I don't think this breaks down as 1vs1 as you portray this. Yes, my post clearly acknowledges that you have an advantage in your right wing. Garrincha can be expected to break through and therein you have Scirea to deal with it...that is the role of a sweeper after all. It's not like Pele will be left alone in those cases. With Garrincha on the ball Bergomi will available to support. But yes, that will be your main route for a goal.
The Doubles Draft - SF: Invictus/Theon vs Downcast
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
I don't think this breaks down as 1vs1 as you portray this. Yes, my post clearly acknowledges that you have an advantage in your right wing. Garrincha can be expected to break through and therein you have Scirea to deal with it...that is the role of a sweeper after all. It's not like Pele will be left alone in those cases. With Garrincha on the ball Bergomi will available to support. But yes, that will be your main route for a goal.
Yes - would've been interesting to see people's reactions to that. In theory he should be great in that capacity: He's got the tools, the relevant (enough) experience, and he certainly should have the brains and the tactical adaptability to master the role.
As for Vogts, it's obvious that he won't stop being a considerable part of the equation, defensively, even it turns out that he doesn't master the particular wingbackery itself: But that could be said of any defender who can be defined as "lateral" in one sense or another. I wouldn't have considered playing Thuram as a WB in my own side, for instance, even though something similar could be claimed about him.
My top priority is to have a numerical superiority in the key areas on the field, especially in/near my penalty area.
Luis Monti is mainly a defensive player asked to protect and join my central defenders if necessary.
Most crucial point of this whole scenario (these static man on man things never make much sense but). With the ball being brought down the right it's pretty obvious that Bergomi will compete with Pele for the aerial challenge while Scirea stands there to sweep the knockdown. What it does is reduce Pele to a target man which isn't quite getting the best of him.
Re: Neeskens as RB, I think against a wing like Facchetti-Best, it is better to have a defense first RB like Vogts. I agree with Downcast that his apparent lack of attacking impetus wouldn't hurt the front three as they don't need traditional wing play to shine and would be attacking on the counter, hence not needing special wide presence to stretch play and they'll have Cabrini and Lothar bombing forward either side anyway.
That's certainly an interesting take on things.
For what's it's worth I think saying that a George Best/Facchetti flank will have no joy in a game of football is ludicrous to be honest - particularly when you take into account the quality of distribution all over the park, whether it's Baresi, Passarella, Redondo or Di Stefano, every one of those players is capable of splitting the defence with through balls out wide.
On what basis would that flank have no joy? I'm not even sure what that means in practise.
If Best uses his pace to get behind Vogts what's stopping Di Stefano finding him with a pass? Best is then 1 vs 1 with Bergomi and that's going to cause all sorts of problems, whether he takes Bergomi on himself or drags him out of position to create space for Pele centrally.
I just don't see what you mean here - there are clearly going to be times where Best gets behind the defence. Are you saying that Bergomi would always beat him in a 1 vs 1, because if so I think you're under rating Best's dribbling ability.
I mean Facchetti of all people is in acres of space here without a right winger to contend with - what's stopping him simply picking the ball up out wide and driving past Vogts on the outside?
I agree with @Aldo
You forget the Matthaus factor.
Undoubtedly - it makes perfect sense as a defensive measure. What seems less obvious, however, is why you'd want to go with that particular basic setup (another 3-5-2/5-3-2 variation) if what you need is a defensively sound RB to deal with your opponent's wide threat.
There's something odd about that.
Argument: Vogts isn't a wingback.
Counter: Yes, but he's mainly there to defend anyway.
Does that make sense? I don't know, to be honest.
What am I forgetting?
Facchetti is playing on the flanks - Matthaus can keep getting dragged over there but that's quite clearly not an instantaneous thing.
Facchetti could run 100 meters in under 11 seconds - by the time Matthaus gets over there he'll be half way down the pitch.
Matthaus with Germany in 1990
More videos - just what this thread needed.
It doesn't make sense at all - lets not beat around the bush here.
As a system 3-5-2's quite clearly rely heavily on fullbacks for width and the most successful variants have offensive fullbacks.
Without that width it's a very narrow attack which undoubtedly makes it easier to defend against - surely there can be no disagreement that stretching the pitch creates space offensively and makes it easier to break down teams.
That front 4 of invictus / theon is just too good . The fact that he has 2 perfect full backs and arguably the greatest centre half of all time is just a side story . Downcast front 3 will have success , but Di Stefano , best , pele and Garrincha will simply have more
There are some offensive 3-5-2 systems and 'moderate 3-5-2 systems (like Marseille: Champions League Final in 93).
I know the value of your wingers but I know the value of my offensive players.
So, I'm happy with my 'moderate 3-5-2'
You say that you know the value of your offensive players - it seems quite clear to me that a narrow attack isn't getting the best out of anyone offensively. It restricts space and is much easier to defend against.
