The Reality Draft: Main Thread (Finals)

BorisDeLeFora said:
Team-Boris-formation-tactics.png


Mine anyway, plan would be to play a relatively deep defense with the midfield three shutting the spaces in front of them to stop Henry/Nedved linking up. Mostly counter attacking in a forward sense, using the powerful running of Robson and Tigana, and Cerezo and Popescu being able to pick out quality passes from deep to my attackers.
Click to expand...
Love that team, I think the midfield is beautiful, Koke is an eyesore here because the rest is superb and he is the only weak end.
The defense can so with a couple of upgrades too but I love how the team is built
 
Chester's team would have been something like:

Chesterm-formation-tactics.png


Interchanging up front: J-Rod having a bit of free role with instructions to drift more to right and compensate to Henry drifting left. Henry will be instructed to remain in middle and score goals. The movement of J-Rod will help create openings for henry to capitalize.

Midfield: Neeskens is the key or the hub here. His completeness (his defensive and offensive prowess) is important. Nedved plays a creative role – but is a notoriously hard worker on top of that. Beckham plays his natural game, as a wide midfielder more than a “winger” (which he never was in a traditional sense), but his default position will indeed be narrower than the one he held for United in his pomp. Like Nedved, he brings both creativity (in the form of long passes, not least) and hard work to the table.

Defense: Two rock solid central defenders, two extremely intelligent fullbacks. Buchwald is a man-marker of rare quality, Augenthaler a natural defense leader – with a decent foot on him to boot. Neville will use his reading of the game to venture forward and combine with Beckham when it's called for, while never doing so headlessly, knowing when to sit back. Júnior will play his natural game, simply put – as an offensive, tactically superb fullback who might even venture into more central areas to combine and contribute as well.
 
BorisDeLeFora said:
Team-Boris-formation-tactics.png


Mine anyway, plan would be to play a relatively deep defense with the midfield three shutting the spaces in front of them to stop Henry/Nedved linking up. Mostly counter attacking in a forward sense, using the powerful running of Robson and Tigana, and Cerezo and Popescu being able to pick out quality passes from deep to my attackers.
Click to expand...

You'd have Robbo on the right to deal with Nedved particularly - or? I'm asking since I'd probably switch him and Tigana round as per default. Anyway, Tigana should be able to deal with the covering/shutting down space job equally well - in fact, if anyone is more of a defensive midfielder of the two, it's Tigana rather than Robbo.

It's a very strong midfield trio, though - three players I really like on a personal level too! Good thing I don't have to argue against 'em. The obvious move going forward would be to replace Koke with a heavyweight, someone inventive - someone who is an undeniable playmaker, perhaps, to counter the possible criticism that you're possibly lacking a bit in the pure creativity department.
 
You're wrong, Ed. I would've gone mental for this one, after realizing I had to field Mascherano - I would have gone for the WM, dropping either Neville or Beckham.
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
Love that team, I think the midfield is beautiful, Koke is an eyesore here because the rest is superb and he is the only weak end.
The defense can so with a couple of upgrades too but I love how the team is built
Click to expand...

I hate it. That midfield is pure cheats, one of my favorite ever so early in a draft in comparison to the other teams. Tigana, always underrated but easily one of the very best central midfielders in history in my mind. Next to Robson, who is equally good with Cerezo behind them who is one of the best in his role.

So much stamina, intelligence and work rate in that midfield and they'll impose themselves on the offense and defense.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
You'd have Robbo on the right to deal with Nedved particularly - or? I'm asking since I'd probably switch him and Tigana round as per default. Anyway, Tigana should be able to deal with the covering/shutting down space job equally well - in fact, if anyone is more of a defensive midfielder of the two, it's Tigana rather than Robbo.

It's a very strong midfield trio, though - three players I really like on a personal level too! Good thing I don't have to argue against 'em. The obvious move going forward would be to replace Koke with a heavyweight, someone inventive - someone who is an undeniable playmaker, perhaps, to counter the possible criticism that you're possibly lacking a bit in the pure creativity department.
Click to expand...

And there is just the player in the loser pool
 
What's a bit interesting to me is to what extent I would've been able to argue that this WM might transform into other shapes, depending on whether the team is attacking or defending. The trio up front are interchanging - and every man is capable of playing both wide and centrally. So one might visualize it as a sort of 3-4-1-2 at times:

1117089_Dream_Team.jpg


Or a 3-2-3-2 if you will - though obviously not in the classical sense.

Point being that here the WM has dissolved, so to speak - yet it does remain the basis of the thing: It's just that both Beckham and Nedved will naturally seek wide positions in the course of the match - and the three up front interchange naturally too; as Rodriguez moves centrally (with Henry drifting more to the left), he also drops deeper, into the hole.
 
