very well say playing between N.Santos-Figueroa is a huge upgrade defensively, as is playing behind Zito (better than Deschamps imo). Of course, I get your point that the France team was more compact tactically and the above mentioned players, are up against some of the greatest players to play football, and that too in a hypothetical fantasy match but I don't think there is a helluva lot of difference in mentality or that harms side is too gung ho etc. Nilton Santos, Figueroa are amongst the best in their positions and fantastic defensively, whilst Cafu is extremely well-rounded for a wing-back renowned for his attacking output. The key here is both N.Santos and Cafu could be relied on to provide width and quality service from out wide, without being gung-ho or leaving gaping holes at the back (more so for N.Santos who is one of the most balanced full-backs around). Likewise, that midfield trio can certainly pull it's weight off the ball and esp with Zito doing the heavy lifting (Masopust shouldn't be discounted though and Suarez was fantastic defensively for a man of his talents).
The problem is basically the tactics employed by harms and also the natural playing styles. None of the French back four was ever obliged to provide width in exchange for abandoning defensive positions. If Nilton and Cafu had traditional wingers playing with them and would have given a role to function as a proper defensive unit I would have bought it but here they are both asked to provide width and this pretty much resembles the Barca setup with Alves and Alba, and harms hasn't hesitated in pointing out the offensive combinations between Cafu and Messi. Moreover even if you rate Zito ahead of Deschamps (pretty much arguable, Deschamps was absolutely fantastic in that role throughout the decade winning multiple Champions Leagues and of course captaining the team, as a pure water carrier he has very few peers in my opinion) Deschamps had Petit next to him, another out and out defensive midfielder and not a box to box midfielder also tasked with offensive duties. It is just chalk and cheese comparing the two setups. Not in terms of qualities or even playing styles but the tactical approach here is way more gung ho than that French team which was way more pragmatic than a normal defensive setup. It is obvious that the setup French used would elevate the performances of their defenders and allow them to function more as a unit, as they did. Whereas here there's a lot more space and a lot more room for a defender getting isolated in 1v1s constantly and that is not a wise thing against the oppo attack. One of the main reasons I voted for DC in the semi was he had gone for a similar defensive approach, that is 5 at the back shielded by a proper DM and Matthaus. That was the sort of a defensive setup I could see overcoming this attack, but not the current one. I had hoped harms would continue with the previous formation but I guess he got cautious of playing Gentile against Pele, which is fair enough.
Re Desailly, I'm not sure there's anything in his game which suggests he wouldn't be effective at covering into wider areas. France were obviously a lot more compact and Harms' set-up is more expansive and likely to stretch and challenge Desailly. But his physicality, dynamism, robustness in one-on-ones and pace would all make him a good fit for a more demanding covering role. He's also a nice fit given his expertise in midfield in tracking a dropping Pele into that area if that is so required.
If what he actually meant to say was that you have an edge in terms of individual quality, then he should have said so – rather than insulting half the people who have voted here by suggesting that they haven't realized how superior your players are.
What he says is plain enough: Those who voted against us did so based on some flimsy notion about “balance”, ignoring the far more crucial factor, namely that our players are simply better. The argument itself is highly dubious – and the premise (this supposed “gulf” or what you now call a "clear" edge) isn't even true.
@harms I was mainly trying to move the discussion somewhere else but I think both strikers and CBs are well matched. The physicality of Desially works really well against Pele. Baresi and Nesta are clever defenders who are well suited against MVB except possibly in the air but I don't see many crosses coming in.
The main reason I voted for Inv/Theon is that ADS and Pele will work since ADS isn't a typical 10 and will get further forward allowing Pele to play near his natural game- in practice I imagine ADS will play a bit like a false 9. These two in tandem will be a real handful.
Another reason is that his wingers will make the overlapping runs of your full-backs more difficult which will reduce crossing opportunities for CR7 and MVB and could lead you to be somewhat narrow.
The main reason I voted for Inv/Theon is that ADS and Pele will work since ADS isn't a typical 10 and will get further forward allowing Pele to play near his natural game- in practice I imagine ADS will play a bit like a false 9. These two in tandem will be a real handful.
Another reason is that his wingers will make the overlapping runs of your full-backs more difficult which will reduce crossing opportunities for CR7 and MVB and could lead you to be somewhat narrow.
