Not to mention even kohler is pushing up to deal with puskas. Who is actually staying back to defend?
And anto has a point, swap the cb around.
The Euro Draft - QF - Team EAP vs Raees
- Thread starter Balu
- Start date
Not to mention even kohler is pushing up to deal with puskas. Who is actually staying back to defend?
And anto has a point, swap the cb around.
This is how I've seen his "best" (this guy seriously probably never even himself knew what his best position was) role :
-----Zebec(Left Half-Back) -------- Center Half ------- Right Half
--------------------Full back-----------------Full Back--------------
That is in a 2-3-5. For us Edwards played that very position and he's usually a box-to-box/DM in modern formation. I personally see Zebec similar to that.
Gearing up for the match-up, my good sir?@Balu Simply swapped CB positions. No players subbed. Can you please update?
Blanc moved to add to his position and leadership in tackling Henry. Campbell is the perfect stopper against Zlatan.
Blanc moved to add to his position and leadership in tackling Henry. Campbell is the perfect stopper against Zlatan.
Done, I think. Better check if I picked the right one, it's all so confusing in here@Balu Simply swapped CB positions. No players subbed. Can you please update?
Blanc moved to add to his position and leadership in tackling Henry. Campbell is the perfect stopper against Zlatan.
@Balu Simply swapped CB positions. No players subbed. Can you please update?
Blanc moved to add to his position and leadership in tackling Henry. Campbell is the perfect stopper against Zlatan.
Blanc v Henry that is suicide.. especially if Henry tore apart prime Nesta. Plays right into our hands that..
My god, Chester
That Yugoslavia vs France was the only proven match where he played as a DM and not as a CB. Balu posted the lineup link in previous page and it was clear he played in middle of midfield 3 of a 2-3-5 formation, not even in the left. You yourself confirmed that it is better equated to a DM and not a CB role.
So why this vote?
I have already mused on this, Edgar.
I haven't seen the match against France – all I have seen are line-ups written after the fact, and they don't mean much to me based on several factors, the most important of which I have also mentioned:
A centre half in a W-M formation is not a player in “the middle of midfield” as you say – and in the sense you mean to imply here.
Furthermore, you know this very well – because we've had these debates before. You're well aware of the subtleties of the old designations – and you know as well as I do that a player who operated as a centre half (if that's what he did – this is all based on a bloody illustration) in that sense wasn't what we would call a central midfielder by any stretch: He was a third defender, primarily (that's why we usually number it out as 3-2-2-3), not a midfielder. The proper midfielders were the halves or wing halves or whatever the hell we decide to call them – they were the ones operating in roles that can be called, without question, “midfield” roles in modern parlance.
What you had in your W-M was a trio of defenders, a couple of central midfielders, two attacking midfielders slash second strikers, two wingers and a striker (CF).
That's the basic set-up. The role of the centre half varies, obviously, from situation to situation. Just like any role in any other formation (which is purely theoretical at the end of the day – as Chapman himself realized; players are capable of running around a bit, after all): But the main function of a CH in that sort of formation is clearly not that of a midfielder – but rather that of a defender. It's a 3-2-2-3. Not a 2-3-2-3.
Many great centre halves were good on the ball, good at passing, even good at bursting forward to contribute directly in the attacking phase – but they were still part of a basic three man line at the back.
If your argument is that our boy was a midfielder, based on those ridiculous illustrations, then you don't have an argument. A centre half, around 1960, was obviously not a midfielder in anything like the modern sense – he was a DM at best, but frequently a player whose tasks resembled that of a CB more than anything.
Anyone like the idea to bring Häßler in for Kohler and play Rijkaard - Beckenbauer in a back four with Zebec as a DM ? Häßler then right midfielder/winger. I can't really figure out how that central defensive clusterfeck is supposed to work in Raees' team. It always looks like there's one player too many and he's making things more difficult for all the greats around him by standing in the way. If that makes sense to anyone but me, please let me know? I'm very confused.
Blanc made average players of better strikers than henry.. Don't be confusing him with the slow past it Blanc at United.. Might not have blistering pace but was always steps ahead with his brain..
His keeper is not being talked about.. he's not in Beara's class.
He was a participant at the three consecutive World Cups 1954 FIFA World Cup, 1958 FIFA World Cup and at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, where Czechoslovakia surprised the world and went through to the final. The final however proved to be a black day for Schrojf, with two Brazilian goals resulting from his mistakes. With his country leading 1–0, he expected a cross from Amarildo and left the goal, allowing the Brazilian to score from an acute angle. Halfway through the second half, with his side already 1–2 down, the sun got into his eyes and he failed to catch a simple ball properly, which landed directly at the feet of Vava, who took the opportunity to become the first ever player to score in two different World Cup finals.
