The Third Redcafe Sheep Draft: R1 - Stobzilla vs Skizzo/Pat

What do you think the score will be?

  • Stobzilla 1-0 Skizzo/Pat

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Stobzilla 2-1 Skizzo/Pat

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Stobzilla 3-2 Skizzo/Pat

    Votes: 2 9.5%

  • Stobzilla 3-0 Skizzo/Pat

    Votes: 3 14.3%

  • Skizzo/Pat 1-0 Stobzilla

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Skizzo/Pat 2-1 Stobzilla

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • Skizzo/Pat 3-2 Stobzilla

    Votes: 5 23.8%

  • Skizzo/Pat 3-0 Stobzilla

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Some reviews from Copa America's from a few years back

1941: Hosts: Chile. Participants (5): Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, Uruguay. Argentina and Uruguay were the two best teams by a large margin, both brought strong squads: Argentina (Moreno, Marvezzi, Sastre) and Uruguay (Varela, Porta, Gambetta). Brazil is noticeably absent. Champion Argentina. Official top player Sergio Livingstone (Chile's goalkeeper) is a seemingly strange choice as his team came in a respectable third allowing 3 goals in four games. Other possible top performers: José Manuel Moreno (The legendary forward scored 3 times, twice in a critical 2-1 win over a strong Peru team who were defending champions) and Antonio Sastre (Another Argentine legend makes an appearance scoring the decisive 1-0 winner vs their major rivals Uruguay) both seem to have good claims. Argentina's top scorer and tournament top scorer was Juan Marvezzi, but I do not consider him strongly as all 5 of his goals were vs lowly Ecuador.

1942: Hosts: Uruguay. Participants (7): Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay. For the second time we have a fully attended tournament with the all top teams bringing their top players: Argentina (Masanronio, Moreno, Pedernera), Brazil (Pirillo, Zizinho, Tim), Uruguay (O. Varela, S. Varela, Porta, Gambetta). Champion Uruguay. Official top player Obdulio Varela: The great center half who would later captain Uruguay to world cup glory led Uruguay to a very impressive victory in 1942, going 6-0 with a 21 goals scored and only 2 conceded in a stacked field, beating Brazil and Argentina 1-0. Other possible top performers: Severino Varela was Uruguay's joint top scorer with Roberto Porta, both scoring 5 times. Varela also scored the winner vs Brazil. José Manuel Moreno and Herminio Masantonio were the tournaments joint top scorers, both scoring 7 times, Moreno netting a critical brace in a 3-1 win vs Peru and Masantonio scoring the winner vs Brazil.

1946: Hosts: Chile. Participants (6): Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay. Another strong tournament where the top 3 all brought full strength sides: Argentina (Labruna, N. Mendez, Pedernera, Loustau, Martino, De le Mata) Brazil (Heleno, Jair, Zizinho), Uruguay (Medina, Schiaffino) as well as Chile and Paraguay bringing a competitive teams, only Bolivia was cannon fodder. Champion Argentina. Official top player Adolfo Pedernera: The great deep lying center forward and playmaker scored two goals both in important close wins vs Uruguay and Chile. Was the playmaker of the offense that scored a tournament best 17 goals in 5 games. Other possible top performers: Norberto Méndez again played a huge role scoring 5 times including a brace in the 2-0 win over Brazil in the final tournament deciding game.

1947: Hosts: Ecuador. Participants (8): Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay. Argentina were the clear favorites here with a very strong team (Di Stefano, N. Mendez, Boye, Lousta, Pontoni, Moreno) in the absence of Brazil. Uruguay lacked some of its top stars but were solid along with Paraguay, Chile, and Peru. Ecuador, Bolivia, and Colombia were poor.Champion Argentina: they did not disappoint going 6-1-0 and scoring 28 goals. Official top player José Manuel Moreno: he returned from his sabbatical in Mexico to River Plate and Argentina, he now was more playmaker than striker, scoring 3 times. Other possible top performers: Norberto Méndez and Alfredo di Stéfano both scored 6 goals and Félix Loustau scored an impressive 4 from the wing.
 