Wingers like Garrincha and Best are going to inevitably drag Bergomi and Kohler into positions they don't want to be in - it stretches the pitch and creates gaps in the defensive line, whereas Baresi/Passarella/Facchetti can tuck in tight which is inevitably much harder to play through.
I don't think there is any doubt about that - when have you ever heard someone say "what this attack needs is to be more narrow!".
Do you think it will be easy for Passarella-Baresi-Redondo-Varela to defend against Ronaldo-Maradona-Puskas-Matthaus?
I absolutely believe that they have a much easier time defensively than their counterparts do on your side.
In terms of player quality I think we have the edge anyway, but my honest assessment on the tactics is that you're way too narrow and you don't have the same diverse threat that we do.
That's my honest view.
Once again, Redondo is a superb player, a complete player.
But he is not known for being a 'specialist' in the art of destroying the game of the opposing team.
But he is not known for being a 'specialist' in the art of destroying the game of the opposing team.
Yeah, I'm largely with you on that.
If you want to exploit Vogts' defensive solidity (that is the main reason why he's on the pitch in the first place), you play him as an actual defensive RB (or as an RCB of sorts in an Italian style defensive setup) - not as a defensive wingback (which is what he is here, in practice).
On the right flank
Colonnese scored 2 goals in his career
Winter scored 1 goal in 3 seasons with Inter Milan
Who won the UEFA CUP final in 1998?
The answer is coming...
Nothing like shut out or anything, but I simply meant they'd have a very difficult time breaking through. We admit that Vogts is a defensive fullback, so any space to exploit behind him would be limited. Come on, in a back 5 with 2 defensive fullbacks there I assumed Facchetti's overlapping run influence would be very limited in this setup. Your point on Best is valid. A player of Best's quality would find a way through, but he still has to dribble past Bergomi and avoid a sweeping Scirea to score, not really easy way there. You opposite flank is where you have a clear advantage.
Ok. Please wait then
Theon is right. Everyone here is aware of Matthaus and his capabilities. Unless you have a specific point you'd like to illustate with a video, please avoid general compilations. Thread would take ages to load.
Yeah, you're a neutral poster here
I hope you know, he is your opponent's AM?
Yeah, I know it.
Don't get you at all. I accept the argument of not being able to stretch play, but why is a defensive back 5 less defensive than a defensive back 4?
Finally understood Passarella over Nesta decision, Ronaldo's argument would've been overused.
It's like when someone started Rosetta over Vogts because he had to face Dzajic
Without the same drop in quality, of course. Still can't decide whenever it was a right decision or not
It's like when someone started Rosetta over Vogts because he had to face Dzajic
Without the same drop in quality, of course. Still can't decide whenever it was a right decision or notYou also have to take into account Ronaldo - in his prime - likes to move a lot and sometimes on the flanks. Maradona & Matthaus are extremely mobile.
So, I have 2 strikers whose main support is the duo Maradona-Matthaus.
So, I have 2 strikers whose main support is the duo Maradona-Matthaus.
Let's talk about Passarella now
Passarella is considered as one of the top 2 'greatest South-American" defenders because he used to score a lot... and not because he was the greatest stopper...
You've already said something incorrect about Passarella so if you're going to talk about him please make it accurate.
Oh Jesus Christ.
As an advanced sweeper, Scirea would be happy here because he will have the opportunity to enlighten the game as he did with Juventus & Italy.
I don't know.
Is Sammer a great sweeper? Yes
Is Sammer one of the greatest stoppers of All-Times? I'm not sure tbh
Anyone neutral care to jump in here..
We've had plenty of people defending Vogts in a wingback role - any views on Passarella being one of the best defenders because he used to score alot?
We've had plenty of people defending Vogts in a wingback role - any views on Passarella being one of the best defenders because he used to score alot?
That Marseille team is interesting in this context - I'll give you that. You could say that it's an example of a more blatantly defensive 3-5-2/5-3-2 - with, arguably, two more "regular" fullbacks in the wide roles.
So, yes - you could say there's a precendent of sorts there. Nevertheless, Angloma was still more of a "natural" wingback than Vogts (he wasn't clearly better defensively than offensively - but simply a pretty much "balanced" fullback): And the question still remains to what extent it makes sense to opt for a 3-5-2 variation if the main purpose of Vogts is his defensive solidity.
One could ask - again - to what extent Thuram (see above) would make sense as a defensive wingback of this sort?
You've just said that Passarella is one of the great centre backs because he used to score a lot - it's utter nonsense and defeats the purpose of playing these drafts which is supposed to be about discussing the players (accurately).
My answer is sample. We consider the peak performances.
Thuram scored 2 goals against Croatia at the WC 1998.
Thuram is not Cafu but won't be a ridiculous option.