The Impossible Draft - SF: Gio vs idmanager

[Theon]

Bergkamp operated slightly higher up than Zidane but I feel the difference is being exaggerated here. Zidane was alway an AM and not a CM and he regularly slacked off on defensive duties sitting higher up the pitch. Bergkamp in his later years for Arsenal (2000-2005) definitely dropped deeper and was part of transitions so again even if Zidane is slightly deeper, its not like Zidane played as a true CM. He was an AM to me.

Nah, really can’t agree with this at all as there was a clear difference in position. Zidane would pick up the ball regulalry from the defensive line and he generally operated a good 30 yards behind the forwards. He was the primarily player who initiated midfield transitions whereas Bergkamp would often be on the end of them.

I don’t think he slacked off defensive duties and stayed up the pitch either. You’re making him sound like a lackadaisical Riquelme-esque technician and that’s more accurate for Bergkamp imo. Zidane was much more mobile, with his long stride, strength and dribbling he could drive a team forward in a way very few players have been able to since.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Nah, really can’t agree with this at all as there was a clear difference in position. Zidane would pick up the ball regulalry from the defensive line and he generally operated a good 30 yards behind the forwards. He was the primarily player who initiated midfield transitions whereas Bergkamp would often be on the end of them.

I don’t think he slacked off defensive duties and stayed up the pitch either. You’re making him sound like a lackadaisical Riquelme-esque technician and that’s more accurate for Bergkamp imo. Zidane was much more mobile, with his long stride, strength and dribbling he could drive a team forward in a way very few players have been able to since.

I don't expect you to agree with criticism of your team
But yeah I think you are definitely underrating Bergkamp and not really accurate about his play style 99-2006 meanwhile ignoring Zidane's flaws and only focusing on his positives.

 

[Theon]

I don't expect you to agree with criticism of your team
But yeah I think you are definitely underrating Bergkamp and not really accurate about his play style 99-2006 meanwhile ignoring Zidane's flaws and only focusing on his positives.

Come off it, it’s clearly you defending an Arsenal player .

Will let the neutrals decide on this discussion I guess (you’ve already had one say something similar) but I think the suggestion that Bergkamp:

1. Played the same position as Zidane
2. Was anywhere near as central to midfield play and offensive transitions

Are both ridiculous.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Come off it, it’s clearly you defending an Arsenal player .

Will let the neutrals decide on this discussion I guess (you’ve already had one say something similar) but I think the suggestion that Bergkamp:

1. Played the same position as Zidane
2. Was anywhere near as central to midfield play and offensive transitions

Are both ridiculous.

I never said either of those things.

Also, I can apply your silly logic to all your opinions on United players. Stop with that bad fallacy crap or I'll just ignore every opinion you have on United and England players.
Fact is, I doubt you watched even 1/2 as many Bergkamp matches as I have. And you are definitely misrepresenting his play style by painting him as some classic English supporting striker when in fact his role was considered one of the prototypes for the no.10 in the modern 4231.

It was a fairly similar side both seasons. The front four remained intact, and in its own way, this was perhaps an early example of a strikerless formation. Dennis Bergkamp dropped into space whilst Thierry Henry drifted to the left when Arsenal didn’t have possession,

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/02/12/teams-of-the-decade-9-arsenal-2001-04/

 

[Gio]

It's a rare feat indeed when a player wins the Ballon D'Or despite a trophyless season for club and country. That's how good Denis Law was in 1964 when he pushed the great Luisito Suarez into second place (with a peak Eusebio down in 4th), in spite of the Spaniard being central in winning both the European Cup and the European Championships. In 1963/64, Law scored 46 goals in 42 games which would have been a superb achievement for just a finisher, but clearly a more impressive one for a forward as rounded as Law.

Matt Busby always said of all players he had, the greatest was Law. I’d have to agree with that. I was a teenager in those days, going along to watch matches with Father. To me, Denis from 1963 to ’67 was unbelievable. In the same way you could say Paul Scholes and Ruud van Nistelrooy did in 2003, or Cantona did in ’96, he won the League for us in ’65. He was just outstanding.