VivaJanuzaj said:
I'm obsessing about the RiOFL, seriously.
I have 6 players(out of 12) I won't miss a heartbeat if they'll go AWOL for that match, otherwise a pick will have to be to remedy a loss.. 50-50 :nervous:
Click to expand...

Really? You probably should want Trezeguet, Verón, Adams or Alaba gone. If Vierchowod goes you get your CB there and then drop Adams, no biggie. You can afford one of Kalle/Enzo/Savicevic going... Can probably afford to lose either CM and get the Verón replacement then...

All you want to avoid is RB or GK because it wastes a pick. Jammy fecker.

MJJ said:
I want to keep sammer and souness. The rest I can manage without. And Rivaldo I suppose.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Sammer and Souness both because they don't need upgrading and they are key to the side. A problem worrier above doesn't have.
 
I'd prefer to keep Romario purely for the effect his name has on scan voters, other than that though I don't really care. Plenty of decent reinforcements to choose from
 
Chesterlestreet said:
What's a bit interesting to me is to what extent I would've been able to argue that this WM might transform into other shapes, depending on whether the team is attacking or defending. The trio up front are interchanging - and every man is capable of playing both wide and centrally. So one might visualize it as a sort of 3-4-1-2 at times:

1117089_Dream_Team.jpg


Or a 3-2-3-2 if you will - though obviously not in the classical sense.

Point being that here the WM has dissolved, so to speak - yet it does remain the basis of the thing: It's just that both Beckham and Nedved will naturally seek wide positions in the course of the match - and the three up front interchange naturally too; as Rodriguez moves centrally (with Henry drifting more to the left), he also drops deeper, into the hole.
Click to expand...

I would have argued that shows that WM isn't the right formation or the one best suiting your players if they will naturally play differently ;) I liked Rocheteau out wide though :( Poor Dominique, will he ever get a run-around?
 
antohan said:
I know, I have the same problem, when everything fits together it bores me so I end up inventing some really weird and complex way to go about something that should be very simple.
Click to expand...

Hehe, yes - but the thing is, surely, that if you're not having fun with your team, then...what's the point? Until we start introducing cash awards for winning games, I'd say that the fun part should outweigh the part where you're actively hunting for votes.
 
antohan said:
I would have argued that shows that WM isn't the right formation or the one best suiting your players if they will naturally play differently ;) I liked Rocheteau out wide though :( Poor Dominique, will he ever get a run-around?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a fair point - but then again, no formation is completely static. If you sport Nedved in an AM role of some description in a more conventional/modern formation, he will drift out wide at times too, behaving more like a winger than a central man.

Rocheteau was brilliant in my opinion. Fast as hell - elegant and unpredictable. He's not the easiest man to sell, though, probably.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Hehe, yes - but the thing is, surely, that if you're not having fun with your team, then...what's the point? Until we start introducing cash awards for winning games, I'd say that the fun part should outweigh the part where you're actively hunting for votes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I'm not bothered who I lose bar the keeper, everyone else -subject to what is available- is an invitation to try something. I could have fielded the most credible WM I've seen so far, or a 4-4-1-1 against Aldo, but not what I wanted originally which was a 5-3-2/5-2-3 just to show it can work with the right players. Would have loved to get Kaltz next :(
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Hehe, yes - but the thing is, surely, that if you're not having fun with your team, then...what's the point? Until we start introducing cash awards for winning games, I'd say that the fun part should outweigh the part where you're actively hunting for votes.
Click to expand...

Yup. Nothing more boring than playing a 4-2-3-1 with every player in "the normal role" with no specific changes or adjustments.

I usually don't assume anything which the manager does not say, so the more in depth he goes about his tactics the more likely he is to get my vote. Better to say something bad, than not say anything else and just hope every voter assumes what they think is right.
 
I was going to be using a wm formation, but doubt it'll get used now.
 
Regarding the WM in this context: It surely would be a matter of determining whether the thing looks credible at all (to borrow anto's term. I mean, assembling ten outfield players who would, actually, suit the WM better than any other formation...is highly unlikely given the time frame.

If you can field players who don't appear positively out of position - and who complement each other to a reasonable extent - then I'd say you've done pretty much all you can. And I do think my WM is half plausible in that regard. It obviously is not the BEST formation these boys can feature in, but that would be beside the point for me.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Yes, that's a fair point - but then again, no formation is completely static. If you sport Nedved in an AM role of some description in a more conventional/modern formation, he will drift out wide at times too, behaving more like a winger than a central man.

Rocheteau was brilliant in my opinion. Fast as hell - elegant and unpredictable. He's not the easiest man to sell, though, probably.
Click to expand...

