The Doubles Draft - SF: Invictus/Theon vs Downcast

Who will win the match?

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Chesterlestreet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Everyone nitpicks at areas that he sees more important and obviously different visions clash most of the time. Clearly sometimes when one point is made over and over again it becomes tiresome, especially it's hard to achieve consensus - both sides would see it differently and you can't always have a median, otherwise we'll always pick same players, same sides, same formations.

It's hard not to get involved especially if others pick up the same point, as manager, you will always try to explain better or to diminish the importance of the point in question, it's natural.

I don't keep a tab on who votes against me in games, nor I vote the other way afterwards, or nitpick tactically or something else. I imagine all do the same as otherwise it's a bit pointless.

Usually I enjoy the discussions with Chester or others that I don't necessary agree on most of the points and have no bad memories or problems with that.
Aldo said:
That was the biggest thing for me. Neither would follow the instructions coming from someone else. Major ego clash waiting to happen.
Click to expand...
BTW glad to have you back mate, hope you will take part in the coming drafts :)
 
Anyway, @Downcast - being pissed at me for droning on about Vogts is fair enough, I can understand that. But if you genuinely believe that I have it in for you, for some reason, you're mistaken.

Take it any way you please - but cultivating keyboard enemies isn't something I have any interest in doing, so for my part the matter is simply closed, and what's been said in this thread stays in this thread.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Clearly sometimes when one point is made over and over again it becomes tiresome...
Click to expand...

It does - and it's one of the main reasons why I've been in favour of trying out some moderation. Have someone who is entirely neutral - and who doesn't participate in the actual discussion(s) - step in and say: "Enough of that - the point's been made, move on."
 
Regarding the lopsided asymmetrical discussion on the nature of Downcast's formation, there have been quite a few historical set-ups which have been severely lopsided with barely any width coming from one side etc. Brazil 1970 for example had Everaldo playing as a defensive LB, who barely ventured forward as a counter-balance to Carlos Alberto's more expansive and cerebral game on the right. Rivelino as an inside left, rarely provided width and you could probably count the number of times he ventured to the left touchline and put in a cross on one hand (one of them incidentally being the assist for Pele in the final, funnily enough). Tbf that side wasn't exactly a straightforward and an orthodox set-up and was fairly nuanced in terms of the players movement/interchanging of positions etc.

IIRC, Germany in the 1966 final also seemed to distinctly lack width on the right with Haller being more of a creative goalscoring central influence and Hottges being a purely defensive tucked in RB. Tbf they didn't really seem to have that much of width on the left either with Schnellinger frequently cutting into midfield but Held as an inside forward who cut in as an inside forward from the flank/channels probably helped - frequently exchanged position with Emmerich if I remember correctly.

For what it's worth, it's quite clearly a divisive issue with some buying the Vogts-Bergomi duo being a great counter-measure for that outrageous Facchetti-Best flank, whilst others are underwhelmed by that overly defensive duo in a back 5, esp with only Cabrini (who whilst being a great fit is no great shakes in this rarefied field) being capable of providing genuine width in that set-up. If I'm not wrong, harms used a similar set-up in his Manager Draft Final with Gentile, Bergomi, Kohler, Scirea and Cabrini. Although Gentile was in a man-marking role and his forward line had Baggio and Boniek.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/manager-draft-final-harms-vs-edgar.398384/
(his initial formation pic isn't there for some reason)

My 2 cents - I don't think you need conventional touchline hugging wingers to stretch defenses, but most of Downcast's midfield and attacking cast are too centrally inclined for my liking. It was close deciding my vote mind,and I just think Downcast requires that tad bit more variety to his side - could be a more expansive RB or quite simply an inside forward who is comfortable out wide. Or perhaps even Neeskens instead of Monti, given that it's actually a back 5 and you don't really require a holding midfielder there (Monti was more well-rounded tbf but Neeskens as a RCM makes more sense in this set-up).

That forward trio of R9-Maradona-Puskas being supported by Matthäus is truly fantastic though. I initially thought Downcast might be going down the Italy 1982 route with Scirea, Bergomi, Cabrini and Conti in his side - but this is definitely a thought-provoking and an interesting set-up.
 