With Luisito Suarez as our set piece taker.. we'll be a threat with our height, Rijkaard, Ibrahimovic, Zebec, Facchetti, Beckenbauer, Kohler to name but a few. Big games usually get decided through set pieces.
He was a participant at the three consecutive World Cups 1954 FIFA World Cup, 1958 FIFA World Cup and at the 1962 FIFA World Cup, where Czechoslovakia surprised the world and went through to the final. The final however proved to be a black day for Schrojf, with two Brazilian goals resulting from his mistakes. With his country leading 1–0, he expected a cross from Amarildo and left the goal, allowing the Brazilian to score from an acute angle. Halfway through the second half, with his side already 1–2 down, the sun got into his eyes and he failed to catch a simple ball properly, which landed directly at the feet of Vava, who took the opportunity to become the first ever player to score in two different World Cup finals.
With Luisito Suarez as our set piece taker.. we'll be a threat with our height, Rijkaard, Ibrahimovic, Zebec, Facchetti, Beckenbauer, Kohler to name but a few. Big games usually get decided through set pieces.
It's simple. Both kohler and zebec are pushing ahead of Kluivert to man mark Gullit and puskas. This leaves Beckenbauer as the deepest defender who is playing his normal libero role while swapping at the same time with Rijkaard. Now the role of fullbacks can make this work but both of them are providing width as well. So you have an adventurous wingback in fachetti and another in amoros (with average and that's being polite euro performance) to cover for any gaps in Raees defense.
Now is that going to work? It will allow our side countless goal scoring opportunities yes, so if that's the objective it will work.
Which strikers? I'm genuinely curious to know of a renowned striker Blanc kept quiet I.e. romario v Baresi.. Nesta is better than Blanc no?
I'd like to learn more about peak Blanc.
Blanc is fantastic in any context, but in the Euros specifically he was excellent and this is complete nonsense.
I disagree. So much so that if the first half ended with Blanc on the left that was the clincher for me to vote for you.
Back to the decision-making drawing board.
AC Milan side of the 80s, so many great defensive players in the same set up.. Baresi and Rijkaard in the same side, is similar to Beckenbauer/Rijkaard combination in terms of roles. Kohler for Costacurta.. the only difference now is addition of Zebec.
He's very adaptable I don't see how he's seen as a problem rather than an aid to those around him.
This kind of generalization gives old time players freedom to be played anywhere in the field be it defence, offence hybrid roles...everything. Not close to reality at all imo.
What he actually played based on sources we have:
It was a 2-3-2-3 he played in, at least from the facts we can glean. We just can't ignore all assume it was 3-2-3-2 when what we have tells us otherwise.
.CH...Zebec...CH...
........FB....FB.........
I can assume the left and right halves drop back to support defence if needed, but a centre mid dropping back will make him a sweeper...something he certainly was not.
What he was based on articles we read:
He was a left half defensively and a left winger offensively. Sometime playing CF or SS too. Compare that to the other Left Half's we know of in general, Duncan Edwards, Josef Masopust etc. They are positioned as Left DM's and Left CM's in general. They have good workrate and are highly rated for the attack support they provide. This is exactly what articles tell us about Zebec too.
Here you have a attacking, dribbling left half played as CB between two other attacking players in Kaizer/Facchetti. It is a disaster waiting to happen with Gullit hovering there. Utterly unbalanced set up. Take your own France example, leaked in 4 goals and then helped in offence for a comeback. Definitely will leak goals here too, but not going to get any comeback.
Fair enough but which pacey attacker has Blanc famously kept quiet, I am not going to question him now but I would like to know for future reference.
They had defensive fullbacks and Costacurta stayed back to cover for baresi. He didn't push ahead of the striker along with his other defensive partner and two wingbacks leaving the libero alone at the back!
How is Kaizer left alone at the back? Kohler and Zebec will be there with him.
I don't understand what you're asking?
Blanc will have faced pacy strikers hundreds of times in his career. By the way you're going on about him you would think he was exposed every other week when in reality he was on of the best defenders of the decade.
Your writeup. In which you say that kohler is man marking Gullit and zebec puskas. Now if both if them are playing behind Kluivert, and are being man marked where does that leave Beckenbauer?
That's the crux of it and why you two keep going round in circles Chester. EAP is going off this teamsheet, which is a 2-3-5 (most likely 2-3-2-3). That's the classic No.5 centre-half/DM role. It's not WM but WW.
So either Zebec is a DM and Durkovic a right-half or a central defender and a rightback. I'd call it square and move on from a positional perspective, whether he performed well defensively is the massive question mark here.