It's no wonder that the fans of the Stretford End were quick to crown him as their 'King' when he moved to Manchester United from Torino in 1962. He was in the early years of his incredible career, but he had already stamped his mark on the game. Lightning quick, fearless, dynamic, good with both feet, spectacular - and sometimes unbelievably devastating - in the air, he was as near as damn it the perfect goalscoring individual.

Anyone who saw him in his halycon days was privileged in the extreme to see a total footballing craftsman in action and I'm immensely proud to say that he's a Scotsman.

When I signed Denis I knew that we had the most exciting player in the game. He was the quickest-thinking player I ever saw, seconds quicker than anyone else. He had the most tremendous acceleration and could leap to enormous heights to head the ball with almost unbelievable accuracy and often the power of a shot. He had the courage to take on the biggest and most ferocious of opponents and his passing was impeccable. He was one of the most unselfish players I have ever seen. If he was not in the best position to score, he would give the ball to someone who was. When a chance was on for him. even only half a chance, or in some cases, no chance at all for anybody but for him, whether he had his back to goal, was sideways on, or the ball was on the deck or up at shoulder-height, he would have it in the net with such power and acrobatic ability that colleagues and opponents alike could only stand and gasp. No other player scored as many miracle goals as Denis Law. Goals which looked simple as Denis tapped them in, were simple only because Denis got himself into position so quickly that opponents just couldn't cope with him.

He cost around £100,000, big money for a British player in those days. The speed and technical brilliance of Law reminded the supporters of their former hero, Valentino Mazzola. They had never seen anyone quite as quick-thinking as Denis. He was always two or three moves ahead. It was a pity he only stayed a year.

His first touch was very good, with your first touch, you control the ball, which gives you more time and space to play. The more touches, the more time and space. All the great players have this, and Denis had it to a very high degree, at speed, in competitive matches. I was with Denis for about a year at United, after his move from Italy, and I never heard him talk much about the game. He was just a great talent, who went out there and did it. He was a good header of the ball and reasonable on both sides, but the main thing about Denis was that he was the most dynamic player I have ever seen, and I'd include everyone in that, be they English, Irish, Italian or Spanish. He had this natural urgency and aggression which meant that if the ball broke loose, he would be the first onto it, smacking it into the back of the net. With his quick reflexes, he could not be stopped. If he was going to head it, he'd do that too, into the back of the net.

Look, the best way to judge that is you've got to go to some places like Argentina, where you know it's going to be tough, or maybe behind the Old Iron Curtain. And you're playing for your life. Who are you going to pick?

Certain names would be mentioned straight away for such an assignment - there would be Norman Hunter, Dave Mackay, Cliff Jones, Bobby Collins and I would add John Robertson, though John wasn't exactly a killer either. And you will go for Denis Law rather than Jimmy Greaves, because Denis may be remembered almost entirely for his goal-scoring brilliance but he was also a very aggressive player, and in fact in some circumstances would take your head off. Yes, for such a trip to the wilds of Argentina, you would need these hard nuts, the gladiatorial types.

 

[Gio]

Worth highlighting the likely impact of the best winger on the park Zoltan Czibor on this game.

Check out his performance in the 1961 European Cup Final, scoring one, hitting the post and constantly probing in behind causing all sorts of problems.


Have to say surprised that volley at 5.45 wasn't part of the Bale/Zidane debate over the greatest Champions League final goal, particularly impressive strike with the heavy old ball and clogger boots.

The other thing working in Czibor's favour is the deadly partnership he forged with Kubala for Barcelona. Together they quickly overthrew Real Madrid's stranglehold to win the league (the same year that Di Stefano and Puskas pumped Eintracht Frankfurt 7-3), reaching the European Cup Final in his second year.

Czibor could provide traditional service from the left for the likes of Law and Kubala to attack, but could equally be part of a fluid attack (see him in the right-wing position setting up Puskas's famous goal against England for example).