Last edited:
Enigma_87 said:
BTW glad to have you back mate, hope you will take part in the coming drafts :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, good to see @Aldo back

Chesterlestreet said:
Anyway, @Downcast - being pissed at me for droning on about Vogts is fair enough, I can understand that. But if you genuinely believe that I have it in for you, for some reason, you're mistaken.

Take it any way you please - but cultivating keyboard enemies isn't something I have any interest in doing, so for my part the matter is simply closed, and what's been said in this thread stays in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The matter is already closed and I've already forgotten this game. Let's move on.
 
Invictus said:
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:

Di_stefano_real_madrid_cf_(cropped).png


Alfredo Di Stéfano : A defensive nine as well as an attacking third and four-phase playmaker
Click to expand...

http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/alfredo-di-stéfano-career-match-reports.1994303/

Came across this thread on another site the other day and it had plenty of interesting anecdotes, quotes, stories etc about di Stefano. Not sure about the content's accuracy but I highly doubt anyone would go to those sort of lengths to fabricate stuff.
 
Question for all here , I've been having a hard time deciding but who do we think would be man of the match in this game ? You have to pick one .

I'd go for Di Stefano
 
Physiocrat said:
@Chesterlestreet Any thoughts on which GOATS drop into which CB category (complete/stopper or libero/attacking CB)?
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose most would agree that the usual GOATs are almost exclusively in the latter category: They may be (and they are) absolutely first rate "pure" defenders, but they have something in addition to that, whether it's technique or overall "leadership" qualities. It's hard to imagine a specialist stopper (who clearly is not a leader) at GOAT level - unless one distinguishes strictly between the two categories and treats the stoppers as a separate group (one which has its own GOATs, so to speak).

I'd say that the GOATs most agree on fall into two categories: The cultured ones and the ones who have something to their game beyond being "pure" stoppers: They're versatile, for instance (GOAT level versatility, so to speak) - or, like Kohler, absolutely uncanny in terms of positioning and/or marking ability.
 
Aldo said:
Are you a member there?
Click to expand...

Yeah created an account fairly recently but I barely post there (10 posts or something I think). Prefer reading stuff on the older players/teams, than taking part in the discussions.
 
Joga Bonito said:
Yeah created an account fairly recently but I barely post there (10 posts or something I think). Prefer reading stuff on the older players/teams, than taking part in the discussions.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is pretty good for that. Fair share of trolls and random people but a lot of time the level of insight is quite high, plus some posters go through tremendous effort to talk about a player. There's a dutch guy who wrote pages and pages of a thread listing every single goal and assist Cruyff ever made. :D

The South American draft restrictions that I told @Chesterlestreet in the next draft thread were from there as well.
 
Gio said:
Both teams are near flawless. The only clear mismatch for me is the tandem of Maradona and Matthaus up against Varela and Redondo.
Click to expand...

Can't agree that's the only mismatch at all when you have Brehme/Garrincha working in tandem against Cabrini on one flank and Facchetti/Best on the other.

In terms of Maradona I don't think he'll have any more success against Varela than Di Stefano will have against Monti.

And as has been pointed out a couple of times there's more width and diversity in our attack compared to Downcasts - I don't think that's debateable truth be told and I fancy Downcast's defence to get stretched much more than ours is.

I actually fancy Di Stefano to have a better game than Maradona - there isn't much in it in terms of overall quality and in my view he's going to find himself in more space than Diego will.
 
Theon said:
I actually fancy Di Stefano to have a better game than Maradona - there isn't much in it in terms of overall quality and in my view he's going to find himself in more space than Diego will.
Click to expand...
That's a bit unfair. He's against a 5 man conservative defense shielded by Monti and Matthaus sitting deep, as opposed to Diego who's against CMs who are inferior defensively and a back 4 with two attacking fullbacks. What he loses by having one less attacking player and a conservative defensive setup, he gains in defense. You can't have it both ways, right?
 
Joga Bonito said:
If I'm not wrong, harms used a similar set-up in his Manager Draft Final with Gentile, Bergomi, Kohler, Scirea and Cabrini. Although Gentile was in a man-marking role and his forward line had Baggio and Boniek.
Click to expand...
Yes, although it was a huge mistake!
 
I still don't how it ends up in a match losing situation? Sure it hurts his attacking ability but at the same time that leads to extra defensive ability in his team and makes it harder for the opposition to score than it would be with two attacking wingbacks or a back four?

