The Impossible Draft R1 - Enigma vs PNut

[Enigma_87]

Yeah I fully enjoyed that one. Didn't really want to slag any part of your team as I like it a lot so focused more on my own positions of strength.

Yeah ditto mate. The only thing that caught my eye looking at your roster was the lack of designated playmaker. But with Becks tucking in and Puskas dropping back and the plan to go wide and then across can't really fault any of your initial plan.

Tigana/Bremner was a great CM duo, especially given the restrictions. The former was a real coup in this format and I guess some lucky will enjoy him straight away in the RR.

 

[P-Nut]

Yeah ditto mate. The only thing that caught my eye looking at your roster was the lack of designated playmaker. But with Becks tucking in and Puskas dropping back and the plan to go wide and then across can't really fault any of your initial plan.

Tigana/Bremner was a great CM duo, especially given the restrictions. The former was a real coup in this format and I guess some lucky will enjoy him straight away in the RR.

Yeah I was going to take him as my 2nd pick but Yashin didn't block anyone thankfully

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Was a good match - good discussion.

Some interesting points were raised - which I hope will get a follow-up, I might add.

The question of how certain players should be regarded/interpreted in these drafts is always worth discussing.

How did X actually play? To what extent did he actually transcend his nominal position/role?

We probably tend to overrate the degree there. Being considered «offensive» in one way or another in the 50s doesn't translate to playing like a modern fullback/side back.

On the flip side, part and parcel of these affairs is to - somehow - translate the qualities/traits/tendencies of historical players to some kind of hypothetical entity (e.g. a player born in the 1920s who interacts and combines with someone born almost a century later), which necessarily means that you can't simply look at what X did - you have to, to some degree, imagine how his skill set might work in a fantasy match.

Players who were not typical, who did transcend standard roles (in what was often rigid setups), look more plausible in roles that never actually existed in their own time.

 

[Enigma_87]

Was a good match - good discussion.

Some interesting points were raised - which I hope will get a follow-up, I might add.

The question of how certain players should be regarded/interpreted in these drafts is always worth discussing.

How did X actually play? To what extent did he actually transcend his nominal position/role?

We probably tend to overrate the degree there. Being considered «offensive» in one way or another in the 50s doesn't translate to playing like a modern fullback/side back.

On the flip side, part and parcel of these affairs is to - somehow - translate the qualities/traits/tendencies of historical players to some kind of hypothetical entity (e.g. a player born in the 1920s who interacts and combines with someone born almost a century later), which necessarily means that you can't simply look at what X did - you have to, to some degree, imagine how his skill set might work in a fantasy match.

Players who were not typical, who did transcend standard roles (in what was often rigid setups), look more plausible in roles that never actually existed in their own time.

Yeah, I intend to keep Djalma so that would spark some further comments I guess.

The bolded is key to me when comparing and presenting players from different decades, especially those born more than 70-80 years ago. We have to give some leeway in how they will fare in modern day formations.

Generally some players are more appreciated than others around here, regardless of coming from the same era and all the traits behind it - intensity, speed, sometimes lack of definitive footage.

We also have to take in consideration that many of the great players from early times occupied at least couple of positions on the pitch or even started at completely different areas. Some as wingers, others as midfielders, then were moved centrally or wide. Players like Djalma, Nilton, Zebec, Andrade's didn't have a set position and possessed the qualities to be versatile enough to work within different and also modern formations, considering their quality. The zones that they covered were also pretty big for the time, especially since a lot of teams adopted the 2 man midfield or the 4-2-4 system during the 50's and 60's. Lateral players covered inside and also participated in both phases.

Of course we can't expect to see them constantly overlapping or tactically playing like modern day footballers, but considering the time and the development of the game their transition(at least for the very best players) shouldn't be that hard to envisage.