 

[idmanager]

For Kubala and Matthews though I’d give the edge comfortably to Kubala, a player rated as Barcelona’s greatest ever who scored 280 goals in 345 games - that’s an exceptional record and he’ll surely cause all sorts of problems for Zebec and Idmanager’s defence, particularly when he cuts inside and overloads that inside right channel (against a defensive midfield which is already overrun).

In comparison to those goal scoring stats at Barcelona, the best goal scoring season for Matthews was 11 goals in his second season at Stoke City.

Is that how you usually look at draft games? Through stats?

You are comparing the goal scoring stats of a player whose primary job was to play as an orthodox winger creating chances for others, with a player who played mostly as a supporting striker through the middle and as a wing forward rather than a winger. That is probably the most pointless stat in the whole thread.

And why would I worry about his goal scoring stats when I am playing with 2 strikers? Add to that Gento who had a career average of 1 goal in 3 games?

What one should be looking at is the tactics. I am not going to say Kubala is not the right player in your setup and no one can say Matthews is not ace in mine. Tell me if the tactic w.r.t to Matthews is not spot on and we can discuss. But bringing in stats which are pointless when comparing two different players in two different roles does nothing for the game or discussion in general. Kubala never won a Ballon Dor despite all his goals. He never even finished in the top 3 ever. His best was 5th. But it would be similarly stupid of me to down play him for that.

Matthew’s was undoubtedly a great player but at his peak I don’t think he reached the level of Kubala, his legacy is undoubtedly influenced by the fact that he played until he was 50 years old.

You mean a player who won the Ballon D'or scoring single digit goals the whole season had his legacy enhanced because he played till he was 50?

I'll just leave the players who played in Matthews' testimonial. And they didn't turn up just because he was 50 years old.

I don't think I need to sell him a lot in a UK football forum.

 

[Theon]

And why would I worry about his goal scoring stats when I am playing with 2 strikers?

Don’t let @oneniltothearsenal read this.

On the rest of it I’ll respond later as I’m out on at the minute, but there’s no need to get defensive about it mate. I’m not criticising Matthews by pointing out his goal record. That’s just highlighting a fact. I said in the post that he was a great player, but I just think all things considered he’s not at the level of Kubala.

 

[idmanager]

Dennis Bergkamp doing what he does best. Creating a defense piercing chance with ease.
Look at where he creates it from. He was nothing like a stay just outside the box kind of a supporting striker.
Can't believe a PL forum needs selling about his game from the deep.

 

[idmanager]

Don’t let @oneniltothearsenal read this.

I am sure he doesn't think of Bergkamp as static as you do.
You want to classify him just as a striker or as a play maker when every one else who has watched him play knows he mixed them both perfectly.
And in the latter stages, did the play making part as good as any other great number 10 of that time.

On the rest of it I’ll respond later as I’m out on at the minute, but there’s no need to get defensive about it mate. I’m not criticising Matthews by pointing out his goal record. That’s just highlighting a fact. I said in the post that he was a great player, but I just think all things considered he’s not at the level of Kubala.

When you bring in the goal scoring stats of two players as different as those 2 in setups completely different, I am not sure if I could be anything but defensive.
I tried not to be rude though. Hope it didnt sound that way as well.

 

[Theon]

I am sure he doesn't think of Bergkamp as static as you do.
You want to classify him just as a striker or as a play maker when every one else who has watched him play knows he mixed them both perfectly.

Erm, no I don’t. Again don’t see the need to argue this way.

I said that Bergkamp was a supporting striker which is the definition of someone who combines elements of advanced forward and number 10 play. So I’ve never painted him as static.

All I said is that he contributes far less to that phase of the game than Zidane does, which is 100% correct.

 

[idmanager]

I said that Bergkamp was a supporting striker which is the definition of someone who combines elements of advanced forward and number 10 play. So I’ve never painted him as static.

All I said is that he contributes far less to that phase of the game than Zidane does, which is 100% correct.