Discussions among another forum, regarding La Maquina. Just to give an example of how they were viewed.

For the record, between 1941 and 1949, River won 4 titles, Boca 2, Independiente Racing and San Lorenzo 1 each.

One of the reasons why La Maquina was deemed to be so great was that the league was indeed very competitive at the time, and yet they managed to stand out. Remember, River was so good that there was no room for a young Alfredo Di Stefano on the team, and they had to loan him to Huracan. Boca had an awesome team (Sarlanga, Boye, Lazatti, Borello), and so did Independiente (Arsenio Erico, De la Mata), and San Lorenzo (Martino, Pontoni, Farro).

For reference, in the 1950's a number of Argentine players left the country, including the likes of Di Stefano, Sivori, Maschio and Angelillo, who did extremely well in Europe and are considered all-time greats.

But, Argentine football old timers would argue that the players from the 40's were even better than those from the 50's who found success in Europe. Old timers would rank the likes of Moreno and Pedernera ahead of Di Stefano and Sivori, although since Europe was at war and there were practically no international tournaments or matches at the time it is a premise that's impossible to prove.

San Lorenzo does boast a successful tour of Europe in 1947, including a 6-1 victory over Spain's national team, and a 10-4 win over Portugal, although I don't know how good or how legitimate those particular Spanish and Portuguese national teams were.

But looking at the accounts from the era, I think that, as in the case of Ajax and Netherlands of the 70's, the admiration for River's La Maquina of the 40's was first and foremost due to the way they played, how they could dominate matches with beautiful and innovative football. It was not just based on the tournaments that they won.
Click to expand...

My grandfather was one of those old-timers. He would always scoff at DiStefano being regarded as one the best ever. He actually didn't think DiStefano was one of rivers five best players ever:eek: My abuelito was far from being a gallina, his side his entire life was Atlanta.
Click to expand...

Atlanta? Somehow that doesn't surprise me at all. :D

But yeah, my uncles (who were much older than my dad) used to rave about La Maquina as well, especially Moreno, Pedernera and Labruna. Those were players!, they would say. And they were no gayinas either.

Edit: I should clarify that the comment about Atlanta is because that is the team traditionally supported by the Jewish community in Argentina.
Click to expand...
 
One revolutionary tactical aspect that the La Maquina of River introduced was a stratification of the forward line. The two outside forwards were mostly wide (Loustau usually cut in and switched with Pedernera), but the three fellas in the center had a very organized tactical scheme, sort of like this:

---Laustou-----Labruna---------------
----------------------------Moreno
-----------------Pedernera-----Munoz

Labruna, Moreno and Pedernera basically made a ladder-like structure. Labruna the furthest, Moreno just behind him, and Pedernera the deepest one as the playmaker.

Plus, Loustau was the more offensive winger. He also frequently moved to the center (as he was pretty complete in his game...good passer of the ball, and a tremendous dribbler). When he moved into the middle, Pedernera would move to the left wing, while Moreno dropping into the deep-lying-playmaker zone. Labruna would then take the SS role near the left side of the field, with Loustau and Pedernera being the furthest man. Labruna usually used his brilliant acceleration to quickly rush into the box to finish off chances.
Munoz mostly played as a side midfielder than a winger. He was even a wing-back at times. When Munoz was further back, Moreno, Pedernera, Labruna and Loustau basically formed a 4-man offensive mid. In such scenario, Loustau was usually the furthest player.
Click to expand...

So quite similar in terms of how we set up our front 4. Like mentioned at the end, Munoz was usually more withdrawn, and Nelinho could find himself in positions up that side where he would operate.

---Rensenbrink-----Trezeguet---------------
-------------------------------Moreno
-----------------Pedernera------------

With Nilton Santos pushing to stretch play on the left, and Nelinho doing a similar job to Munoz would on the right.

Even if we keep our full backs more withdrawn, with Rensenbrink and Trezeguet operating in the box, Pedernera drifting left, it creates that space for Antognoni to move in and dictate play from the AM area. A fluid attack that can draw those players around. It makes it more difficult when Gerrard/Reid are deciding who to cover and what players to pick up when they are all able of interchanging.
 