Sure it's bordering on parking the bus but it's not like that hasn't been a successful tactic, specially with the sort of counter attacking unit he has? Inter and Chelsea games against Barca spring to mind. Like I said, it is hardly a decisive point of contention and has been successful in plenty of big games, especially with the sort of attack he is facing.

In fact this is a decision a lot of managers would have taken exactly in the same way, and I actually prefer it to going with two attacking wingbacks given the oppo attack. Been experienced first hand, pragmatism often loses against uber-powered fantasy setups in these things but the situation would be much different in a real game and of the two teams, DC simply has a lesser chance of losing, to put it that way.
 
Aldo said:
In fact this is a decision a lot of managers would have taken exactly in the same way, and I actually prefer it to going with two attacking wingbacks given the oppo attack. Been experienced first hand, pragmatism often loses against uber-powered fantasy setups in these things but the situation would be much different in a real game and of the two teams, DC simply has a lesser chance of losing, to put it that way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's the problem with the draft mechanics basically. Parking the bus just doesn't work as people assume that Pele or someone comparable will grab a goal anyway.

When I faced Edgar in the managers draft, I decided to suck the life of this game completely, fielding Gentile on Nedved (not like Capello vs Trapp would've been a goal fest anyway) - and even with the option to vote for a draw people chose the likely winner (doesn't matter, me or Edgar) instead of voting for a draw, while it was obviously a 0:0, and most said so in discussions.

We assume that someone will score - and then we choose who is more likely to score and we don't give a chance to ultra defensive formations whose goal is not to allow anyone to score.
 
Aldo said:
That's a bit unfair. He's against a 5 man conservative defense shielded by Monti and Matthaus sitting deep, as opposed to Diego who's against CMs who are inferior defensively and a back 4 with two attacking fullbacks. What he loses by having one less attacking player and a conservative defensive setup, he gains in defense. You can't have it both ways, right?
Click to expand...

You're campaigning awfully hard here Aldo, it's a touch bizzare quite frankly.

No I don't think that is unfair at all - Di Stefano will have more space than Maradona.

He's playing in a side that attacks centrally, on the left and on the right which is going to stretch the pitch and create space for the players to play in.

Nothing too complicated or controversial there - it's basic stuff.

Maradona on the other hand is playing in a narrow system that doesn't even have real width from the fullback position. You've got Ronaldo, Puskas, Maradona and Matthaus attacking in a central position which is defended by Baresi, Nesta, Facchetti, Varela and Redondo.

I can see it being a bit of a cluster feck at times and think you're kidding yourself if you think Maradona has more space than Di Stefano personally.
 
Theon said:
You're campaigning awfully hard here Aldo, it's a touch bizzare quite frankly.

No I don't think that is unfair at all - Di Stefano will have more space than Maradona.

He's playing in a side that attacks centrally, on the left and on the right which is going to stretch the pitch and create space for the players to play in.

Nothing too complicated or controversial there - it's basic stuff.

Maradona on the other hand is playing in a narrow system that doesn't even have real width from the fullback position. You've got Ronaldo, Puskas, Maradona and Matthaus attacking in a central position which is defended by Baresi, Nesta, Facchetti, Varela and Redondo.

I can see it being a bit of a cluster feck at times and think you're kidding yourself if you think Maradona has more space than Di Stefano personally.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying while you are completely in your right to call out on the narrowness of his attack, which is 1. due to one less attacker than you and 2. a defensive wingback you should equally, for the very same reason, give credit to his defense due to having 1. one extra defender than you and 2. a more defensive wide defender than yours. You can't punish him from both sides.
 
Aldo said:
I'm just saying while you are completely in your right to call out on the narrowness of his attack, which is 1. due to one less attacker than you and 2. a defensive wingback you should equally, for the very same reason, give credit to his defense due to having 1. one extra defender than you and 2. a more defensive wide defender than yours. You can't punish him from both sides.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with - I'm saying that Di Stefano is going to have more space to operate in than Maradona will. I don't have any doubt about that and its one virtue of having a more diverse attack.

I don't see what's too controversial here - he has three central forwards as well as an offensive Matthaus. Thats four players attacking centrally against a defence which can tuck in tight due to the lack of width.