Well, lets agree to disagree on the far less part. I wont call their deep game equal, but far less is a huge stretch.
As you said earlier, lets leave it to the wisdom of the voters. Am sure they have all watched enough of Zizou and Dennis

 

[Theon]

When you bring in the goal scoring stats of two players as different as those 2 in setups completely different, I am not sure if I could be anything but defensive.

Mate, it’s a relevant fact so there’s nothing at all wrong with bringing it up when we’re comparing players. Matthews scoring 18 goals in 428 games is a statistic that suggests he’s not a massive goal threat, it’s not a made up opinion which is trying to hatchet him as a player.

I’ve said he’s a great player, he’s just not a goal threat and I don’t think he’s quite on the level of Kubala.

 

[idmanager]

I’ve said he’s a great player, he’s just not a goal threat

Yea and Monti is not a great goal scoring threat too. Forster is probably not as well. Good that goal scoring is not what is expected of them in this game.

 

[Moby]

All I said is that he contributes far less to that phase of the game than Zidane does, which is 100% correct.

He played in one of the deadliest counter attacking sides the game has seen, and plenty of times was stationed just ahead of the central midfield area before getting the ball.

Even if Zidane provided more in that area it wouldn't be anything more than marginal. We aren't talking about Di Stefano or Gullit here, it's Zinedine fecking Zidane, someone who gave his best when he had an absolute powerhouse central midfield duo behind him doing most of the heavy lifting - Deschamps and Petit for France in 98, Vieira and Makelele for France in 2006 and last but not the least, Deschamps and Edgar Davids for Juve in the late 90s, with him facing the latter.

Think this part of the game has been massively overblown here as I don't see either Zidane or Bergkamp making any game changing impact in the midfield battle.

 

[idmanager]

He played in one of the deadliest counter attacking sides the game has seen, and plenty of times was stationed just ahead of the central midfield area before getting the ball.

Even if Zidane provided more in that area it wouldn't be anything more than marginal. We aren't talking about Di Stefano or Gullit here, it's Zinedine fecking Zidane, someone who gave his best when he had an absolute powerhouse central midfield duo behind him doing most of the heavy lifting - Deschamps and Petit for France in 98, Vieira and Makelele for France in 2006 and last but not the least, Deschamps and Edgar Davids for Juve in the late 90s, with him facing the latter.

Think this part of the game has been massively overblown here as I don't see either Zidane or Bergkamp making any game changing impact in the midfield battle.

Cant put in any better. And talking about more examples of Dennis from the deep in counter attacking systems. Tell me how this is different from the role Zidane played many times.

 

[Gio]

Think this part of the game has been massively overblown here as I don't see either Zidane or Bergkamp making any game changing impact in the midfield battle.

My initial point was it was brave to set up a 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 with only two players known for putting in a defensive shift in the front six. And that's compounded when it's up against a Zidane/Falcao/Goncalves triumvirate. Giving those three space to control the match is a dangerous game. I've got no issues with idm's use of Bergkamp for counter-attacking purposes, but Zidane is quite clearly a better player backed up by a midfield in control of the game. A lot of potential for him to be decisive here.

 

[harms]

In his entire stint at Blackpool he scored 18 goals in 428 games. That’s night and day compared with Kubala.

I think that's a completely unfair comparison. I mean is Lampard superior to Iniesta because he scored significantly more goals?

They were as different as they come — Kubala was first and foremost a goalscorer (with brilliant all-round game, of course), Matthews was probably the epitome of an orthodox winger, even more so than Garrincha — almost never cutting in, just beating his opponent (or two) and making an inch-perfect cross into the box, rinse repeat. And while Kubala's club career is undoubtedly superior, Matthews is head and shoulders above internationally. Kubala was unlucky there, of course, but you can say that Matthews was unlucky with Stoke — playing today he would've transferred to a top club and had an illustrious career there, but that's how English football was those days.

 

[Theon]

I think that's a completely unfair comparison. I mean is Lampard superior to Iniesta because he scored significantly more goals?

It's just a factual comparison of their goal scoring records.