I'll be honest, it's not easy to decide between these two teams. Both teams have their obvious strengths and weaknesses that make this match balanced and, basically, a high-scoring affair.

Stobz has a great front 3 + Prosinecki for the counter attacks. However, playing Prosinecki in that midfield role is almost suicidal. Prosinecki was never known for putting in a defensive shift, and wherever he played, he was always given the freedom to play his attacking game. For example, for Red Star Belgrade, Jugovic, who was a skillful yet hardworking midfielder, sacrificed all of his attacking play and played a pure defensive game just to bring the best out of Prosinecki, Savicevic, and other pure attacking players. Stobz needed a 3rd midfielder who's defensively capable in some form (whether through a high-intense, aggressive, and physical approach or a good reading of the game), and Prosinecki is certainly not that. Having Gerrard and Reid go against Antognoni, Pedernera, and Moreno is almost suicidal. Reid will have too much work to do, and Gerrard will be too easily dragged around with his all-action, aggressive nature.

Hierro and Shesternyov is a pairing that I really like in Stobz' team. Both were complete defenders for me, able to do everything on and off the ball. However, as good as they were, I think that they'll have too much work to do in this match. Rensenbrink was a very tricky player not just on the ball but also off the ball; his movement caused club and national teams tons of problems as you'd never know where he'd wind up. Suurbier being a more attacking full back will have a difficult time against Rensenbrink, and Gerrard + Rensenbrink, I feel, will create some more space in midfield for Skizzo's team to exploit. Again, someone better defensively than Prosinecki could have offset this issue...

I feel that Stobz' counter-attacking setup doesn't suit the players he has in the team, and I think Skizzo can really decimate Stobz' team as a result. Having said that, though, Skizzo's team has a similar issue to Stobz' in that his team also leaves their most defensive midfielder with too much work to do. Antognoni loved to go forward with the ball and was quite an attack-minded player, often being in the opponent's final third to combine with the strikers or go for goal when possible. Also, Tito will have to be wary of Prosinecki as well as Maradona, and then you have Henry going in between Nelinho and Rosato to occupy them...and then you have one of the full backs going forward as well (though Suurbier wouldn't be good enough on the ball to cause Skizzo's left side any real problems).

I don't know. Even though Stobz has Maradona, the fact that his team's going for a counterattacking setup with that incompatible midfield makes it very difficult for them to get any semblance of control on the match. Pedernera and Antognoni will combine very well together, and Moreno and Rensenbrink will keep the full backs guessing with their movement and attacking versatility. Then, you have Trezeguet, who I really like as a striker, who's a very clinical finisher with a good header, eye for goal, positioning, and first touch.

Nah, I think Skizzo wins this one 3-1 for sure.
 
That was a good sleep.

Seems to be going as I expected, frightfully close.

There seems to be a lot of talk of both full backs for Skizzo and Pat being able to bomb on, If Nelinho gets caught up the pitch and Hierro gets the opportunity to feed an out ball to Henry down that left hand side then it is curtains. This at least pins Nelinho back in the same way it is accepted that both of my fullbacks will have to defend first and attack second.

I've also heard some things regarding my midfield which I will address here. Reid is the sitting midfielder, the DM, this is obvious and given that we are asking him to play the pivot it also allows him to use his full passing range. Gerrard is the box to box with an onus on supporting Suurbier both ways the graphic has him deeper to more clearly demonstrate how this may limit him going forward. You can't then turn around and say he will just do what he wants.

And Prosinecki wasn't lazy as someone suggested, he wasn't a great defender but playing wide and central midfield for an eastern european side meant you couldn't shirk your responsibility going the other way. I've heard y midfield called "incompatible" which is a laugh. the three compliment each other as well as you could wish.
 
Stobzilla said:
Gerrard is the box to box with an onus on supporting Suurbier both ways the graphic has him deeper to more clearly demonstrate how this may limit him going forward. You can't then turn around and say he will just do what he wants.
Click to expand...

