Good sub that. Got my vote when it becomes official
The Doubles Draft - SF: Invictus/Theon vs Downcast
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Honestly, it isn't just A vs B and matching their individual qualities. In an even midfield battle where both teams are going for it, sure Di Stefano would be taking Monti for a ride. However looking at this game in particular, I also incorporated the two tactics in mind, and here DC is playing on the counter inviting you with your constant wingplay and midfield strength to come at him. That is where everything changes, and like I highlighted, it is Lothar's incredible two-way game that is well versed with a defensive counter attacking style that would be crucial here. While Monti would be a part of a 7 man defensive core sitting back with lesser space behind him to cover, more options in support and lesser ground to close down, both Varela and Redondo when facing the counter would be tasked with tougher jobs of covering larger spaces against two devastatingly quick forwards as well as Maradona looking to play them in and having the options of Cabrini and Matthaus in support. Even if it is not an out and out counter and enough numbers track back in time, Maradona won't struggle to get past someone like Redondo with a quick change of pace and direction which he was amazing at.
There's something that always goes overlooked against a 2 man strike force, you'd need one of your anchors, possibly Varela in this case to drop back and avoid a 2v2 situation at the back, and that is what this narrow attack would look to exploit, the vertical spaces between your defense and midfield. There's nothing here to suggest there will be constant problems for you as both Varela and Redondo excel in positioning, but I'd definitely give the edge to Maradona and Matthaus passing the ball at a high tempo at pace against that midfield duo than I would to Di Stefano and co. against a crowded defense. Basically both man-to-man and tactics wise, Maradona is likely to have more joy in this game than Di Stefano. And afaik Zizinho was mainly countered by Andrade in a special task assigned to him where he switched flanks to perform it.
As an aside I think if the Uefa cup game was the main reason to drop Nesta, then you probably overplayed the consequences in your mind a bit. Most here are better informed than to make a decision based on one game. Moreover Ronaldo basically got one over every top defender of his generation from Maldini to Thuram to Cannavaro, Nesta, everyone. So you have to deal with him in different ways than contest 1v1 battles. I personally didn't mind your starting CB pair as much as others but once you know Nesta is on the bench it automatically looks like less natural tactical fit than the alternative. Especially as unlike Passarella, Nesta wouldn't demand any leadership rights and would absolutely follow Baresi's lead, like he used to with Maldini. Plenty of sound reasons to go for him in this game as opposed to that one game evidence, though I can see why you were wary of having defending that sort of arguments.
RB, RCB, CB, LCB (in 12:0 game against Dortmund in a back 3 for exmaple), LB - and I won't be surprised if he played in midfield too. That Borussia team was very unique and inventive with a real total football-esque approach
Oh, I thought you were talking of a traditional 5-at-the-back and not Zona Mista. I would still probably have him as a traditional fullback in a back 4 making the best use of his abilities but the role you describe isn't completely alien to him, I think.
Footballdatabase lists Vogts as the Left Offensive Midfielder in a 3-3-4 formation in the 73/74 season. 
And then as the sweeper in the season they reached the CL final in a 3-5-2.
Some really weird formations for sure.
And then as the sweeper in the season they reached the CL final in a 3-5-2.
Some really weird formations for sure.
Brilliant brilliant sides lads! It's a hard choice I must say.
Alright, someone who can lay genuine claim to being the co-best player on the pitch with Pelé and the other Argie needs more exposure:
.png)
Alfredo Di Stéfano : A defensive nine as well as an attacking third and four-phase playmaker
Di Stefano could play all of the central positions; center forward, second striker, ten, eight, six, central defender, libero. But he played them all simultaneously. As a center forward, he often fell back between the defender in the 3-2-5 to fetch balls directly from his own penalty area and then march forwards. With the ball at his feet, he used his game intelligence to open the game with long-range passes, dodge around spaces and enemy pressing movements with combinations, or simply dribble past one, two, or even three opponents.
“The great thing about Di Stéfano was that when he was on your team you had two players at any position” – Miguel Muñoz
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 the “striker” Di Stéfano dominated them all.
