The Double Draft R1 - Chester vs Marty/RT

Who will win the match?

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Šjor Bepo said:
The only question mark is above Forsters ability to play on the left of the back 3...
Click to expand...

Should be alright, I think. IIRC he played on the right (of a three) in '86 * - but on the left (of a three) in Euro '80.

At any rate it makes more sense to field Thuram on the right - and I see no reason why Förster would struggle at all with that. Might also add, as a separate point (in case anyone wonders about the choice) that the main reason for picking Förster here - and not Santamaría (who many might regard as the greater player, overall, even though Förster is widely recognized as one of the best defenders of all time) - is his familiarity with the 3 man line + side backs/wingbacks as such. Santamaría would've looked a bit out of place, I think - as a deputy to anyone (even Moore).

* With Briegel as part of the CB line (he famously fecked up a bit in the final - for Argentina's winner).
 
Last edited:
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
No, I was just analyzing Chester's team and my opinions were on who could be a better partner to Motta than Albertini. It was not a match comparison with your team.

But then you need to explain why Overath-Xavi is better than Overath-Netzer which was deemed unworkable.
Click to expand...

Overath is more Iniesta than Netzer in style, Xavi is nothing like Netzer in terms of style so I find the comparison between the two pairs bizarre.



Overath is a transition player, he transitions from midfield to the final third and carries the ball extremely well, great dribbler and can hit a killer pass well.. he'd be a perfect partner for a Xavi as he is technically gifted and has the football intelligence to link up with a Xavi, but he is more attacking and can get the ball off him and make things happen in the final third.

Netzer and OVerath don't go together because Netzer is a number 10, who likes to operate in positions where an attacking 8 like Overath would take up. Overath likes to drive into the space where a Netzer would be and Netzer likes to drop deep into a place where an OVerath would be.. therefore you can see why they both would annoy each other and limit each others game a little bit.

My only issue with his midfield is Effenberg at DM, he's the odd fit here but Xavi-Overath for me is a beautiful combination if you're aim was to play possession yet penetrative football along the floor.
 
went for marty/RT because I feel they win that central midfield battle, motta and Albertini is a pretty weak combination for me
 
s-l500.jpg


A point worth mentioning here (re: what has been said about aerial capabilities) is that Dennis Law was an exceptionally lethal player in the air. He was highly adept both at outjumping bigger defenders - and at the art of the flying header.
 
Marty1968 said:
Varane needed to be part of a back three to help cover his inexperience. When he first joined Madrid he was excellent and whilst he might lack the awareness of an older, wiser defender he has one of the best in the game at reading potential threats to help him through.

I can't see Chester's side winning any aerial battles from set pieces, something which certainly gives us an upper hand at both ends of the pitch I argue.
Click to expand...
If Law leans onto Varane in the air, that's a potential route to goal.
 
DavidG said:
went for marty/RT because I feel they win that central midfield battle, motta and Albertini is a pretty weak combination for me
Click to expand...

Fair enough - no issue with that as such. But winning the so-called midfield battle isn't essential for me in this match - that's my argument anyway. Albertini/Motta play conservative roles for the most part, they're not on the park to dominate (as people say).
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
No, I was just analyzing Chester's team and my opinions were on who could be a better partner to Motta than Albertini. It was not a match comparison with your team.

But then you need to explain why Overath-Xavi is better than Overath-Netzer which was deemed unworkable.
Click to expand...

Did Germany ever play a 433 with a DM with Netzer and Overath further forward? It seems the most obvious way of solving the problem. @Balu
 
I wonder how many of us will keep the 5-3-2 if we go through - I see mazhar has opted for the ol' wingback model too.

Will depend on the injury sitation too, obviously.
 
COUPLE OF PLAYERS ON THE TOUCHLINE DOING THEIR WARM UPS...COULD BE A SUB OR TWO ON THE WAY

hqdefault.jpg
 
If I compare the team of Marty/RT with the Juve version 1998 ECL Final, could we say - in terms of allocation of tasks/roles -that:

Striker = Inzaghi = Van Basten
Support Striker: Del Piero = Del Piero
Playmaker = Zidane = Xavi
Deschamps + Davids = Overath + Effenberg
Di Livio = Di Livio
Lahm = Pessotto

??
 
Last edited:
Pessotto, incidentally, is a player I nearly always have on some short list or other. He was a fallback option for me in this draft too - but I think he'd struggle to get much praise.

Very intelligent player, though - but somewhat inconspicuous, one could say.
 