Reckon that's fair enough - we have to presuppose that he'll play as instructed. But for my money you can't have him operate box-to-box here: The threat down that flank is huge. Suurbier isn't good enough defensively to handle it without a lot of help - in my opinion, at least. And you're having Suurbier too on offensive duty to a degree: You haven't instructed him to shut up shop (which he wouldn't have been ideal for anyway, but you could have ordered him to do it nonetheless).

Will Stevie provide enough support? I doubt it, and so it becomes a question of both (defensive) quality AND (defensive) commitment.

You have a point regarding their fullbacks, of course - they'll be bombing forward too. But there is no way you can threaten S/P down either flank in a comparable fashion. For them, it's a (normal enough) calculated risk - for you, it's a big problem.
 
Stobzilla said:
And Prosinecki wasn't lazy as someone suggested, he wasn't a great defender but playing wide and central midfield for an eastern european side meant you couldn't shirk your responsibility going the other way. I've heard y midfield called "incompatible" which is a laugh. the three compliment each other as well as you could wish.
Click to expand...
Prosinecki isn't as lazy as Riquelme, but he has no defensive or physical capability to support Gerrard and Reid in the midfield. Why else would Jugovic of all people have to play as a defensive midfielder for Red Star in order for Prosinecki to play his natural game?

In a diamond, you need three midfielders to do some sort of defensive work to make it work. Prosinecki won't do that sort of work in a counterattacking diamond team. If you can prove otherwise, then I may reconsider my vote, but until then, I will think that your midfield is incompatible for a counterattacking diamond setup.
 



Ok, having gone away and reconsidered the shape would we all agree that something closer to this is actually what is going on ? it is a minute change but I think it can go someway towards explaining why I am happy for his full backs to come out, because you have Henry drifting into space on the left and Maradona doing the same to the right in those situations and they have top quality passers all over the park in which to find them.
 
Yeah, I'd say the problem with Prosinecki - in this particular context, that is - isn't that he's lazy as such, but rather that it's unrealistic to expect him to do any "lifting" defensively. Gerrard can certainly do that to a fair degree, but not Prosinecki. You want him on the ball as much as possible, not chasing after people (he isn't overly fast either, if we're going there - fast with the ball, yes, capable of a decent burst to get past his man, but not fast in the sense you want if he's supposed to track runners or whatnot).
 
Really tight and close match.

Congratulations on both, given the draft to feature 2 sheepless and quality sides. That said I think both have some advantages and some disadvantages. I'll vote a bit later as I haven't made my mind yet. I can see both sides winning really and I think it will be a high scoring game.

Stobzilla I think has the better talent among his ranks. Even apart from Maradona, there is Prosinecki, Hierro, Henry...

That being said I'm not sure that Reid-Prosinecki-Gerrard will work, especially in that configuration. As other mentioned I feel a diamond would work better with Gerrard supporting Reid and Prosinecki given a little more free role with Maradona behind the strikers.

Stobzilla lacks width as many of the teams in this draft, but has the better attack, Skizzo/Pat has the better midfield IMO and defence is a bit of a tie.
 
Snow said:
I also don't buy into this perpetual myth that if full backs are against good wingers they can't attack. That's not how full backs work. They attack when needed, they don't just run forward and leave space behind them. I also don't like it that the winger is always supposed to be defending the opposition winger.
Click to expand...
Very true.
Skizzo said:
David Trezeguet may not have gotten much love throughout the drafts, but he was a fine goal scorer, and more importantly, has found the net while playing against Hierro before. Twice in fact, over two legs.

The first one here, Hierro lets Trezeguet drift in behind him for the cross. When the knockback comes back, Hierro fails to pick up Trezeguet again, letting him slam it in the back of the net.

fxlLJM.gif


In this second clip, filmed with a potato, Trezeguet again finds himself drifting away from Hierro and finding space in the box, slamming home a loose ball after a save by the keeper.

mQ1Hth.gif


Two examples of the movement and predatory instinct of Trezeguet against Hierro, showing what he can do with only a few yards of space. With the movement of Rensenbrink, Pedernera and Moreno around him, he'll find himself with a few yards to do what he does best.
Click to expand...
Good find, but come on - poor Hierro was 35 there.
 