He also almost continuously altered his field of view. When one observed Di Stéfano in the game, they noticed immediately that he wanted to repeatedly reposition himself so that he could oversee the pitch completely throughout the match. Unlike many playmaking and influential attacking players (especially center forwards), Di Stéfano was therefore strategically outstanding. He sought not only the best action for the next step, but took into account his spatial awareness when making decisions. So he did not, for example, pass to the closest teammate, but to the next player, and commanded that it should immediately be played backwards; thus giving the second pass receiver a better field of view, more varied options, and more time for Di Stefano to move up front.
To date, Di Stefano is an ideal and will be forever. He is the total footballer, the benchmark of completeness, and almost every possible definition of this vague term. He could briefly hold all outfield positions, stand out in every position, had an impressive tactical intelligence and tremendous individual skills. Even his heading ability was impressively pronounced. He could stop balls in free space if they were available, pass the ball accurately or generate great force in the shot with his head. In addition, he was bigger than life itself as a personality; as the English say.
“Alfredo Di Stéfano had a peak Goal Impact of 189. An incredible value at that time. Still the seventh highest peak Goal Impact of All Time“ – Jörg Seidel
http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/10/in-depth-analysis-alfredo-di-stefano/
Alfredo Di Stéfano : A defensive nine as well as an attacking third and four-phase playmaker
Di Stefano could play all of the central positions; center forward, second striker, ten, eight, six, central defender, libero. But he played them all simultaneously. As a center forward, he often fell back between the defender in the 3-2-5 to fetch balls directly from his own penalty area and then march forwards. With the ball at his feet, he used his game intelligence to open the game with long-range passes, dodge around spaces and enemy pressing movements with combinations, or simply dribble past one, two, or even three opponents.
“The great thing about Di Stéfano was that when he was on your team you had two players at any position” – Miguel Muñoz
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 the “striker” Di Stéfano dominated them all.
He also almost continuously altered his field of view. When one observed Di Stéfano in the game, they noticed immediately that he wanted to repeatedly reposition himself so that he could oversee the pitch completely throughout the match. Unlike many playmaking and influential attacking players (especially center forwards), Di Stéfano was therefore strategically outstanding. He sought not only the best action for the next step, but took into account his spatial awareness when making decisions. So he did not, for example, pass to the closest teammate, but to the next player, and commanded that it should immediately be played backwards; thus giving the second pass receiver a better field of view, more varied options, and more time for Di Stefano to move up front.
To date, Di Stefano is an ideal and will be forever. He is the total footballer, the benchmark of completeness, and almost every possible definition of this vague term. He could briefly hold all outfield positions, stand out in every position, had an impressive tactical intelligence and tremendous individual skills. Even his heading ability was impressively pronounced. He could stop balls in free space if they were available, pass the ball accurately or generate great force in the shot with his head. In addition, he was bigger than life itself as a personality; as the English say.
“Alfredo Di Stéfano had a peak Goal Impact of 189. An incredible value at that time. Still the seventh highest peak Goal Impact of All Time“ – Jörg Seidel
http://spielverlagerung.com/2014/07/10/in-depth-analysis-alfredo-di-stefano/
- Scored in most European Cup finals: 5
- Scored in most consecutive European Cup finals: 5
- Only player to be awarded the Super Ballon d'Or
- Highest scorer in the European Cup: 56 goals in 76 games
- 5 times La Liga top scorer
- 307 goals for Real Madrid
Last edited:
Here's one of the team sheets from the 70/71 season from kicker.
Sounds about right. Traditional flat back 4 with a mix of largely defensive but also offensive qualities required in it.
Sounds about right. Traditional flat back 4 with a mix of largely defensive but also offensive qualities required in it.
you really shouldn't have to justify anything about Di Stefano's abilities but you are right in that he is being over-looked. Id actually rather have him in that attacking midfield position than Maradona , due to the supporting cast. Maradona shined with Napoli and Argentina in 86 with a largely underwhelming support cast, I don't think its an overstatement to say that surrounded by better players, Maradona would be less influential.