Nedved was one of those that looked fine in your WM. Along with Rocheteau, Buchwald and Augenthaler. Junior as well. The rest looked a bit wrong: Neeskens would have been stuck as the DM destroyer, Beckham didn't look great, James should have been where Beckham was, Henry were James was... and Mascherano at CB...

HENRY-----CENTREFORWARD------ROCHETEAU
-------NEDVED---------------JAMES
-------NEESKENS-----------MASCHERANO
--BUCHWALD--AUGENTHALER---RCB

That would work. You could play Junior as DLP and Neeskens instead of James as well. You just can't bench Neeskens, but at least avoid giving him the positionally static role of midfield "holder/destroyer".
 
Last edited:
Annahnomoss said:
Yup. Nothing more boring than playing a 4-2-3-1 with every player in "the normal role" with no specific changes or adjustments.

I usually don't assume anything which the manager does not say, so the more in depth he goes about his tactics the more likely he is to get my vote. Better to say something bad, than not say anything else and just hope every voter assumes what they think is right.
Click to expand...

Very true. That aspect of the match threads is very important, I think. It's a tricky balance some times: X may have the strongest team on paper while Z clearly argues his points better. Who do you vote for? Ideally there should be a format which gives "points" for both - but how you'd implement this in practice, I don't know. It might be possible, though.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Regarding the WM in this context: It surely would be a matter of determining whether the thing looks credible at all (to borrow anto's term. I mean, assembling ten outfield players who would, actually, suit the WM better than any other formation...is highly unlikely given the time frame.

If you can field players who don't appear positively out of position - and who complement each other to a reasonable extent - then I'd say you've done pretty much all you can. And I do think my WM is half plausible in that regard. It obviously is not the BEST formation these boys can feature in, but that would be beside the point for me.
Click to expand...

I'll correct my previous point, it wasn't a WM but an MM I could/would have played against Aldo. The difference between both being what the Magyars innovated with: the false 9 role and the wingers also having defensive duties (sort of inverse wingbacks). You can play Boniek-Ljungberg out wide in a WM, but the fact is the wingforwards there were meant to be forwards purely, which is why I would have gone MM.

Team-Anto-formation-tactics.png


That's arguably an MM that fully utilises these players to the best of their abilities, isn't it?
 
antohan said:
Nedved was one of those that looked fine in your WM. Along with Rocheteau, Buchwald and Augenthaler. Junior as well. The rest looked a bit wrong: Neeskens would have been stuck as the DM destroyer, Beckham didn't look great, James should have been were Beckham was, Henry were James was... and Mascherano at CB...

HENRY-----CENTREFORWARD------ROCHETEAU
-------NEDVED---------------JAMES
-------NEESKENS-----------MASCHERANO
--BUCHWALD--AUGENTHALER---RCB

That would work. You could play Junior as DLP and Neeskens instead of James as well. You just can't bench Neeskens, but at least avoid giving him the positionally static role of midfield "holder/destroyer".
Click to expand...

You're interpreting the roles here very differently from what I'm doing. Why would Neeskens necessarily be a "destroyer" in that set-up? The way I interpret it, you field a couple of midfielders who are more defensive behind a couple of midfielders who are more offensive - and that's that. The question is whether the four of them, together, complement each other and are capable of dealing with the totality of midfield "duties", both offensive and defensive. A destroyer isn't a necessary component in any midfield set-up.

I agree with your ideal forward trio - but it's ideal, not realistic given the cards I'm stuck with. I see no reason why James shouldn't be able to work reasonably well as a winger of sorts on the left.
 
antohan said:
I'll correct my previous point, it wasn't a WM but an MM I could/would have played against Aldo. The difference between both being what the Magyars innovated with: the false 9 role and the wingers also having defensive duties (sort of inverse wingbacks). You can play Boniek-Ljungberg out wide in a WM, but the fact is the wingforwards there were meant to be forwards purely, which is why I would have gone MM.

Team-Anto-formation-tactics.png


That's arguably an MM that fully utilises these players to the best of their abilities, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That looks both right and quite tasty to me.
 
Results:

BorisDeLeFora vs Chesterlestreet - BorisDeleFora wins by default (Invalid team submission by Chester)
antohan vs Aldo - antohan wins by default (Withdrawal by Aldo)
The Red Viper vs Annahnomoss - The Red Viper wins by most votes
MJJ / Theon vs Skizzo - MJJ/Theon wins by most votes
VivaJanuzaj vs crappycraperson - VivaJanuzaj wins by most votes.
harms vs Joga Bonito - harms wins by penalty shootouts
ctp vs Jayvin - Jayvin wins by most votes.