I suppose the main question here is whether we see Stobz's midfield working well enough to do the job. If so, with that attack, plus a relatively bulletproof central defensive partnership, they take the spoils. Although this is clearly a sheep team, and a Stobz team, there is a number of players who I buy as physical, hard-working and deferential foils to Diego - Demyanenko, Suurbier, Reid, Dean. I actually admire the Reid pick - very unambitious, not a vote-winner at all (what's his lasting memory for international audiences - trotting after Diego with his autograph book at Mexico '86?), but a very neat fit. Generally they are losing that midfield, because of the sheer quality of Skizzo/Pat, but not to the point whereby it'll cost them the game.

I'm quite relaxed about Gerrard's role and I don't share Chester's same concerns about the mismatch on the flank. Gerrard's positioning is quite clear and he has the qualities to meaningfully work his bollocks off. Certainly they'll have their work cut out, but that's the sort of trudgery they're good at. My only issue would be any vacation of the centre of the park, but players slide along and pass markers on, and arguably there are enough bodies in there to make it work. Sort of.

Ultimately it comes down to whether the trident of Maradona, Henry and Dean do enough with 40-45% of the play to do the business, or whether the likely control of Nilton Santos, Nelinho, Moreno and Pedernera will breach the defence enough times.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Really tight and close match.

Congratulations on both, given the draft to feature 2 sheepless and quality sides. That said I think both have some advantages and some disadvantages. I'll vote a bit later as I haven't made my mind yet. I can see both sides winning really and I think it will be a high scoring game.

Stobzilla I think has the better talent among his ranks. Even apart from Maradona, there is Prosinecki, Hierro, Henry...

That being said I'm not sure that Reid-Prosinecki-Gerrard will work, especially in that configuration. As other mentioned I feel a diamond would work better with Gerrard supporting Reid and Prosinecki given a little more free role with Maradona behind the strikers.

Stobzilla lacks width as many of the teams in this draft, but has the better attack, Skizzo/Pat has the better midfield IMO and defence is a bit of a tie.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. It is a ridiculously close match, and Maradona is going to be a standout in any company, but we do have an incredible batch of attacking players too. Moreno placed 5th and Pedernera 12th in IFFHS' South American Player of the Century list, ahead of the likes of Didi, Romario, Rivelino, and in Moreno's case Zico and Figueroa too. As Skizzo posted earlier, Moreno and Pedernera were good enough to effectively block a young Di Stefano's path into the River Plate first team, and Di Stefano rated Pedernera as one of the greatest players ever:

The best player I ever saw in my life, was Adolfo Pedernera. Undoubtedly, Maradona was exceptional, fantastic. The best in years. One can not ignore even Pele. But for heaven’s sake, though it is difficult to draw comparisons, Pedernera was a very complete player who could play anywhere on the pitch.
Click to expand...

Rensenbrink was just electric, and easily comparable to Henry in terms of quality. There's stylistic similarities too in terms of their pace and brilliant dribbling. A couple of gifs I made of Rensenbrink assisting and scoring against a strong Liverpool team in the 78 European Super Cup:

DqGC1U.gif


AxkW0O.gif
 
Gio said:
Very true.

Good find, but come on - poor Hierro was 35 there.
Click to expand...

Age would be more relevant if he was getting burned on a counter, but here it's literally just letting the movement of Trezeguet find a pocket of space around him. It was more positioning and awareness at fault here than age being a major factor.

I do get your point of "out of peak age" though :)
 
Chesterlestreet said:
But this is a bit different. What we have here is an attacking fullback (arguably the best left back in history, certainly one of them) who is uncommonly good on the ball, and a specialist dribbler (he isn't just generally "offensive", he is capable of leaving his man on his arse), working in combination with a fast winger who is even more of a specialist dribbler: And against this combo stand the pair of Stevie G (who is supposed to contribute offensively in addition to helping out Suurbier) and a generally offensive fullback (a wingback, some would say, in terms of what his ideal role would be) who is ALSO supposed to contribute offensively as per the tacics.
Click to expand...