This really is one of the most perfect front 4s of a 4-2-3-1 that you could assemble, and i don't think downcast defence stands even a 1% chance against yours, whereas your defence ( even with Passarella) doesnt look out of depth against his attack.
How you are losing this is beyond me
Quite – that's his best role, as I think most would agree.
So, the question becomes to what extent you can get away with playing him in a role which is not his best, and which is not, either, a custom made special assignment – he isn't tasked with shadowing Best, for instance, which might have been a plausible move here. Nor is it, for that matter, a more adventurous sort of experiment (like, say, playing Neeskens as a wingback of sorts – which we discussed above): It's very obvious what his selling point is here – he's defensively excellent, and as such fielding him is a defensive measure, against the attacking prowess of Best/Facchetti.
My problem with him is that he looks like a wingback whose main function has nothing to do with what a wingback normally offers in a formation like this one.
Can we change the formation graphic in the OP, please?
@Edgar Allan Pillow, sub time:
Peak years:
Serie A Defender of the Year (4): 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003
UEFA Team of the Year (4): 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007
Done
So, you think Maradona shined because he used to play with a 'largely underwhelming support cast'. Creative idea.
According to you, Maradona can't be an influential player because he has not the level required, the credentials & the personnality.
All the opinions are the welcome after all.
Last edited:
Of course, I can demonstrate he is the right man to defend against Best/Facchetti & offer some offensive solutions. And I have never said Vogts was a crucial player to score goals.
But - since yesterday - when Downcast posts some gifs/videos, it's 'silly' (Theon) & 'useless' because we all know the players (Chester).
And when I have expressed some concerns about Passarella, I haven't said he hadn't the level required to be part of a draft. My intention was just to say it was probably risky - in a context where my offensive players are on the pitch - to use him in a 4-4-2 system and - like it or not - he is known for being an offensive defender. Of course, an 'absurd' comment. If Passarella is the perfect player - in this scenario - why has Nesta replaced Passarella?
You have the right to have fixed ideas about Vogts and the 3-5-2 system.
For example, is it 'absurd/silly/useless' to say Juventus was successful in the 80s with a Zona Mista system? And to say that Zona Mista is not a pure symmetrical tactical system?
Is Bettega a right-back? No
Is Bettega a wing-back? No
Is Bettega a winger? No
Is Bettega a striker? Yes
Is Bettega the equivalent of Cabrini? No.
Is Bettega known for his defensive contribution? No
If you want to say that my tactical system is an 'adventurous system', why not?
If you say my tactical system is asymmetrical, why not?
All the opinions are the welcome.
Once again, Ronaldo-Maradona-Matthaus-Puskas don't necessarily need a modern 4-3-3 system to shine or a Brazilian 3-5-2 system.
Last edited:
His peak lasted what, 90 minutes?
Don't think that it's fair comparing Thuram to Vogts offensively though, the latter was clearly on another level
1. Yeah 90 minutes
2. Say that to Chester
I think I better explain my change of vote. Firstly it's not down to the Nesta switch. My concern was how Pele and Di Stefano would link but now I can see how ADS would become a central focal point for Pele to play around. Also Brehme behind Garrincha makes sense since he's more of a playmaking full-back than a pure overlapper. Passarella and Baresi meant that one of the players would not be as free to attack but doesn't reduce much in pure defence- that said Nesta in there is much more complementary. Finally, on average attack beats defence. This is why I switched my vote.
Fell bad voting against Puskas and Maradona though.
@Downcast @Theon @Invictus
Fell bad voting against Puskas and Maradona though.
@Downcast @Theon @Invictus
Voting for your opponent to ensure your victory? Cheeky! edit: oh, Theon did it too.
It seems like the game is finally decided.
It seems like the game is finally decided.
What fixed idea would that be? That Vogts isn't a wingback?
You have a tendency to take a point (any point, regardless of how it was made) and treat it like an absolute truth stated by whoever makes it - which you can then turn against them by digging up examples which prove that the truth isn't absolute after all.
Downcast's system is asymmetrical. There are examples of asymmetrical systems (very successful ones at that) in football history. Hence, Chester is wrong to criticize Downcast's system.
Do you see anything wrong with this logic?