Yeah this is all a bit too bizzare for me, he used the word gulf which is too strong a word but I don't really see why that's such a big deal or something to get so irate at him about.
It's clear what his point was and the arrows indicated that they were close comparisons.
In terms of the second part of your post I do think we have a clear edge in player quality. If you disagree then rather than just saying it's not true it would be better if you could confirm which comparisons in particular you disagree with - Figueroa / Baresi for instance is a comparison between two fantastic defenders, but its a fair comment to suggest Baresi has a slight edge in that battle. Even harms is of the view that Baresi is the best defender ever:
Down to preference really but I'd never go with that sort of a risky tactic against an attack of Di Stefano and Pele, no chance. I would never allow my defenders to get dragged around by the opposition. If Pele drops to midfield, the DM picks him up, simple as. Which is why for me the only way to stop this attack would be defend in large numbers, covers all the zones possible like DC did brilliantly in the last game and I was highly complimentary of his decision to play Vogts and shut down shop. That for me is the only strategy to have a controlled grip on the attack. Playing expansive footie may come off once in a while but if it falls it will be a spectacular fall that will end in an ugly scoreline.
Tbf I've been watching Figueroa's games excessively for the last week and I rate him now even higher than I did before. Not better than Baresi, but in the same tier with different strengths. Baresi's 94 final performance is still the best defensive performance I ever saw, but Figueroa's unquestionable aerial dominance makes him a better choice against the likes of Pele, van Basten and Ronaldo
That always happens with me, whenever I construct a team I start appreciating those players a lot more.
Thread idea!
Well, that's the difference - like I stated multiple times already, I clearly don't rate his attack as a unit as highly as you do and I think that my defence will limit their influence to the point where my attack (not that inferior) will score more. To add another defender at the expense of a ball-playing midfielder? I don't think that it's the right choice, especially when it's not Baresi or Moore I'm adding to but Gentile
I'm fine with that and I agree he's certainly better in the air.
Figueroa is a fantatic defender and there is never too much in it when you get to comparing this level of player - but overall Baresi comes out on top.
If we compare man to man IMO in the current set up:
Kahn < Schmikes slim margin (maybe United bias, but I prefer the latter one)
Facchetti ~ Nilton Santos - I don't see much between them - both - the best left backs ever.
Baresi > Figueroa - the margin is really slim, I rate Baresi slightly better as to me as well he's the best pure defender in the game, but Figueroa is not far off(probably comes second on my list as well)
Nesta > Desailly - here is probably the "biggest gap" - personally as a CB and individually I rate Nesta higher, but again in pure defensive sense Desailly is not that far off.
Brehme < Cafu - on the right Cafu wins it. Overall they are close and depending on formation one can be more useful than the other (still personally I'll take Cafu out of the two).
Varela > Zito - again not by that much. Rate Zito really high.
Andrade < Masopust - I rate Masopust higher and especially at that role.
AdS > Lius Suarez
Garrincha < Messi
Pele > Van Basten - although IMO Van Basten is better suited in the role he's in this game.
Best < C.Ronaldo- I'd say they are probably the same level but if I got to choose I'd have Ronaldo in the side.
fine margins and all that, I can see where IT might come from with AdS, Pele, Varela and Nesta compared to their counterparts, but then again the difference is not that big. IMO, IT, do have slight advantage individually overall, but I like harms midfield better as it is, again to me, more balanced, albeit not better if we come by names.
If I'm to combine the two teams it will be something like this(Lopsided 4-3-3):
--------------Schmikes------------------------
Cafu ---- Baresi --- Figueroa --- Nilton/Facchetti
--------------Varela---------Masopust---------
-------------------Pele------------------------
---Messi---------------------C.Ronaldo/Best---
----------------Van Basten--------------------
Kahn < Schmikes slim margin (maybe United bias, but I prefer the latter one)
Facchetti ~ Nilton Santos - I don't see much between them - both - the best left backs ever.
Baresi > Figueroa - the margin is really slim, I rate Baresi slightly better as to me as well he's the best pure defender in the game, but Figueroa is not far off(probably comes second on my list as well)
Nesta > Desailly - here is probably the "biggest gap" - personally as a CB and individually I rate Nesta higher, but again in pure defensive sense Desailly is not that far off.
Brehme < Cafu - on the right Cafu wins it. Overall they are close and depending on formation one can be more useful than the other (still personally I'll take Cafu out of the two).