Agreed with this, esp on Nilton Santos. It's a rarity to see such classy and cerebral full-backs, esp one as well-rounded as Santos. Not only was he great defensively, his influence on the ball was unbelievable for a full-back - almost like having a playmaker from the back, taking part in the build-up play and influencing proceedings from the back. Can only think of Carlos Alberto, Krol, Júnior and perhaps the best of them all in this regard, Andreas Brehme, who had a similar make-up in terms of their impact on build-up play.

I was just watching rewatching some of the 1990 WC footage some time back, and the sheer impact that Brehme had on that German team, never fails to amaze me. They were playing 5 at the back but it wasn't the libero/sweeper Augenthaler who primarily had the playmaking duties but rather Brehme. So much so that Netherlands more or less put a man on him, in their knock-out game against the Germans. And it actually worked to a certain extent and Netherlands most certainly were winning the battle until the silly sending off of Rijkaard. Of course, Brehme would go on to score the goal which ultimately proved to be the winner. He was the best player in the WC final too, regardless of the match-winning penalty, and should have had several assists had it not been for lax finishing by the Völler-Klinsmann duo.

It's a shame we don't see such type of cerebral players in the full-back position anymore or at least not to the same extent anyway. Can only think of Lahm in recent times, although imo, he doesn't belong in that tier when it comes to purely on the ball body of work. Tbf, these type of full-backs were already a rare breed regardless of any era, and perhaps I'm letting good 'ol nostalgia/romanticism cloud my views.
 
Last edited:
Skizzo said:
Age would be more relevant if he was getting burned on a counter, but here it's literally just letting the movement of Trezeguet find a pocket of space around him. It was more positioning and awareness at fault here than age being a major factor.

I do get your point of "out of peak age" though :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but even that half-yard and the mobility to react to or anticipate a threat are well affected by age. With Hierro he was a still a solid campaigner, but in his 30s he was a contributing factor to Real being relatively leaky at the back despite all their offensive pizzazz.
 
Behave :lol: it all goes with age. If I had the facility to do so I am sure I can find plenty of your two centre backs being at fault at 35.

Actually no I couldn't, they were both done (as in retired) at the top level by then.
 
Stobzilla said:
Behave :lol: it all goes with age. If I had the facility to do so I am sure I can find plenty of your two centre backs being at fault at 35.

Actually no I couldn't, they were both done (as in retired) at the top level by then.
Click to expand...

relax :) I said to Gio that I knew that he was getting at. It highlights Trezeguet's ability to find that space as much as it does Hierros ability to close it down. I just said age wasn't quite as important to positioning as it is chasing someone down. At least if they are able to compensate :)
 
Skizzo said:
relax :) I said to Gio that I knew that he was getting at. It highlights Trezeguet's ability to find that space as much as it does Hierros ability to close it down. I just said age wasn't quite as important to positioning as it is chasing someone down. At least if they are able to compensate :)
Click to expand...

Aye I did see your edit/addendum after I posted ;)
 
Joga Bonito said:
Agreed with this, esp on Nilton Santos. It's a rarity to see such classy and cerebral full-backs, esp one as well-rounded as Santos. Not only was he great defensively, his influence on the ball was unbelievable for a full-back - almost like having a playmaker from the back, taking part in the build-up play and influencing proceedings from the back. Can only think of Carlos Alberto, Krol, Júnior and perhaps the best of them all in this regard, Andreas Brehme, who had a similar make-up in terms of their impact on build-up play.

I was just watching rewatching some of the 1990 WC footage some time back, and the sheer impact that Brehme had on that German team, never fails to amaze me. They were playing 5 at the back but it wasn't the libero/sweeper Augenthaler who primarily had the playmaking duties but rather Brehme. So much so that Netherlands more or less put a man on him, in their knock-out game against the Germans. And it actually worked to a certain extent and Netherlands most certainly were winning the battle until the silly sending off of Rijkaard. Of course, Brehme would go on to score the goal which ultimately proved to be the winner. He was the best player in the WC final too, regardless of the match-winning penalty, and should have had several assists had it not been for lax finishing by the Völler-Klinsmann duo.