Now, let's look at my contributions here: Have I said anything about your system being asymmetrical? Have I said anything about this being a problem? Have I stated that all asymmetrical systems are bad? Have I claimed that your system - asymmetrical or not - is "absurd"?
No? So, why do I deserve all this passive-aggressive attention?
Lastly, about videos: Same thing again, isn't it? "Chester doesn't like videos, so I can't post them."
What I have said - and what many others agree with - is that posting generic highlight videos (YouTube compilations with no particular theme or direction) is pointless when the player in question is well known. I have never said a negative word about posting videos in order to illustrate a point.
You're a nice guy, Downcast - but you're also a bit whiny. And you need to learn the difference between making a particular point about something, with all sorts of qualifications - and stating broadly that the world is either white or black. Did you even notice that my criticism of Vogts - actually - amounts to me not buying your argument entirely? Not entirely - which means that I do buy it partly (as stated several times above). Not exactly brutal, is it?
What's that, the Turing test?
What's that, the Turing test?
I'd say there's at least a 50% chance of Downcast - or Chester - being a computer.
Both teams are near flawless. The only clear mismatch for me is the tandem of Maradona and Matthaus up against Varela and Redondo. Matthaus in particular could overrun and overwhelm Redondo going forward.
Tough decision though and I think this is the strongest semi final. Downcast probably didn't get as much out of the last reinforcement round as everyone else.
Tough decision though and I think this is the strongest semi final. Downcast probably didn't get as much out of the last reinforcement round as everyone else.
Still on this?
In THAT game, just because Gentile played at RB position doesn't mean he was a RB. He had a specific task tactically nothing to do with positional placement in Teamsheet.
Similar here, Downcast team doesn't need a wingback and job assigned to Vogts is not to be a wingback. So let's not get stuck on Teamsheet position here but rather on what is required of him tactically.
It is a customised 5 man defense of a sweeper, two stoppers, a balanced fullback and an attacking wingback, take it as you will. For me the only thing it lacks compared to a more traditional setup is there would be no traditional width down the right, and it will mainly have to be Matthaus and Ronaldo (who played plenty on the right with pure no. 9s like Vieri in the middle) to use that space. So it comes down to whether you think that missing factor would be decisive. Perhaps imagine someone with less of a man marking image to him as Vogts, e.g. would you be worried if someone like Bossis was in that role? And what he loses in attacking output, he gains in getting a better defender than what you would get in an attacking wingback there. I personally see it as a pragmatic move and I have witnessed plenty of similar moves irl in such games but of course you can always question it as well.
Indeed. All this talk of what the defense is doing and what not, that is DC's strongest part of the team and it is being countered by the weakest players of the opposition, and as close to a proper mismatch as you'd get in such a game. I cannot think of a better AM-CM combo in a counter attacking powerful setup, you could have A-listers like Rijkaard and Beckenbauer in there and still I would give this combo the edge, let alone in this case. Both absolutely perfectly used and in their element, with Puskas and Ronaldo to feed, specially Puskas and his 25 yard thunderstrikes. Just like in last game - goals win games. That is a clear route to goal(s) in this game.
I understand
It wasn't a 'strategic move'.
There are so many better 'tricks' to artificially increase the number of voters as you know...
As a neutral poster, you made 18 posts...to repeat the same thing. It's your right, no?
But, it's my duty/role - as a 'manager' - to consider your posts and make my comments.
This is not my 1st draft so I know how you used to operate in my previous drafts and I've already told you what I think about your behaviour.
You have lost against harms and - that is why - you are interested in one of my games in this draft.
However, I just prefer more healthier posters like @Physiocrat who expresses many views in a single post while you need to write 18 posts to repeat the same specific idea about a single player.
I'm not surprised by your obsession with myself and all your contributions are the welcome of course.
Last edited:
This is where it's at.
You literally have to be the first poster to have an 'online' issue/scuffle or whatever on redcafe with Chester, of all people
. Anyway, I get that it can get quite irritating at times with the same weakness of your team being debated ad nauseam but tbf to Chester, there is a raging discussion going on about that very matter; and he can't really help being repeatedly quoted on his post and being asked to elaborate on his point, or reply to other posters' queries.Ohhh. Well, yes - we can always leave it at that. I'm obsessed with you.
