The Virgin League Draft - QF1 - GodShaveTheQueen vs. Pat_Mustard & Jim Beam

With players in their 3 year career peak, who would win?


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Because you don't shit about Jusufi and come and say it. I don't shit about him quite simple.

12-0 voted against you was best. And I counted he voted 2 times against you so Yoga it is actually embarrassing all together.
 
I don’t really get the excessive critique of the oldies, especially with Liedholm and Kubala in your side tbf.
 
Thought about Pat Beam's front three and Kubala without an attacking full-back is not ideal . If it was a goal scoring winger like Hamrin who was used to sticking wide right at least to begin, along with Schuster drifting wide right ahead of Tassotti would have been great. Also I don't think Cambiasso is the guy for a pivot in a 433.

I think Pat Beam should have moved back to three at the back. The main issue in the first game was the lack of midfield IIRC. A 352 would have worked great

Larsson Enzo/Kubala
Marcelom Liedholm Cambiasso Schuster TAA
Boli Koeman Tassotti

This would also have given Trent a good target in the box.

All that said there are some great players in Pat Beam's side and I'm still not sure which way it would go. GSTQ has a smooth line up which works well tactically.
 
Last edited:
Thought about Pat Beam's front three and Kubala without an attacking full-back is not ideal . If it was a goal scoring winger like Hamrin who was used to sticking wide right at least to begin, along with Schuster drifting wide right ahead of Tassotti would have been great. Also I don't think Cambiasso is the guy for a pivot in a 433.

I think Pat Beam should have moved back to three at the back. The main issue in the first game was the lack of midfield IIRC. A 352 would have worked great

Larsson Enzo/Kubala
Marcelom Liedholm Cambiasso Schuster TAA
Boli Koeman Tassotti

This would also have given Trent a good target in the box.

All that said there are some great players in Pat Beam's side and I'm still not sure which way it would go. GSTQ has a smooth line up which works well tactically.

Koeman - Liedholm - Schuster. And that front 3 it is.

But, thanks for the comment.
 
beam outscrappied scrappy, feisty little bugger
 
I really have no idea what you're saying.

Am saying you have two playmakers, one to feed, and the other to take Bremner on the roll of his life. And then you look at that front three.

Am saying it is a better team. But, to each his own.
 
Last edited:
Am saying you have two playmakers, one to feed, and the other to take Bremner on the roll of his life. And then you look at that front three.

Am saying it is a better team. But, to each his own.

I get what you're saying now. You are just a DM and right-winger short of an exceptional team
 
Two very strong teams on the whole - I think I had both these two at the very top of the rankings. I'm swayed more by Littbarski than anything else so going with GSTQ.
 
:lol: :lol: Bloodbath of a match thread.


I get what you're saying now. You are just a DM and right-winger short of an exceptional team

We knew our right wing wouldn't be loved when we picked Tassotti, but the options weren't great and TAA would have been massacred in the voting with Finney as his direct opponent. Tassotti has quite a few pluses in our system though:

- excellent defender and along with Boli a counter-balance to Koeman and Marcelo who are historically noteworthy for their insane abilities on the ball. Serendipitous decision really given that he's up against the great Finney.
- we aim to win the game by establishing a level of control in midfield, so we wanted someone with pedigree in a high-line system as that's generally a natural by-product of dominating the ball.
- he wasn't actually a purely defensive RB. He's no Leandro or TAA on the ball, but he did motor forward to support the attack and had a decent if unspectacular right peg. Video overload now:

Nice cross to assist Massaro at 0:58 and another assist right from the byline for van Basten at 3:02 in an insane match vs Fiorentina:



Peach of a cross to assist Maldini at 0:30:



2 assists in that famous 5-0 win vs Real Madrid, the first an excellent cross for Rijkaard at 1:20, the second an entirely unnoteworthy 5 yard pass to Donadoni at 4:00 :D



We;re not trying to sell him as some relentless overlapper and one-man flank who was racking up assists week in week out, but he was a capable width-provider.

Kubala seemed to pop up literally everywhere from the available footage and I'd certainly classify him overall as a predominantly as a central/inside channel presence, but he was comfortable taking on his man on the outside. Moreover, as befits his gigantic reputation as quite possibly the greatest player on the pitch, he seemed an intelligent player who will gravitate to the areas where he can get on the ball and do maximum damage, which is clearly Marinho's zone here.