The implication is that one is a significantly greater goal threat than the other, which I think is relevant. There's nothing wrong with highlighting how many goals Kubala scored compared with Matthews. I think everyone knows Matthews was an orthodox winger, but it's still a shoddy goal record and there's no controversy in pointing that out.

 

[harms]

It's just a factual comparison of their goal scoring records.

The implication is that one is a significantly greater goal threat than the other, which I think is relevant. There's nothing wrong with highlighting how many goals Kubala scored compared with Matthews. I think everyone knows Matthews was an orthodox winger, but it's still a shoddy goal record and there's no controversy in pointing that out.

You don't just say that Kubala scored more goals (which is more than fair), you begin with

For Kubala and Matthews though I’d give the edge comfortably to Kubala

And then your whole argument that he's a better player is based on the fact that he scored more goals. Which is not how it works.

 

[Enigma_87]

I think that's a completely unfair comparison. I mean is Lampard superior to Iniesta because he scored significantly more goals?

They were as different as they come — Kubala was first and foremost a goalscorer (with brilliant all-round game, of course), Matthews was probably the epitome of an orthodox winger, even more so than Garrincha — almost never cutting in, just beating his opponent (or two) and making an inch-perfect cross into the box, rinse repeat. And while Kubala's club career is undoubtedly superior, Matthews is head and shoulders above internationally. Kubala was unlucky there, of course, but you can say that Matthews was unlucky with Stoke — playing today he would've transferred to a top club and had an illustrious career there, but that's how English football was those days.

Kubala was also unfortunate in his club career mate in many ways due to Franco's regime. The only thing that Barca would "benefit" was Samitier's connections to the regime and the way he was signed and should I say allowed to be signed. At the time Kubala was considered to be the best in the world - the time before Di Stefano emerged to the scene.

Just to put it in perspective in the 40's Atlético de Madrid, named Atlético Aviación at the time due to merging with the Spanish Air Force – were pretty much close to Franco's regime on many levels. Several of the Atletico players came from the air corps too.So it wasn't just one Madrid team that enjoyed more benefits but rather the two of them.

Another example is in 1943, when Barca encountered Real in the semi-finals of Copa del Generalisimo. They won the first game 3-0.

Just before the second leg, Franco assigned his director of state security to visit Barcelona's players in the changing room. What he is known to have told them is that they were only playing due to the "generosity of the "regime". The return fixture Real won 11–1.

Kubala himself needed an year to get permission to play after being transferred to Barca and Franco was often interfering in football matters and also putting repressions on Catalonia, despite all this Kubala led the team to 4 titles during the 50's and early 60's and which is the reason why he was always held in such high regard.

Obviously quite different player to Matthews and not comparing him directly, but if he was signed by Real at the time and rejoined with Di Stefano couple of years later his club career would IMO be elevated to much higher level.

Without Kubala Real would've been the absolute dominant force in La Liga at the time.

Kubala would've slotted in seamlessly in Real's formation as well at the expense of Rial in the inside right position.

 

[Theon]

Even if Zidane provided more in that area it wouldn't be anything more than marginal. We aren't talking about Di Stefano or Gullit here, it's Zinedine fecking Zidane, someone who gave his best when he had an absolute powerhouse central midfield duo behind him doing most of the heavy lifting - Deschamps and Petit for France in 98, Vieira and Makelele for France in 2006 and last but not the least, Deschamps and Edgar Davids for Juve in the late 90s, with him facing the latter.

Think this part of the game has been massively overblown here as I don't see either Zidane or Bergkamp making any game changing impact in the midfield battle.

I'm not talking about contributions to a midfield battle in a defensive sense so I don't understand the reference to Zidane playing with solid defensive midfielders (which I agree with). Similarly the reference to Di Stefano and Gullit makes me the inital point has been lost somewhere as I completely agree he was a different beast to those two, who were much more rounded defensively and more obvious contributors to all aspects of midfield play.