Alternatively, we don't see things quite the same way - that happens quite a lot in these drafts. There are several regulars I hardly ever agree with - and obviously the discussions are flavoured by this.
As for Vogts, it's a pain in the arse for you that someone doesn't buy his role - and keeps banging on about it, but that's the nature of these things: Someone is always banging on about something. There wasn't much else to bang on about - for me - so there it is. I found it interesting on several levels: Others probably didn't - just as others didn't see much of a problem with the thing as such. Fine by me - but I didn't bang on randomly about Vogts, it was a discussion with Raees, Aldo, EAP...and yourself. Did I repeat the same argument over and over again? To some degree, probably - but it was a back-and-forth with several different people.
If you didn't want me to bang on about Vogts, you could have told me to shut the feck up - might have pissed me off, there and then, but it would've worked. Call it a tip - for future reference.
Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts.
Last edited:
I don't get this stuff with single out Vogts in Downcast system, and to me the wing back discussion is indeed very tiresome and blown out of proportion.
Going through the first page - Downcast in his OP has said he's using Vogts as a side back. Then few posts below he indicates that he's in a supporting role and more balanced - not relying on his attacking contribution.
To me @Downcast has done one helluva job to fit his players very well and use them to their strengths. He has a "defensive 6" one transitional midfielder - box to box in Matthaus to set the stage for his attacking trio - Maradona/Puskas/Ronaldo. Both Ronaldo and Puskas can operate wide and he's using counter attacking football being compact at the back.
To me Vogts role is perfectly fine - he will be on the wing to counter Best, while in the same time has Bergomi when Best tucks in in his favorite RCB role and Scirea as a last man. With Kohler on the left and Cabrini doing pretty similar job on the other flank I think his defensive set up is spot on.
Can Cabrini and Vogts support the attack as well? No doubt they can - both equally apt on counter and pretty fast to carry the ball with Vogts excellent at crosses.
Downcast has not build his attack on the right and left flank with the wing back support, he's moving vertical in attack and exploiting spaces in the center and wide with his attackers creating space, Vogts and Cabrini are purely playing a supporting role in attack to offer combination possibilities and carry the ball.
To me the decider was Nesta back in the team as Passarella/Baresi IMO was a bad match. I like downcast set up and have no issues with it whatsoever. I just think Invictus/Theon have more quality managing to field one of the best wingers, all round midfielder(Di Stefano) and to me the best player of all time - Pele, while at the same time have no less quality at the back.
Going through the first page - Downcast in his OP has said he's using Vogts as a side back. Then few posts below he indicates that he's in a supporting role and more balanced - not relying on his attacking contribution.
To me @Downcast has done one helluva job to fit his players very well and use them to their strengths. He has a "defensive 6" one transitional midfielder - box to box in Matthaus to set the stage for his attacking trio - Maradona/Puskas/Ronaldo. Both Ronaldo and Puskas can operate wide and he's using counter attacking football being compact at the back.
To me Vogts role is perfectly fine - he will be on the wing to counter Best, while in the same time has Bergomi when Best tucks in in his favorite RCB role and Scirea as a last man. With Kohler on the left and Cabrini doing pretty similar job on the other flank I think his defensive set up is spot on.
Can Cabrini and Vogts support the attack as well? No doubt they can - both equally apt on counter and pretty fast to carry the ball with Vogts excellent at crosses.
Downcast has not build his attack on the right and left flank with the wing back support, he's moving vertical in attack and exploiting spaces in the center and wide with his attackers creating space, Vogts and Cabrini are purely playing a supporting role in attack to offer combination possibilities and carry the ball.
To me the decider was Nesta back in the team as Passarella/Baresi IMO was a bad match. I like downcast set up and have no issues with it whatsoever. I just think Invictus/Theon have more quality managing to field one of the best wingers, all round midfielder(Di Stefano) and to me the best player of all time - Pele, while at the same time have no less quality at the back.