Varela > Zito - again not by that much. Rate Zito really high.
Andrade < Masopust - I rate Masopust higher and especially at that role.
AdS > Lius Suarez
Garrincha < Messi
Pele > Van Basten - although IMO Van Basten is better suited in the role he's in this game.
Best < C.Ronaldo- I'd say they are probably the same level but if I got to choose I'd have Ronaldo in the side.
fine margins and all that, I can see where IT might come from with AdS, Pele, Varela and Nesta compared to their counterparts, but then again the difference is not that big. IMO, IT, do have slight advantage individually overall, but I like harms midfield better as it is, again to me, more balanced, albeit not better if we come by names.
If I'm to combine the two teams it will be something like this(Lopsided 4-3-3):
--------------Schmikes------------------------
Cafu ---- Baresi --- Figueroa --- Nilton/Facchetti
--------------Varela---------Masopust---------
-------------------Pele------------------------
---Messi---------------------C.Ronaldo/Best---
----------------Van Basten--------------------
Last edited:
Irate? Hardly. Annoyed - yes. And what annoys me is the argument itself: We have clearly better players, so this flimsy idea about balance doesn't matter (which the voters should realize). That's the point he's trying to make - it's right there in black and white, whether he actually means it or not is a different matter, but it's hardly a "bizarre" reaction on my part.
So? That sounds like a slight edge - not a "clear" one. Are you saying that several such slight edges (a matter of fine shades between GOATs) amount to a "clear" discrepancy overall? I don't get your point. What I reacted to initially was the term "gulf", which indicates a marked difference - something that should be considered an important part of the equation. That's a simple enough point: Do you have a significant edge in terms of player quality in this match - or not? I say "not".
ETA:
As far as I'm concerned this is the crux: You claim that you have an edge in terms of individual quality – fair enough. Maybe you do – shades and degrees, it's not an outrageous claim at any rate. But the moment you suggest that this edge is clear, or significant, in other words that it's something people should treat as an important part of the equation – well, that's when it becomes a point of contention. I don't think there's a significant edge – and others clearly agree.
The other part has to do with the basic argument offered initially, an argument I find dubious on principle, and utterly unconvincing in this particular setting: People should focus on your superior players, not on “balance” (the latter being dismissed as a flimsy concept – there is no proof these GOATs wouldn't click, etc.). That's my interpretation of what was said – perhaps it's faulty, but there you go (I don't think it's a wild or random interpretation).
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by so - the overall point has been made clearly and I was using Baresi / Figueroa as an example of a comparison where we have the slightly better individual player.
Baresi / Figueroa is a slight edge, whereas Nesta / Desailly and Di Stefano / Suarez are clear edges - but the focus on which adjective to use is pretty tedious to be honest.
I think we have better individual players overall when you compare them to each other. I think it can be left there.
I really don't see the man to man comparisons. Neither team has an overall edge that can instantly mark them as superior, so the Kahn = Schmikes type arguments is pretty much useless in here given the star power all over the pitch.
By all means.
Completely agree.
They are rarely done anyways, because usually they don't come against each other. Especially with fine margins and all that you have "lesser" players having a bigger impact in a different set up.
Final 30 mins. Can either team make a burst for the line?
Definitely agree with that and Desailly has the skillset to play the covering role but I think Figueroa is more proven in that role and it's more in line with his playing style for Chile (from what I've seen of him in the WCs, esp in '66). Anyway, harms has clarified more on Figueroa and Desailly's roles, so I'm fine with it.
Fair enough, and there is definitely some weight to that argument but I do think it's been slightly overblown and given more credence than it deserves imo. Whilst there is definitely onus on the full-backs to provide width, there are couple of mitigating factors here. Firstly, the impact of Masopust and Suarez on the flanks. Can't say I know too much about Masopust's covering game and ease on the flanks/channels but harms has touched on that matter before.
Now it's no secret that I'm partial to Luisito but just hang in there for a second. Luisito was as versatile as they come and he had an accomplished game on the flanks/channels both offensively and defensively.
In the first half he plays on the right side of a midfield trio (del Sol and Pirri) and you could immediately see the understanding that he forges with Ufarte (the outside right) and how he elvates his game with all the one-twos, through balls etc. Occasionally even provides width by going on the outside too (Imo he's versatile enough to play the wide AM role - ala David Silva or Iniesta). In the 2nd half, he plays on the left side of the midfield trio and once again you will see Gento feature more prominently in the game. Not only that he obviously contributes heavily to the defensive side of the game, with his closing down and ability to regain possession etc.