So to clarify what I'm talking about is the position of Zidane and Bergkamp and their general involvement in particular phases of the game. For me quite clearly Bergkamp was a supporting striker, he played off a front two and whilst he did drop deep (as most second strikers do) it was to a lesser extent than a conventional offensive midfielder. Bergkamp would drop deep but his starting position was advanced. In terms of his role Bergkamp would regularly be the one receiving passes from midfield, and he would then use his touch, strength and technique to control the ball and bring others into play.

Zidane was the opposite and his starting position was in midfield. He would regularly drop deep to the centre backs to pick up possession and he would be the one driving through midfield. Up front you would regularly have two strikers (Raul / Ronaldo), (Del Piero / Inzaghi), (Djorkaeff, Guivarc'h) with Zidane the link from defence to attack. That's completely different to Bergkamp and I think relflected in the image @oneniltothearsenal posted.

vs

Or just watch one of their all match compliations and I think the distinction between their play is obvious.

One is a second striker and the other is an offensive midfielder. Bergkamp would regularly be the most advanced player for Arsenal, but you would never get that with Zidane.

 

[Ecstatic]

Indeed, @Theon isn't an AM LoL

 

[Physiocrat]

Indeed, @Theon isn't an AM LoL

Nope, he's a second-striker

 

[Moby]

Nope, he's a second-striker

 

[idmanager]

Nope, he's a second-striker

Thread winner

 

[harms]

Yeah, I know this @Enigma_87, thanks — and that's why I said that it's undoubtedly superior

 

[harms]

Nope, he's a second-striker

 

[Theon]

And then your whole argument that he's a better player is based on the fact that he scored more goals. Which is not how it works.

It's not an argument man, just an opinion - I didn't realise every view point needed to be referenced so thoroughly!

I think Kubala is a better player than Matthews and one of the reason I gave (purely because its factual) is that Kubala was scoring at close to a goal a game at his best whereas Matthews was never a genuine goalthreat. Other reasons that have been mentioned are that Kubala was rated as Barcelona's greatest ever, which is an incredible accolade. I also think the lack of domestic success puts him a level below Kubala.

I think everyone acknowledges that Matthews was known for his chalk-on-the-boots style, but he was ultimately still playing in an offensive position (often the same nominally as Kubala) and his goalrecord is noticeably poor. I don't think you can just wave it away with a cursory comment that he liked to hug the touchline. The Iniesta vs Lampard stat is also a bit disingenuous given that Matthews was an offensive player and Iniesta a midfielder.

 

[Theon]

Nope, he's a second-striker

Very good

Glad someone can tell the difference between the two!

 

[Enigma_87]

Yeah, I know this @Enigma_87, thanks — and that's why I said that it's undoubtedly superior

Yeah, I know you do mate, just for the readers who aren't that well informed for those times

The problem with Kubala would be more of his role and position in all time drafts to me. His greatness IMO is not questionable even if you remove the romantic part of the times and lack of footage.

He was unlucky that during the time he was at his best and Barca was winning championships there wasn't Ballon D'or.

Matthews is more known and regarded around here I guess, but from my findings and reading during that time it was widely considered that Kubala was the better player and the 50's(despite being a lot different in their style) were divided between Kubala and Di Stefano much as Cristiano and Messi were of today.

Anyhow maybe a tad off topic but the lack of footage really doesn't give him much benefits in historical sense and how high he used to be regarded at the time.

 

[harms]

The problem with Kubala would be more of his role and position in all time drafts to me. His greatness IMO is not questionable even if you remove the romantic part of the times and lack of footage.

He was unlucky that during the time he was at his best and Barca was winning championships there wasn't Ballon D'or.

Matthews is more known and regarded around here I guess, but from my findings and reading during that time it was widely considered that Kubala was the better player and the 50's(despite being a lot different in their style) were divided between Kubala and Di Stefano much as Cristiano and Messi were of today.

It probably doesn't help that Kubala was a free-roaming forward, which is the position most stocked with GOATs — while on the right Matthews has very few competitors — Garrincha, Best, Figo and a few others. So Kubala is lower in the all-time lists for their respective positions, despite not being an inferior player.