Clearly Di Stefano has more room here.
 
harms said:
We assume that someone will score - and then we choose who is more likely to score and we don't give a chance to ultra defensive formations whose goal is not to allow anyone to score.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And let's just say there are countless examples of teams achieving enormous success on every level by doing exactly this, going ultra defensive against more obvious attacking setups while having just enough in attack to grab a winner. The history of football in Italy is enough both on club and national level. In a nutshell - defense doesn't get the same credit as attack on paper.
 
Aldo said:
Sure it's bordering on parking the bus but it's not like that hasn't been a successful tactic, specially with the sort of counter attacking unit he has? Inter and Chelsea games against Barca spring to mind. Like I said, it is hardly a decisive point of contention and has been successful in plenty of big games, especially with the sort of attack he is facing.

In fact this is a decision a lot of managers would have taken exactly in the same way, and I actually prefer it to going with two attacking wingbacks given the oppo attack. Been experienced first hand, pragmatism often loses against uber-powered fantasy setups in these things but the situation would be much different in a real game and of the two teams, DC simply has a lesser chance of losing, to put it that way.
Click to expand...

Classic point to debate, that. I've said before that simply parking the bus to some extent with GOATs (who are capable of playing that sort of game, of course) would be very effective, presumably. The tactic works in real life, as we've seen on many occasions.

It doesn't work in drafts, though.

That said, it's debatable to begin with to what extent what we're seeing here is an actual, straight-forward attempt at parking the bus.

The reason why I've been so preoccupied with Vogts is that I see him as part of a more or less standard formation here. You can see him as a custom made, extra defender - but that isn't what he's presented as: On the contrary, his offensive contributions (like Cabrini's) is clearly sold as part of the package (see the OP): In other words, by the looks of it (by the description provided and by the formation pic, for that matter), it's a setup with regular wingbacks.

Oddly enough, this has been practically turned on its head - as though my problem with the setup is that it's unusual, lopsided, asymmetrical, etc.
 
There is no parking the bus in this game . Puskas , Ronaldo and maradona are not going to be getting behind the ball . Parking the bus requires the whole team in their defensive third , that isn't happening here . This game should be viewed purely on attacking merit , in which case invictus/theon are a cut above .
 
Aldo said:
Huh? Maradona is playing as a playmaker in this setup.
Click to expand...

Yes, of everything I've just posted let's focus on Maradona being called a forward instead of a playmaker.

I think we should leave it there, it seems quite clear to me that Di Stefano has more space that Maradona and I'm not too sure what the confusion is with that.
 
Theon said:
You're campaigning awfully hard here Aldo, it's a touch bizzare quite frankly.

No I don't think that is unfair at all - Di Stefano will have more space than Maradona.
Click to expand...

If you want, I can say the chester campaign is 'a touch bizarre quite frankly'.

Aldo just explains his views...
 
Theon said:
he has three central forwards .
Click to expand...

...

Theon said:
Yes, of everything I've just posted let's focus on Maradona being called a forward instead of a playmaker.

I think we should leave it there, it seems quite clear to me that Di Stefano has more space that Maradona and I'm not too sure what the confusion is with that.
Click to expand...

1. ...

2. Nothing so clear because Di Stefano is central playmaker who has to play against a team including of 3 central defenders, a destroyer, another central midfielder, a #10 and 2 CFs...
 
Last edited:
DavidG said:
There is no parking the bus in this game . Puskas , Ronaldo and maradona are not going to be getting behind the ball . Parking the bus requires the whole team in their defensive third , that isn't happening here . This game should be viewed purely on attacking merit , in which case invictus/theon are a cut above .
Click to expand...

I think we can use diverse definitions of the concept of 'parking the bus'.

My team would be more inclined to counter-attack.
 
Downcast said:
No because Di Stefano is central playmaker who has to play against a team including of 3 central defenders, a destroyer, another central midfielder, a #10 and 2 CFs...
Click to expand...

..... Who all keep getting dragged into wide positions to deal with the threat on the flanks.

That's the point.
 
Edgar Allan Pillow said:
Aw, come on. Everyone getting dragged wide doesn't make any kind of sense in reality!
Click to expand...

Explain why it doesn't? I can't believe we're having this conversation.

Di Stefano is playing in a side which will stretch the pitch significantly - that will create space.

There's literally nothing controversial there at all, it's really basic stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.