And Raees and Gio have conveniently not answered all questions regarding Zebec prime, Euro and Career.
If we can't even establish a Euro peak, I certainly don't see any point in having a draft rule at all. Might have as well picked Baresi and played Breitner in the middle etc.
If we can't even establish a Euro peak, I certainly don't see any point in having a draft rule at all. Might have as well picked Baresi and played Breitner in the middle etc.
Kohler is just about the last player I would drop in Raees' team. No slight on Hassler, but he needs Kohler.
Yeah, but they didn't play a back five and a defensive midfielder who had to drop back. Same with Germany in '72 which you (or someone else mentioned in regards to Beckenbauer - Rijkaard (at least I remember something like that). Beckenbauer didn't have anyone covering for him in midfield actually. He played an incredibly disciplined role and let Netzer run the show in '72, I'd actually argue that it was his best defensive display ever, because he didn't have to do much playmaking but a lot of defending with no defensive midfielder in the side and Vogts not to his right. Let Suarez run the show and Beckenbauer do his job.
It's overkill, you don't need so many defenders. You're giving protection to players protecting a player who didn't need protection in the first place or something like that. I really don't like it. If you had lesser players, less complete defenders there, I'd understand it.
And we aren't just being anal about this point, we didn't pick baresi due to the fact that his euro performances weren't really that good. So it's a tad annoying that others(amoros and zebec) seem to be getting a free pass here.
Yeah, I mentioned that before. The issue is that is a World Cup game and this is on Euro form, so I have no basis to assume he is a liability unless proved otherwise. He played in three World Cups so he couldn't be Calamity James. On that basis you could argue Kahn was useless because he fecked up in the 2002 final, but we all know that was an exception to the rule.
I definitely rate Beara highly though, always mentioned in the same breath with some of the greatest goalkeepers back when I was a kid.
Don't let his ability on the ball make you think he was anything but top notch defensively. I don't get this, defenders are being criticized for being able to attack or use the ball when their team has it. It has nothing to do on how they'll behave when they lose it and are back defending. You have criticized all three of Facchetti, Beckenbauer and Zebec on account of their attacking forays, assuming that would somehow make them out of position when you get the ball. You will need time to take the ball, build up play, and get it to the other end, like every game. Why would these guys, even if you catch them in an attacking position would stay there standing the whole time? There's a whole lot of difference between defenders of yesteryears who added the attacking dimension to their game to the current ones who are wingers-turned-into-defenders a la Dani Alves. The players we are discussing about, are defenders first and foremost, and a couple are the greatest of all time. If they had no sense of when to bomb forward and leave their position and when to stay back and guard against the threat they wouldn't be anywhere close to renowned as they are.
I don't know, if you are just mixing up the attacking and defensive phases in which these players act completely differently or is something else, but I can't agree that Beckenbauer will just go roaming forgetting Kluivert exists and you will magically teleport the ball to him while Beckenbauer stays without going back. That's never going to happen. And it's not like he is going to go marauding every single time he has the ball, he made few of those runs every game, only when the game demanded for it and often it was to break a midfield battle caught in a dreadlock. Here he can easily concentrate on defending, cutting off the supply to Kluivert, and he's possibly the best ever for that job. This is without even considering there is Rijkaard, who is rapid and would easily cover behind in case, in case a rare moment of lapse happens by Kaiser.
I'm sure you want to secure a win here, but this is a clear misrepresentation of how the game will be played out. MJJ just posted "wingbacks have to provide width, so that will be troublesome at the back". Again, why would they be in forward position providing width when the whole team is defending and trying to win the ball? Facchetti along with Nilton pioneered the wingback position, it is a really demanding position, I agree and you cannot place anyone there. But there's no one better for that job than he is. And again, he is a defender, who knows how to attack, not the other way round.
/rant
@Aldo I posted that since Raees plans both of zebec and kohler to man mark Gullit and puskas. Who aren't our playing behind our forward. Combine that with both fachetti and amoros going forward and Beckenbauer and Rijkaard swapping it just seems a mess to me which will lead to confusion. Am not suggesting all of them will attack at the same time but his centre backs clearly can't perform that role. He is playing three liberos in a way which never works. I know they will get back as well, that's why I said it will lead to goal scoring opportunities not goals.
And if four out of the five defenders in the back are pushing forward mostly, it will be easier to counter attack specially with a disjointed defensive line up.
And if four out of the five defenders in the back are pushing forward mostly, it will be easier to counter attack specially with a disjointed defensive line up.
That might very well be – I'm sure it's arguable what his best role actually was. He's famous as a complete player, after all.