DOUBLE SUBSTITUTION FOR TEAM MARTY/RT

Effenberg is being replaced by Didier Deschamps
Hierro makes way for Alan Hansen

These changes along with the tactical switch of the two wing backs to either flank will provide Varane with the protection he needs and provides an authodox DM.
Xavi and Overath will have greater impact going forward and creating opportunities for our attack and Deschamps provides the safety behind them to help track Charlton.


 
Deschamps is a great move, not sure why took Hierro off the pitch for an inferior player though
 
wow looks like I've missed the fun here. Which is the current/up to date formation of both teams? The above one?

From first look, Chester has one helluva defence, probably one of the best in the first round, especially when he can even bench Santamaria. RT/Marty have a more potent front two and that midfield trio - Deschamps/Xavi/Overath is pure sex.

Why Hansen instead of Hierro tho?
 
harms said:
Deschamps is a great move, not sure why took Hierro off the pitch for an inferior player though
Click to expand...
Wouldn't say that Hansen was an inferior player to Hierro IMO. Both outstanding defenders but think Hansen offers a bit more toughness than the grace of Hierro. Also Hierro moving the ball out of the back line isn't really needed with Deschamps in front of him. No real need for the ball playing defender...so replaced him with a bloody good, solid defender who will also be able to guide Varane alongside him.
 
Why the feck was Effenberg starting ahead of whichever combination of Hierro/Deschamps/Hansen? Not that Effenberg was a mug or anything, he was a very fine player and isn't out of place in this company. But quality wise I'd give that three the edge and positionally they are much more suited.
 
Downcast said:
If I compare the team of Marty/RT with the Juve version 1998 ECL Final, could we say - in terms of allocation of tasks/roles -that:

Striker = Inzaghi = Van Basten
Support Striker: Del Piero = Del Piero
Playmaker = Zidane = Xavi
Deschamps + Davids = Overath + Effenberg
Di Livio = Di Livio
Lahm = Pessotto

??
Click to expand...
No. Not at all in my opinion.
 
Regarding the Albertini debate, I would have preferred a midfielder with a bit more grit and 'legs' but there are several things at play here which does reduce the need for that. Chester's playing a deep stifling counter-attacking set-up, which means there is more emphasis on positioning and smart tactical play from the midfielders as opposed to blood and thunder running about. Whilst Motta does lack the dynamism and sheer physicality, he can certainly get stuck in and is no slouch by any means. Moreover, Chester has one of the most industrious attacking midfielder/playmakers ever in Charlton who can get about, and of course Law who certainly did more than his fair share of work off the ball, esp with his incessant running and hassling. So perhaps two deep lying and tactically well-versed excellent passers might make sense given the context of Chester's set-up.

Having said that, I still would have preferred Jansen there instead of Albertini and whilst you do admittedly lose the incisive passing ability of Albertini on the counter, I honestly think Moore (and Motta as the secondary creative presence) would have been enough. Moore was truly a brilliant and direct passer of the ball and he often took charge of the side from the back for England without another playmaking central midfielder (apart from the attacking midfielder Charlton) or defender for company. As far as direct long-range passing goes, I'd rate Moore as one of the best that I've seen, alongside the likes of Koeman and Hierro maybe. Besides Jansen is a fairly tidy player on the ball for a player of his ilk, and would complement Motta really well but I don't quite think the duo of Albertini-Motta is too much an issue in this match-up.

Good tactical change by RedTiger/Marty, esp the Lahm-di Livio swap. Deschamps should also make it tougher for the likes of Law and Charlton in that holding role as opposed to Effenberg and that midfield trio is finely balanced (depending on how highly one rate's Overath's dominance on the ball - think he was a fairly accommodating and selfless player myself, so see no issues with it).
 
Physiocrat said:
Did Germany ever play a 433 with a DM with Netzer and Overath further forward? It seems the most obvious way of solving the problem. @Balu
Click to expand...
There were attempts prior to the Euro 1972 but Overath's injury ended it. Never played with both together in a tournament if I'm not mistaken.
 
Balu said:
No. Not at all in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Good to know. It was a question in order to understand the choices of Marty/RT and the understanding of the roles of Effenberg & Overath.
 
Raees said:
Overath is more Iniesta than Netzer in style, Xavi is nothing like Netzer in terms of style so I find the comparison between the two pairs bizarre.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought as well. Overath + Xavi made me think of Xavi + Iniesta.
 