It's a shame we don't see such type of cerebral players in the full-back position anymore or at least not to the same extent anyway. Can only think of Lahm in recent times, although imo, he doesn't belong in that tier when it comes to purely on the ball body of work. Tbf, these type of full-backs were already a rare breed regardless of any era, and perhaps I'm letting good 'ol nostalgia/romanticism cloud my views.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Dani Alves. He didn't need to be the main playmaker at Barcelona because their midfield was so good, but he was brilliant in that role for Sevilla when they won their back to back UEFA Cups.
 
Snow said:
The points you bring up is the reason I'm so vary of these all-time drafts. I haven't taken part in them before because I don't like the comparisons being made. I mean some of these players played in teams that played 2-3-5 and against goalkeepers that didn't wear gloves. And speaking of tactics and rules, people speak of the Italian defenses but forget to mention that the offside rules changed drastically in 1990 so in the WC that year the tactics had basically peaked defensively. After the tournament the rules changed and the game gradually got less defensive.

You make a good point about the Brazilian full backs. They mastered that position long before any other nation and only recently has football caught up. They've almost always been this way and those few Brazilian full backs available in this draft are a cut above the rest on the whole.
Click to expand...
Normally I'm quite reluctant to merge eras together because of the difficulties certain players will have in proving their worth. However, with this draft we have tried to design the rounds so that everyone has had to (broadly) take their fair share of players that often suffer due to the relative lack of evidence - usually the pre-TV age boys and the Eastern Europeans.
 
At the end voted for Skizzo/Pat. IMO their team and formation have a tad more balance and more width and will enjoy more possession in the end to create chances. I think in a tight match like this they can get the nod as a team unit/spirit. For me Stobzilla has the better individuals and the second formation IMO is better than the first one and step in the right direction.
 
This looks to be more or less finished but I'll bump it in the unlikely event that a bunch of 1940s era River Plate fans have just entered the football forum :). The discussion has fizzled out and there's nothing much new to add from us, so I'll just forlornly repeat that I feel:

- our big advantage on our left wing with Nilton/Rensenbrink against Gerrard/Suurbier
- our better-balanced midfield
- the La Maquina connection of Moreno and Pedernera

should be enough to shade this for us.
 
I really have nothing to add either it is too damn close and I refute the first two points, I don't believe the balance in the midfield to be a huge advantage given that Goncalves is probably going to be pulled away from it by Maradona Nor do I believe Santos can venture too far forward without Maradona drifitng into the space that he has left it isn't much, but if any can exploit it ...

The third point I believe is unfair not just in this match but in the draft context as a whole, it is a fantasy draft, I get the "proven" bit but it just doesn't sit well with me, dunno, i'm not good with words. Probably best I don't try and add anything more, i'll only feck it up :lol:
 
Gio said:
Normally I'm quite reluctant to merge eras together because of the difficulties certain players will have in proving their worth. However, with this draft we have tried to design the rounds so that everyone has had to (broadly) take their fair share of players that often suffer due to the relative lack of evidence - usually the pre-TV age boys and the Eastern Europeans.
Click to expand...
I agree. Puts people on the same level in that regard despite Cal's refusal to pick players of that age.
 
Shameful. This is the shielding at the corner flag of Caf Drafting, the shepherding out of play. The shuffling forward of the wall.
 
Stobzilla said:
Shameful. This is the shielding at the corner flag of Caf Drafting, the shepherding out of play. The shuffling forward of the wall.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol:

Those need to be implemented in future drafts somehow.

Included in write ups, how teams will play on the opening 15 minutes, before and after half time, last 10 minutes, when chasing a lead, when protecting a lead. We need longer OP's from everyone I think anyway ;)
 
ctp said:
Don't forget Dani Alves. He didn't need to be the main playmaker at Barcelona because their midfield was so good, but he was brilliant in that role for Sevilla when they won their back to back UEFA Cups.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a good shout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.