But as Gio said above, the true Zebec revelation came about when he was moved back into – actual – defence. That is, as a fullback – or in the centre half position. Duncan Edwards (an exceptional player, capable of operating as what we'd call a box-to-box midfielder) was a wing half, as was Eddie Colman (a player whose best features were offensive, not defensive) – two midfielders in the modern sense, with a centre half (not a midfielder in the modern sense, at best a very defensive midfielder) behind them. This centre half could be a thug or a ball player – or something in between. A DM or a CB – or something in between. The point is that he was not a midfielder in the same sense that the halves were midfielders – his basic role was a defensive one. The evolution from the old 2-3-5 to the W-M meant that, precisely, the centre half was dragged back – becoming part of a bank of three.
This is neither here nor there, though – the question is whether our boy is able to perform as a CB in this particular match, based on his Euro performances. I say he is – others may disagree. I say that there's no reason to think he didn't play as a defender in the relevant context – and that is what matters.
One may question the wisdom in fielding a defender like him (who undoubtedly had many of the qualities Beckenbauer also shares) in that role, alongside the Kaiser – but one may then point to the fact that Zebec shares some of Kohler's traits too: He was an expert marker and he was accustomed to the old left back role (which is, in modern terms, a CB role, that is – a defensive position with someone else in the middle, as a CB or DM, in other words something like Beckenbauer's role here). Not to mention that he was fast, strong, excellent in the air, and so forth.
In theory I agree, but I can see '88 Rijkaard working well next to '72 Beckenbauer and the nationality restrictions make it the best possible sub, if you want to take one defender out of the team.
Does EAP have world-class power free-kick takers? Breitner/Gullit maybe? Beara can be a liability here, with his stubbornness about his disliking of the wall - with those new light balls...
With Bonhof or Brehme or someone like here it could've been an argument.
Joking, of course.
With Bonhof or Brehme or someone like here it could've been an argument.
Joking, of course.
Never kept a tally of whether strikers were pacey or not, it never looked remotely relevant until his years with us. For the record, I would have fancied him to keep Ronaldo under control even if he hadn't had that fit. And this was a very good Ronaldo we are talking about.
He was immense in that gestation period for France, in 1996 you saw a great defence but a tothless attack. In '98 they grew some teeth, just enough, but that World Cup wasn't won by Zidane but France's defensive setup and he was the cornerstone of it all. If anything, he scored France's most important goal against Paraguay as, on penos, Chilavert would have knocked them out. Everyone loves/prefers France 2000 because they were far more exciting to watch, but they only got there on the back of years of masterfully shutting out games at the back.
You are reading this out of context. For the role Zebec played the France match was given as an example and I'm working off that match. They leaked 4 goals and Zebec playing in midfield was instrumental in mounting a comeback and scoring 5 goals.
To all,
In the end all I'm getting is generalizations on roles and characteristics absolutely zero facts on what he actually did in Euros.
Do I have a confirmation he played in a back 2 or a back 3? - NO
Do we have any confirmation of a defensive performance of his? - NO
What we have is ample confirmations otherwise:
- Confirmation he played in a DM'esque role.
- Confirmation of this offensive performance from that role.
- Confirmation that they leaked goals defensively with him in that role.
Why consider when they can be ignored?
Is this even a Euro draft when even his Euro peak cannot be established and we have to work on a match 1 year before his retirement?
In the end all I'm getting is generalizations on roles and characteristics absolutely zero facts on what he actually did in Euros.
Do I have a confirmation he played in a back 2 or a back 3? - NO
Do we have any confirmation of a defensive performance of his? - NO
What we have is ample confirmations otherwise:
- Confirmation he played in a DM'esque role.
- Confirmation of this offensive performance from that role.
- Confirmation that they leaked goals defensively with him in that role.
Why consider when they can be ignored?
Is this even a Euro draft when even his Euro peak cannot be established and we have to work on a match 1 year before his retirement?
- Both wingbacks never go forward at the same time.
- They are top wingbacks, at least Facchetti is, and they won't make any irresponsible runs. If they have a threat, they will look after that first.
- Clearly if you are taking the ball forward via Gullit and Puskas, their markers would also be ready and stay with them.
You have 4 defenders there, excluding Rijkaard. I don't see how this team will ever be exposed at the back. This without even counting the quality you get with the likes of Kaiser, Kohler and Facchetti.
Anyway, it's not my game, I've gone too far in support of one team anyway. My previous post was more in relation to something that happens a lot in these discussions so I hope you didn't think it was something personal against your team.
Do the managers even believe half the things they say in these threads? It's an absolute minefield.
Ignoring all discussion I went for Raees, though it is a close call.
Ignoring all discussion I went for Raees, though it is a close call.
I think it has been great. Better than drab affairs of recent times. One half still to go yet. We many even get a proper meltdown from someone