Scirea played with one CB alongside him though. Didn't he? You can't count Gentile there because he was mostly used as a man-marker and didn't really play a major part in keeping the defensiven shape of the team. My point about Desailly covering for Scirea was to ensure, my defensive shape of a four man backline remains intact when Scirea makes his trademark attacking runs and also to ensure the defence doesn't get outnumbered on counters.
The Reality Draft - SF: antohan vs The Red Viper
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Scirea played with one CB alongside him though. Didn't he? You can't count Gentile there because he was mostly used as a man-marker and didn't really play a major part in keeping the defensiven shape of the team. My point about Desailly covering for Scirea was to ensure, my defensive shape of a four man backline remains intact when Scirea makes his trademark attacking runs and also to ensure the defence doesn't get outnumbered on counters.
Boniek vs Sergi was the issue for me. I could have picked Lizarazu. But, I took a risk picking Desailly - Scirea because it would have helped me more in the final if I would have defeated Anto here.
Yup you could have kept Dunga on instead of getting Desailly and gotten Lizarazu. The Scholes loss was a real bummer as well.
You are mistaking the Zona Mista for the Catenaccio. In the Catenaccio the defense consisted of four man markers, which Rinus Michels is often credited for destroying. Scirea/Gentile/Cabrini/Collovati played in a Zona Mista, where Gentile and Collovati had the roles of centre backs with Scirea in his free/libero role and Cabrini as a wing back.
So it wasn't often that Trapattoni unleashed Gentile as a pure man marker, and it was only on rare occasions that Bearzot had Gentile out on a man marking as well. Especially without then also playing Bergomi and making it a five man defense to compensate for it, like we saw against the Germans in the final for example.
Prior to losing Scholes it was probably my favorite team as well. At first I didn't really love it, but then the more you thought about how well Schweinie and Scholes could do in every style of football together it was a favorite for sure.
Yep.
My initial plan was to go for Desailly + Lizarazu but with Scholes gone, I had to change my plan and everything.
No. Trap used Gentile as a man-marker a lot for Juve. I remember him using it against Hamburg in the European Cup Final. Ernst Happel exploited that by moving Bastrup, who generally started on the left flank to the right flank, as a result Gentile also moved with him. This left plenty of space on Juve's right flank which Magath exploited and ultimately Hamburg won the game.
I do get you point though and that is why I had Desailly. I wasn't playing a Zona Mista but the idea behind Zona Mista was that you still had two defensive players in Gentile - Collovati/Brio there to cover whenever Scirea marched forward with the ball. That is how I was trying to use Desailly to negate the counters.
Just curious.
Do you all think a midfield of Bastian - Scholes with a five man defence of Sergi - Vidic - Scirea - Stam - Sagnol would have worked?
Do you all think a midfield of Bastian - Scholes with a five man defence of Sergi - Vidic - Scirea - Stam - Sagnol would have worked?
If you used Scirea as a sweeper/libero not a center back - otherwise Vidic and Stam would have to be more comfortable defending out wide. Looks brilliant apart from that.
A Scholes-Schweiny midfield on the Caf is immortal
I wasn't fuzzed about the Desailly - covering - part at all, it would have worked. Was just the fact that Stam as a lone Stopper was a bit odd in my eyes at least, with Scirea as in his libero/sweeper role.
It's two entirely different things to have a high defensive line by default and to occasionally end up with one out of pushing up when needed. In my first game, playing 3-2-3-2 my defenders were instructed to keep an exceptionally high line, that was an integral part of the tactics, the moment I got the ball they would push up far up the pitch.
That's not what was happening here, I was playing a conservative game which prioritised staying compact at the back and the quick transitions did not require everyone to charge forward, just three players to move to an attacking phase alongside Baggio and Raúl. I didn't need nor want to play a high defensive line but would end up with one if the quick transition ended up being a sustained period of possession, the midfield started getting drawn further forward and the defensive line would then have to move up to limit any emerging gaps.
Completely different. One is default, by design and ever-present, the other is an occasional development.
If you've only watched a handful of Gentile games, basically the better known ones, yes. For the most part he was just a defensive fullback without a dogged man-marking remit.
Same, I really didn't like it at all at first, particularly in his opening game with Prosinecki, Scholes and Sergi on that left side. But TRV did a fantastic job of arguing his points, hope to see him in future drafts.