Downcast said:
It was a question because I tried to understand the choices of marty/rt
Click to expand...
I'd describe Di Livio as a versatile role player rather than anyone who defines the team. Therefore he'd be the last player I'd look at when trying to understand their team.
 
Joga Bonito said:
Having said that, I still would have preferred Jansen there instead of Albertini and whilst you do admittedly lose the incisive passing ability of Albertini on the counter, I honestly think Moore (and Motta as the secondary creative presence) would have been enough. Moore was truly a brilliant and direct passer of the ball and he often took charge of the side from the back for England without another playmaking central midfielder (apart from the attacking midfielder Charlton) or defender for company. Besides Jansen is a fairly tidy player on the ball for a player of his ilk, and would complement Motta really well but I don't quite think the duo of Albertini-Motta is too much an issue in this match-up.
Click to expand...

I was tempted to play Jansen - certainly was. In the end, though, I landed on it being more important to have that extra bit of specialist passing prowess which A. provides - again because of this wingbackery (which is something I normally don't do - I don't think I've ever played with wingbacks before).

What I figured, before the draw, was that Jansen would be a likely starter if I deemed the opposition as fairly well suited to it, whereas A. would be the default choice - and I wasn't entirely sure how Marty/Tiger would line up, and thus played it safe(er), as I saw it.
 
Balu said:
I'd describe Di Livio as a versatile role player rather than anyone who defines the team. Therefore he'd be the last player I'd look at when trying to understand their team.
Click to expand...

Di Livio is a 'legacy player' who has to be part of the starting 11 and that's why - in order to take the most of him - I'm not surprised to see him included in a 3-5-2 system with Del Piero and... Deschamps now.

A 'legacy player' - who plays in an unnatural position - would have been a 'double punishment'.
 
Last edited:
10-3??? Ouch!!!! And surprising when my team will clearly have more of the ball and has the better midfield...

De Gea in goal or Banks...love big Dave but only one winner in that poll surely?
 
Chesterlestreet said:
I was tempted to play Jansen - certainly was. In the end, though, I landed on it being more important to have that extra bit of specialist passing prowess which A. provides - again because of this wingbackery (which is something I normally don't do - I don't think I've ever played with wingbacks before).

What I figured, before the draw, was that Jansen would be a likely starter if I deemed the opposition as fairly well suited to it, whereas A. would be the default choice - and I wasn't entirely sure how Marty/Tiger would line up, and thus played it safe(er), as I saw it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Also to add on to my post, it is definitely a risky strategy to heavily (or almost solely) rely on Moore for those counter-attacking transitions - pivotal segment of your set-up. Certainly think Moore is more than up for that job but there is no guarantee how that would be received, esp when the opponent is sporting Xavi and Overath. So it does help having a specialist passer there.
 
Marty1968 said:
10-3??? Ouch!!!! And surprising when my team will clearly have more of the ball and has the better midfield...

De Gea in goal or Banks...love big Dave but only one winner in that poll surely?
Click to expand...

Score is clearly harsh. But that happens - doesn't mean people think it's a clear winner, just that you have to go A or B. Anyway, it ain't over - you could still make a comeback, stranger things have happened.

As for the (in)famous midfield battle, there is no contest if you simply compare the individual players, you'll get no argument from me there. But a central part of what is my argument has been that the Motta/Albertini pair aren't supposed to be overpowering your lads in the middle - that isn't what they're there for, and if you buy that argument, the "battle" becomes less significant.

Banks > Dave, obviously. I honestly don't think that factor is hugely important here, though. If we compare youth players, I will be bold enough to say that I come out on top - and rather clearly so. And the difference between Banks and Dave is slighter than the difference between your man and my central defenders - the latter is huge, and the factor itself more significant. Or so I would argue.
 
Albertini and Motta at the base of midfield lacks dynamism for a team that'll be sitting back. The rest of the team is pretty flawless without considering that the line up has the forwards the wrong way around. Law should be leading the line with Greaves as the Second striker. The presence of moore has to be taken into consideration. With him playing as the free defender, opening up that team is going to be a mission and a half, the man was a defensive genius.
 
RooneyLegend said:
Albertini and Motta at the base of midfield lacks dynamism for a team that'll be sitting back. The rest of the team is pretty flawless without considering that the line up has the forwards the wrong way around. Law should be leading the line with Greaves as the Second striker. The presence of moore has to be taken into consideration. With him playing as the free defender, opening up that team is going to be a mission and a half, the man was a defensive genius.
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting take on it - but unless you have something very specific in mind here, I can't say I agree: Law is surely more suited to playing as more of a second striker, as per the brief he has here (see the OP): Linking up with others to a greater extent, working deeper, etc. Whereas Greaves is better suited to the role of a - more or less - pure finisher.