Aye I can confirm this. I think we rarely agree on something this one included.
Can someone in here please explain to me why passarella and Baresi is seen as a bad centre back pairing ? Two genuine GOAT centre backs can't work together ? I don't get it .
Firstly no one said they can't work together, it was always the fact that there was a better alternative on the bench, all things considered. If you remember, Baresi was dropped from Italy because they already had a sweeper in Scirea and both of them weren't able to play together. Being GOAT is one thing, but tactical fit is equally important.
Aye I can confirm this. I think we rarely agree on something this one included.
There you go - that's the way it is. It's not surprising either: Very often what we disagree on is whether X would be important/crucial/fatal - or whatever the case may be. Would X make the manager lose/win the match? I say yes - you say no. A basic disagreement, in other words - which probably has to do with how we look at things on a more fundamental level. And if the latter is - basically - different, well: It will probably result in us disagreeing very often about who would win the match - not least if the match is (more or less) objectively tight to begin with.
It doesn't mean we're sworn enemies - it just plays out that way because of these basic differences.
They can possibly of course (although not the most complimentary duo), but IMO the set up Invictus/Theon are using is not used on their strengths. Passarella is known for his playmaking abilities at the back and moving the ball forward - he is in a restricted role here which takes away one of the biggest advantages in his game. In that sense Baresi is equally apt to do so and has done it in the past. Next to Baresi or Passarella IMO you need a complete CB to follow his lead, be more conservative in his play and fill up when one goes forward(if needed).
Apart from that you also have Varela and Redondo protecting - Redondo can take the mantle off the same role Passarella usually does from deep - playmaking and carrying the ball, while Varela is there operating close in that area/space to cover.
On a side note there is also possibility of clash of personalities, IMO you need 1 defensive leader/organizer at the back not two. For me it's possible to have the same Di Stefano/Didi scenario if we're to see Passarella/Baresi in the same team.
That was the biggest thing for me. Neither would follow the instructions coming from someone else. Major ego clash waiting to happen.
Can we count that as a meltdown please?
I want this draft to be a success.
I want this draft to be a success.
Here's a question, which GOATs would you put in the complete/stopper category and which would you put in the playmaking/libero/attacking CBs?
Off the top of my head the only ones which would go in the complete/stopper category would be Nesta, Kohler and possibly Figueroa.
Thoughts?
Off the top of my head the only ones which would go in the complete/stopper category would be Nesta, Kohler and possibly Figueroa.
Thoughts?
I personally prefer when:
1. There is a clear and a follower in a center back pairing - and Passarella won't agree with Baresi being a leader
2. To some extent a more elegant reader of the game, who, when we talk about all-time greats usually played as a sweeper/libero (see Rio/Beckenbauer) and a physical powerhouse as a stopper (see Vidic/Schwarcenbeck)
3. Passarella, like all of the greats, was a sublime defender, but his style is very similar to Baresi's (although he also has his attacking runs in his sleeve)
Individually, Passarella is probably greater than Nesta (although it would've interesting to see what would've happened if they changed citizenships), but the sum is lesser than both parts - and the opposite is true with Nesta - Baresi. It's why you'll rarely see any "realistic" team with Baresi partnering Beckenbauer or Scirea in Italy XI, despite them being two greatest defenders in the world/country history.
Plus, but this is debatable, you can't just turn off Passarella's attacking instinct, it's who he was, and putting him in a back 4 with 2 offensive almost wingbacks? And at this stage there are rarely any flaws in the teams or a significant difference in quality, so you have to nitpick every little thing
Not Figueroa, surely. He is probably the best when it comes to creative passing techniques out of all the liberos.
Moore and Nesta are the most complete CBs you can think of without having elaborate playmaking abilities. If you want a proper stopper, then its Santamaria who is pretty underrated to be honest. Otherwise most top CBs fall in the libero category.
Moore and Nesta are the most complete CBs you can think of without having elaborate playmaking abilities. If you want a proper stopper, then its Santamaria who is pretty underrated to be honest. Otherwise most top CBs fall in the libero category.
This draft is a success and you are the ruler
I have nothing new to add about the game or Chester.