Secondly, if we look at the flanks from a reductionist point of view, it's not exactly an uneven battle as it's made out to be. Garrincha against N.Santos is fairly even stevens and I'd back N.Santos to play his usual and balanced game whilst keeping an eye on Garrincha. Like I've mentioned (and Invictus too iirc) before, Brehme would play a more reserved and a creative role on the ball from a more withdrawn position, given how Garrincha doesn't dovetail well with an overlapper. Will there be times when Garrincha is left upfield with space on his own? Yes, but it wouldn't necessarily be a common occurrence, or not as much as it's been made out to be, given how N.Santos is one of the most defensively astute FBs ever and one who knows how to make an offensive impact without compromising on his defensive game (similar to your Beckenbauers and what nots). Even then Garrincha's lack of tracking back means Nilton's offensive input could very well balance out that slight advantage that Garrincha has, as Gio himself had astutely observed earlier on. On the other flank, I'd definitely give the edge to I/T with Cafu against Best being a mismatch but then again there are other factors at play here which needs to be considered. As stated before, the impact of Suarez who has the most freedom in harms's midfield as the offensive RAM, he can very well be counted to do his fair share of work on the right flank. And then of course, the covering ability of Figueroa/Desailly which means Best's forays inwards do meet with a fair bit of resistance.
On the flanks (or the left flank to be more precise), I/T definitely have an edge but I don't think it's as central to the match as it's been made out to be.
Tbf, there really isn't much in quality differential between both attacks, with Messi and Ronaldo edging out their peers, whilst di Stefano and Pele get the nod from I/T's side. So I don't quite see why one attack requires a more defined and a compact defensive approach whilst the other doesn't.
I was not going to touch this topic as harms seems to have a completely different impression of the man than me and I didn't think we'd ever agree on it, but now that you have mentioned it, if there is one man out of the entire history of the game who I trust in that quality more than anyone, it is Giacinto Facchetti. Seems strange to me that harms keeps portraying him as some sort of Roberto Carlos, when out of the four fullbacks on the pitch there isn't an iota of a doubt in my mind on who is the most superior defensively - and that is Facchetti. Reason I was reluctant to touch this was because for someone who has such an opposite opinion of him it would take a hell lot of arguments, evidences and instances to prove his defensive greatness and I honestly wasn't gonna go that far for this. And it really isn't a debate for me, as great as Nilton and while both him and Facchetti are known for their attacking game, Nilton's game was tilted more towards attack while Facchetti's was completely the opposite, and I'm glad you mentioned Beckenbauer as well, as he has cited Facchetti as his role model when it comes to learning the trade of decision making between defense and attack. In terms of defensive IQ, awareness and decision making, I wouldn't believe anyone to calculate that better than Facchetti, nevermind the fact that the man had electric pace and fitness to go with it. With Best comfortably handling the offensive duties and not forcing Facchetti to make those decisions as often as he would in a Zona Mista, and even in fact supporting him in defense, Facchetti would be an absolute nightmare for Messi to get away from.
The problem with him is obviously documentation. Few will deny that he's one of the greats - but precisely what role in a modern formation would suit him best is clearly a matter of interpretation. Which means, in its turn, that people's take on what impact he'd have in any given match will vary considerably.
Agreed, it would be better if comparisons were made between corresponding individuals or particular segments/areas where one side would have had the edge. For eg, the edge di Stefano would have had over Masopust-Zito; the aerial ability of CR7/MvB against Brehme/Nesta; Best's wing-wizardry against Cafu and of course CR7's goalscoring prowess and athleticism against Brehme. It's very hard to separate both sides and they each have certain things going for them and of course a few things going against them.
Against Cristiano in particular, there is very little use of crowding the box. The easiest way to stop him is control the service to him. If you can't do that, no matter how many men you put there, he will score. Which takes me back to the importance of Facchetti in this game and his grip on Messi's service.
I've always considered him as Duncan Edwards on the right. I did disagree with anto on his before too, but a halfback is more closer to DM or B2B (depending on the player) than a modern overlapping fullback. I don't think old school halfbacks provided that sort of width that modern fullbacks to, considering the top heavy formations employed in those times.
Yep, for United fans that's the easiest way to get his role.