Would've loved to see some more of him though, he's definitely one of the most intriguing players from that era.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Nope, he's a second-striker

 

[Enigma_87]

It probably doesn't help that Kubala was a free-roaming forward, which is the position most stocked with GOATs — while on the right Matthews has very few competitors — Garrincha, Best, Figo and a few others. So Kubala is lower in the all-time lists for their respective positions, despite not being an inferior player.

Would've loved to see some more of him though, he's definitely one of the most intriguing players from that era.

aye, agreed on both accounts.

Nope, he's a second-striker

Right on the money.

 

[Ecstatic]

Very good

Glad someone can tell the difference between the two!

You know the difference between a 'forward' and a 'winger' so you know it's dishonest to present Kubala as a winger and make odd comparisons.

It's not an argument man, just an opinion - I didn't realise every view point needed to be referenced so thoroughly!

I think Kubala is a better player than Matthews and one of the reason I gave (purely because its factual) is that Kubala was scoring at close to a goal a game at his best whereas Matthews was never a genuine goalthreat. Other reasons that have been mentioned are that Kubala was rated as Barcelona's greatest ever, which is an incredible accolade. I also think the lack of domestic success puts him a level below Kubala.

I think everyone acknowledges that Matthews was known for his chalk-on-the-boots style, but he was ultimately still playing in an offensive position (often the same nominally as Kubala) and his goalrecord is noticeably poor. I don't think you can just wave it away with a cursory comment that he liked to hug the touchline. The Iniesta vs Lampard stat is also a bit disingenuous given that Matthews was an offensive player and Iniesta a midfielder.

 

[Theon]

You know the difference between a 'forward' and a 'winger' so you know it's dishonest to present Kubala as a winger and make odd comparisons.

Not sure why I'm responding to this deliberate wind up but please tell me where I said Kubala was a winger.

Kubala is playing on the right though (as he regularly did) and he's therefore in the same nominal position as Matthews - please tell me how comparing the two is an odd comparison.

Absolutely nothing odd with mentioning the goalscoring statistics of these two players.

 

[Gio]

Well played @idmanager. Difficult team to argue against with it sporting a number of personal favourites in Zebec, Forster, Davids, Matthews and Spencer.

 

[Ecstatic]

Luis Monti is a very disappointing choice at this stage of the draft because (1) there are not available videos (2) a more dynamic (B2B) or playmaking (like Scholes) central midfielder.

Zidane has an influential say but his impact is partly offset by a potential conflict of interests between 3 players (Kubala-Zidane-Law) who like to organize the game each in their own way.

Like Djorkaeff, Kubala would have to be sacrificed for the good of the team.

All in all, I voted for IdManager because I think he has the edge on the wings and can rely on stronger defensive foundations.

Other questions which could have been raised: are Gento and Matthews disciplined players in terms of defensive contribution? I sense there is but no certainty.

 

[Gio]

Just a bit on Monti as there were a couple of posts questioning his use here. I quite like how Idmanager has paired them there. He's obviously got serious World Cup winning pedigree and can positionally anchor the midfield while Davids gets balls deep in hounding the opposition. Any four-man midfield always has somebody who stays behind the ball and it also gives Idm some resistance in case of someone like Zidane playing inbetween the lines.

 

[Gio]

Luis Monti is a very disappointing choice at this stage of the draft because (1) there are not available videos (2) a more dynamic (B2B) or playmaking (like Scholes) central midfielder.

Zidane has an influential say but his impact is partly offset by a potential conflict of interests between 3 players (Kubala-Zidane-Law) who like to organize the game each in their own way.

Like Djorkaeff, Kubala would have to be sacrificed for the good of the team.

All in all, I voted for IdManager because I think he has the edge on the wings and can rely on stronger defensive foundations.

Other questions which could have been raised: are Gento and Matthews disciplined players in terms of defensive contribution? I sense there is but no certainty.

While I don't necessarily agree with the 'stronger defensive foundations' point, appreciate the reasoning for your vote.