Raees vs Stobzilla - Awaiting tactics from Stobz.

If I don't receive anyting from Stobz within the next 90 mins, I'll call this off and award the win to Raees by default.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
You're interpreting the roles here very differently from what I'm doing. Why would Neeskens necessarily be a "destroyer" in that set-up? The way I interpret it, you field a couple of midfielders who are more defensive behind a couple of midfielders who are more offensive - and that's that. The question is whether the four of them, together, complement each other and are capable of dealing with the totality of midfield "duties", both offensive and defensive. A destroyer isn't a necessary component in any midfield set-up.
Click to expand...

You are looking at it as a midfield square and from a modern perspective. Your typical WM really had five forwards, two midfielders/halfbacks and three defenders. They were inside forwards, not attacking midfielders particularly concerned with defensive matters. The halfbacks were monstruous DMs, very complete when teams were successful obviously, but whenever one was more of a playmaker the other one decidedly was 100% defensive. Junior works there as a playmaker but you really really would need someone defensively minded next to him to free him up from that concern and allow him some freedom to perform that playmaking role. Great player that Neeskens was, he is underutilised as someone whose freedom is constrained by the actions of others, which is why I'd rather him next to a Mascherano or further upfield.

I agree with your ideal forward trio - but it's ideal, not realistic given the cards I'm stuck with. I see no reason why James shouldn't be able to work reasonably well as a winger of sorts on the left.
Click to expand...

He would, but a WM needs a classic centreforward. In fact, one reason the Magyars innovated was they didn't have one! I know you don't have one, the point is if you planned a WM you should have been stuck with different cards (e.g. see how I went out of my way to ensure I got Vieri and proper defenders for an MM, a formation where the chaps I was "stuck with could" perform).
 
Chesterlestreet said:
That looks both right and quite tasty to me.
Click to expand...

And that midfield has a good balance and shared burden of playmaking ability and defensive ability, so it doesn't require a destroyer/Gattuso, it's the scenario I was referring to above whereas both midfielders are complete, balanced, neither imposes an agenda on the other and both are being utilised to the best of their abilities.
 
antohan said:
You are looking at it as a midfield square and from a modern perspective. Your typical WM really had five forwards, two midfielders/halfbacks and three defenders. They were inside forwards, not attacking midfielders particularly concerned with defensive matters. The halfbacks were monstruous DMs, very complete when teams were successful obviously, but whenever one was more of a playmaker the other one decidedly was 100% defensive. Junior works there as a playmaker but you really really would need someone defensively minded next to him to free him up from that concern and allow him some freedom to perform that playmaking role. Great player that Neeskens was, he is underutilised as someone whose freedom is constrained by the actions of others, which is why I'd rather him next to a Mascherano or further upfield.



He would, but a WM needs a classic centreforward. In fact, one reason the Magyars innovated was they didn't have one! I know you don't have one, the point is if you planned a WM you should have been stuck with different cards (e.g. see how I went out of my way to ensure I got Vieri and proper defenders for an MM, a formation where the chaps I was "stuck with could" perform).
Click to expand...

Sure - I don't disagree with your interpretation of the classic WM. But realistically there is no way in the context of this particular draft you'd get away with assembling a team which actually featured what is - more than anything else - five pure attackers. It would be folly, in a word, to plan on a team like that - fun, for sure, but folly.

I certainly did not plan on it - nor could I, as I inherited the team from Ed. I wouldn't have picked Beckham, for instance, if I had planned on any sort of WM, whether classic or something more along the lines of a modern variation on the theme.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Sure - I don't disagree with your interpretation of the classic WM. But realistically there is no way in the context of this particular draft you'd get away with assembling a team which actually featured what is - more than anything else - five pure attackers. It would be folly, in a word, to plan on a team like that - fun, for sure, but folly.
Click to expand...

Which is why I was aiming for MM! I'm a purist mate, tell me it's WM and I expect inside forwards, not Beckham :lol: I think Neeskens would be awesome next to Nedved though, they could very much act as inside forwards but you know you can count with them being effective in their support of the midfield.

Remember my Magyars? I had Bozsik and Neeskens in midfield but a rather convoluted dynamic whereby in possession Junior joined Bozsik and freed up Neeskens to go stir shit up. Johann must be free!

Wait, why the feck am I banging on about Neeskens? Next thing you know Viva will get him :lol:

I certainly did not plan on it - nor could I, as I inherited the team from Ed. I wouldn't have picked Beckham, for instance, if I had planned on any sort of WM, whether classic or something more along the lines of a modern variation on the theme.
Click to expand...

True, you really were stuck with more cards than the rest of us!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.