Actually overall I thought this draft has been very good, well done to EAP for setting it all up, some of the new rules have been great.
Pedro already mentioned a few points. It was probably more of a general feeling because I like your team so much more in that 334 set-up. I get why you chose this one against TRV's attack, but I believe a lot of your players would excel a lot more in the other one, especially your midfield (Neeskens in particular) and your defense (Abidal and Ferrara as wide centerbacks in a back 3) is better suited to the other line-up and the more pro-active tactics. I believe you would have simply outscored TRV in most games, despite the risk of conceding 1 or 2 on the counter. Chilavert is another factor, I'd consider him one of the best sweeper keepers of all time, while I kinda believe that he isn't that special anymore if you take that away from him. Like I said minor issues, not much to worry about and your team still works the way you set it up, just nowhere near as beautiful as in the previous game.
Aye it's not easy. It's more about when their credentials are questioned. Of the 52 posts on Henry in the thread, a fair chunk of them were about how he was a flat-track bully and therefore wouldn't influence a match of this calibre. Equally Scirea - despite being the most refined defender on the park - was painted as culpable in a back four getting pulled all over the shop.
I thought the moment you kept Sergi you had to play those five at the back.
Bastian definitely works for me, but I would have preferred someone in a similar mold next to him as you would have Scirea at the back and Rui Costa behind the strikers. It's actually not too dissimilar to a diamond formation and I'm not overly-keen on Scholes in diamonds (same with Keane really). Votes-wise it works brilliantly, mind.
I actually thought that with no Scholes and needing to avoid bonus punishments, your best formation here was very similar:
Sagnol-------Stam------Scirea-----Vidic------Sergi
-----------Schweinsteiger------Desailly/Dunga
---------------------------Rui Costa
-----------------------Etoó--------Henry
It's not great, but would have been an ideal way to start and then switch if needed. Ultimately I think your squad overaall let you down in that you didn't have too many options that looked attraactive and sound, so I understand why you started the way you did.
Why not play Schweinsteiger and Scholes with Robben, Eto'o and Henry? It's a counterattacking side anyway and Scirea, Scholes and Schweinsteiger will get the ball to Henry or Robben, almost impossible to prevent that.
Had Scholes been available, I would've gone 4-3-3 keeping the same attack but with a more genuine three in midfield.
Hmmm, yeah, I do love the other setup and think it would have outscored the team he started IRL. On the caf? I would never hear the end of the hyperbole around how his pace upfront is "destroying" my "poor" defence. I preferred to keep it as my Plan B, particularly when he could realistically start a counterattacking team with a very solid back five and midfield pair which would actually work very well against the 3-2-3-2. I prefer getting into fruious back and forth out of necessity, not by design, they are too unpredictable.
Chilavert was a sweper-keeper yes, but his Paraguay side (not club sides) was primarily a sit deep and counter side and he was immense there. He was a very complete keeper and one reason I wasn't fussed to have my defence push up to close pockets if needed, precisely because Chilavert wasn't going to be left stranded under the sticks.
I have absolutely no idea how to reinforce for the next round
You could, of course, I was mainly thinking along the lines of how to field a side that met all the injuries/bonus rules. I think he would lack some presence through the middle there but, as you said, it was a counterattacking team anyway. But if he is sitting back and soaking to counter you would have to worry about Scholes-Henry being on Sergi's side. The problem not being Scholes or Henry, but Sergi obviously.
I hate it when that happens, how one player affects everything else you do elsewhere, that's why I rarely pick players/specialists who are prone to leave you in that tricky situation. IRL you would just make do and acknowledge you will carry a problem over the game and would keep tabs on it... You wouldn't change how you play as a result of a misfit. You would ask Sergi to be far more conservative and he would end up having a 4/10 game but not cost you it single-handedly.
He could just replace Sergi for the final? Or without losing Scholes ahead of the semifinal, just pick a leftback instead of Desailly?
Cheers for the replies, lads.
And, agree with @Jayvin . Thanks @Edgar Allan Pillow for conducting the draft. It was great fun.
And, agree with @Jayvin . Thanks @Edgar Allan Pillow for conducting the draft. It was great fun.
If Scholes was available, I would have picked Desailly and Lizarazu and gone for a 4-3-3 formation. But since Scholes was ineligible, I had to think of getting another midfielder. Dunga - Bastian - Rui Costa is good but Dunga doesn't seem to be rated that highly here which is why I wasn't sure on him. Falcao was available but a midfield of Bastian - Falcao against Baggio would have been suicidal.