Larsson was a tireless and selfess runner who was capable of attacking and providing assists from either wing (most famously for Barca's winner in the 2006 CL final) but also here at 0:29:



and, from the wrong wing for our argument but the right foot, two lovely assists here:



Schuster is the real clincher as regards that wing being not only functional but a clear threat, with his De Bruyne-esque passing from the inside-right and outside-right channels. It's obviously anathema to Utd supporters after years of suffering through a horribly stunted right wing, but it's worth pointing out that it's hardly unusual for the wider wing-play to be orientated towards one flank as long as the other isn't positively anaemic - Milan 2004 diamond with Cafu on one flank and ancient Maldini on the other, Barca with the defensive Abidal and predominantly out-to-in off the ball runner Pedro on the left wing, Everaldo/Rivelino forming a fairly narrow left wing for Brazil in 1970 with Jairzinho/Carlos Alberto providing the final third penetration on the other wing.

Surprised at the Cambiasso criticism though, as I assumed he'd have been good to take all the way to a final in this pool in this role. A very different tactical framework of course, but he was the one who primarily stymied Messi vs Barca in 2010 when he cut inside, and in general he was a brilliant player tactically as well as being highly competent on the ball. I could understand requiring some titan like Desailly in a different midfield configuation, but with two industrious and fairly athletic #8s like Liedholm and Schuster in support I really didn't expect him to be questioned here in terms of tactical fit.
 
Good post @Pat_Mustard.

I don't agree with the Cambiasso bit in the role given here, but I wouldn't go to the extent to call it completely unworkable. Really belongs in a double pivot rather than the holding role for me, especially against someone like Sivori. Perhaps would have been more easy on the eye against a team without a No.10 of that high stature.

but it's worth pointing out that it's hardly unusual for the wider wing-play to be orientated towards one flank as long as the other isn't positively anaemic

Agree with this but then the ideal setup would be to have a wing forward or inside forward on the wing with the attacking fullback and a more orthodox winger on the flank with the more defensive fullback. The problem isn't really Tassoti here. He was definitely needed to bring some balance to that defense. But as I said earlier, a Finney or Littbarski instead of Kubala would have been miles better.
 
Last edited:
@Pat_Mustard

I didn't intend to imply that Tassotti was an entirely uncultured defensive RB, I have drafted him before and that is certainly not the case. The issue is the balance with Kubala. Also your example with Pedro is fine but remember in that Barca side Pedro was a tactical player doing a job for the system rather than as a creative force. Your Milan 2004 and Brazil 1970 examples are better. The latter though I think is a specific chemistry thing -I don't think anyone would set out to play the same system as Brazil 1970 did. Again though thinking more about Milan Seedorf again was a tactical player, not a creative forward. Now it might be my prejudice against narrower formations but at best I don't think the flank is optimal

On TAA, with Tassoti at RCB I don't think he would have been seen as an entire liability against Finney. I just think the 352 is a much better use of your players in isolation, relative to the opposition I can see why we could have differing views.
 
Last edited:
Good game, @Jim Beam @Pat_Mustard

I didn't realize how good the team was before I saw it in the graphical format. Going into the game, thought I was winning this quite easily, yet probably would have lost if there was a different RWF.
 
@Physiocrat I was many beers deep when I was composing that post so I doubtless went a bit overboard defending that wing - I don't think it was completely barren or anything but it did stand out negatively when compared to GSTQ's particularly well-balanced team, and as a neutral I wouldn't have loved it either.

Good game, @Jim Beam @Pat_Mustard

I didn't realize how good the team was before I saw it in the graphical format. Going into the game, thought I was winning this quite easily, yet probably would have lost if there was a different RWF.

Well played mate and good luck going forward! That's an excellent team you've built with obscene quality in reserve already.

I was delighted with that midfield three after Schuster fell into our lap but the finished lineup didn't quite click. We'd basically built solely for that odd 3-4-3 system emphasising build-up play from defence, knowing it wouldn't be universally popular, but we were always a step or two behind in terms of upgrading it or else transitioning to something more pragmatic. You called it in the main drafting thread, but rightly or wrongly TAA had to be upgraded for Leandro or Bessonov to carry the 3-4-3 further, and Bessonov being picked just screwed us as the end product here was good but flawed.