Law was a fantastic finisher in his own right, of course - but he'll get to use that part of his game from a slightly deeper position too.

As for the A/M pair lacking dynamism, this I will not deny - but that they're particularly lacking in that department for a team sitting back might have been true if the overall set-up was different: If I depended on them to constantly track runners, for instance - or if they had to recover frequently, having to backtrack, etc., then yes. But that shouldn't be necessary here - off the ball I sport a five man defence, and the three-man CB line are instructed to sit fairly deep. That's the basic idea - so the actual task of A/M is to grind on, as it were, and look for passing lanes when on the ball (on the counter or otherwise), more adventurous ones in Albertini's case - not bombing up and down but sitting deep-ish, in DM territory. It's not dynamic, obviously - but it's not supposed to be. And I don't think it has to be either.

The dynamic parts of the set-up lie elsewhere, you could say - the wingbacks obviously have to bomb up and down (that's what they do). Charlton will be moving up and down, connecting midfield and attack - and Law/Greaves aren't stationary either.
 
Last edited:
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
No, I was just analyzing Chester's team and my opinions were on who could be a better partner to Motta than Albertini. It was not a match comparison with your team.

But then you need to explain why Overath-Xavi is better than Overath-Netzer which was deemed unworkable.
Click to expand...

The answer is Marco Verratti. Lovely partnership.

 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, that's an interesting take on it - but unless you have something very specific in mind here, I can't say I agree: Law is surely more suited to playing as more of a second striker, as per the brief he has here (see the OP): Linking up with others to a greater extent, working deeper, etc. Whereas Greaves is better suited to the role of a - more or less - pure finisher.

Law was a fantastic finisher in his own right, of course - but he'll get to use that part of his game from a slightly deeper position too.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Law has to be one of the most well-rounded centre-forward in the history of the game, esp one that boasted pretty much most of the qualities that you'd expect from an orthodox goalscoring 'focal point'.

RooneyLegend said:
The rest of the team is pretty flawless without considering that the line up has the forwards the wrong way around. Law should be leading the line with Greaves as the Second striker.
Click to expand...

Any particular reason why you'd say that mate?



A great game by Law as an inside right (or left, can't remember) behind Herd, which I'd recommend.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Well, that's an interesting take on it - but unless you have something very specific in mind here, I can't say I agree: Law is surely more suited to playing as more of a second striker, as per the brief he has here (see the OP): Linking up with others to a greater extent, working deeper, etc. Whereas Greaves is better suited to the role of a - more or less - pure finisher.

Law was a fantastic finisher in his own right, of course - but he'll get to use that part of his game from a slightly deeper position too.

As for the A/M pair lacking dynamism, this I will not deny - but that they're particularly lacking in that department for a team sitting back might have been true if the overall set-up was different: If I depended on them to constantly track runners, for instance - or if they had to recover frequently, having to backtrack, etc., then yes. But that shouldn't be necessary here - off the ball I sport a five man defence, and the three-man CB line are instructed to sit fairly deep. That's the basic idea - so the actual task of A/M is to grind on, as it were, and look for passing lanes when on the ball (on the counter or otherwise), more adventurous ones in Albertini's case - not bombing up and down but sitting deep-ish, in DM territory. It's not dynamic, obviously - but it's not supposed to be. And I don't think it has to be either.

The dynamic parts of the set-up lie elsewhere, you could say - the wingbacks obviously have to bomb up and down (that's what they do). Charlton will be moving up and down, connecting midfield and attack - and Law/Greaves aren't stationary either.
Click to expand...
Law wasn't much of a threat outside the box, he himself often talks about it. Says he couldn't get the ball near the goal from the 18 yard line(probably exaggerating but you get the point). His link up play was pretty good, but he did to get a great position in the box. On the other hand Greaves was a massive threat from all over. He was a complete forward which is what you want in a second striker. Fast, wonderful ball striking, great football brain and he could dribble.

I'm not seeing the team win the ball in midfield. You need a ball winner in there that's going to cause turnovers and then set of counters. All the great, sit back teams had that and it contributed greatly to their success. Charlton will be running around and putting his foot in like he always did, you need someone doing the same thing on the other side of albertini or motta. Other wise you could struggle to get a hold of the ball which will put quite a lot of pressure on your defenders to put out fires, no matter how good they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.