Yeah, when I read that...I thought, Is Henry considered on the same level as Berbatov here? Come against weak teams to score hat tricks and go missing in big matches!
That formation and also the formation with Robben in a free role like he played for Netherlands this World Cup intrigued me. But, the reason I ultimately went with the normal 4-3-3 formation was because, I though defence was your weakest area and I had to exploit it more to win it. You had a better attacking unit than me. So, no matter how much I try to sell, the truth is, you can't completely stop that attacking unit.
And, I agree with the squad assesment. With Vidic already being there, the last player I wanted in the Defender's DoF was Stam and I got him. My attacking DoF, Simonsen was gone in Tevezbola. I got slightly lucky against Jayvin because Romario against Vidic - Stam was always going be an issue for me.
Thing is, against a midfield of Neeskens - Effenberg with Baggio as a number ten, a midfield of Dunga - Bastian - Rui Costa wouldn't have had the same pull. Also, the Scirea case of him not working in a normal back four. That is why I decided to pick Desailly and kill two birds in one stone. Desailly is obviously a much bigger name than Dunga and also having someone like Desailly mean, I have a player who can become an additional CB in phases during the game.
The latter. I was surprised he didn't upgrade Sergi as he could have started Dunga in midfield, but I understand his gamble on securing someone he absolutely wanted for the final. I've done that before, sometimes it works, sometimes not.
The leftbacks certainly were going to still be available next time. Not that he would have picked a leftback then, with so many greats, getting a leftback would have felt underwhelming and probably wasn't a high priority against VivaJ/MJJ-Theon. They both play wingerless with attacking fullbacks and Sergi wouldn't have been so exposed.
Yes. That was the thought process of not going for a left back.
Cracker of a game though!
Clearly not, that's why Berbatov never ever got picked in a draft and Henry always is. With Henry it's largely a "you only sing when you are winning" issue. It's about temperament. It doesn't make him a bad player, just not a patch on someone who can impose himself and take the game by the scruff of the neck, like Nedved would.
If others in the team can provide it, fine, but it was a quality largely absent in TRVs team. Schweini has it, which is one of the reasons he is the sort of player I love bringing into my teams, but he was under too much pressure and had far too many thing to do to ALSO do that.
It was indeed, TRV is a tough customer.
For a moment there I thought it would go to another Antohan-Tito (aka "look at Borat") situation whereby votes needed recounting based on various rules (bonus points, VivaJ's vote being invalid, etc.).
I actually kept it under wraps as I could see it would bring back all sorts of memories and could influence the voting negatively, even if I had a strong case on both. I also sort of liked the idea of ending another semi that way, as a lucky charm
Remember @Thisistheone? That's how the All-time semi finished.
For those not familiar with it, we spent all game thinking Tito was winning it, he won by one, celebrated... then I pointed out his couple of invalid votes from AMs and other semifinalists
Last edited:
Maybe in real life, but I somehow find it difficult to factor this in a draft tournament. Given both teams start neutral, you have to presume that Henry is on full flow. It's not like Henry never scored a stoppage time winning goal at all! And I really think with Eto'o there TRV will definitely score a goal against you. I would have put it a 2-1 or maybe a 3-2 to you in the end, but discounting Henry becuase "you only sing when you are winning" is a difficult arguement in a draft game.
The point was they had planned for a game where I would play a high line and present them with oceans of space, then found I was playing deeper than expected, that it was all quite congested and the midfield pair struggled to support them effectively. Sure it matters, it's not a "neutral start" it's a frustrating start and when you have a frustrating start temperament does matter.
I know, maybe I oveernegineer it, but I like to imagine the game and how it was planned, laid out, how it then develops, and as a result of it what qualities will be important. Not just 11 peak players but 11 peak players in certain settings. I had a clear gameplan to frustrate him early on, pick him out with quick transitions and if that wasn't enough then I could always add Vieri and/or Lucho in ways that were more aggressive. TRVs plan was to counter a side that wasn't playing ball with that gameplan, and had no credible Plan B.
It makes a massive difference in my eyes. In fact, I'd argue it makes ALL the difference once the teams end up star-studded and with no obvious individual weaknesses.