and a pele, bozsik and monti midfield has more balance?
Theon VS Aldo - All time 3 yr peak - Auction draft
- Thread starter Annahnomoss
- Start date
and a pele, bozsik and monti midfield has more balance?
Don't forget Socrates bro
I ignored him as if you count him, then you have to add ronaldinho as well. Both of them will be more preoccupied out wide imo.
One is a forward other is a midfielder do is obvious which one will be considered in a Midfield discussion.
I take a look at Theon/Gio team, and I'm stunned, perfect.
Than I take a look at Aldo's team, Pele-Garrincha-Ronaldo, and the rest isn't far behind it, very tight matchup, but my vote goes to Theon/Gio.
Than I take a look at Aldo's team, Pele-Garrincha-Ronaldo, and the rest isn't far behind it, very tight matchup, but my vote goes to Theon/Gio.
I wouldnt call ronaldinho a forward. He played as a number 10 or a winger, was very much involved in the final third as any attacking mid would.
Interestingly, Aldo has already called the midfields a dead heat. At this rarefied level, I'm not sure Socrates - who drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney, and off the ball offered little resistance - is going to make the difference. In terms of possession, we also have Franz Beckenbauer and Roberto Carlos in defence who, the Kaiser in particular, will help us to dominate the ball from deeper areas.
Fair enough RL - don't agree with any of this at all though.
A Pele, Bozsik, Monti midfield is less balanced and with Desailly we have arguably the best pure destroyer in the draft to add steel and balance to an offensive side.
I also can't see any way he'll have more possession and by omitting Beckenbauer from the discussion you've missed out the most important player on the pitch in this respect. Beckenbauer's technique and passing were absolutely world class for a midfielder, let alone a defender - he'll be hugely influential on the ball.
These teams ended up even more ridiculous than I imagined them being. Congrats to both for the drafting.
Won't be voting since one could be a potential opponent. (
)
Won't be voting since one could be a potential opponent. (
)I think it's pretty obvious Socrates is more involved in midfield than Ronaldinho, Zico or Pelé.
@RooneyLegend is right, it's 4-2-3-1 vs a lop-sided 4-3-3 with Socrates' lesser influence out wide well matched by Fachetti being on that side.
I rate Gio/Theon's defence higher, but the midfield is definitely Aldo's.
@RooneyLegend is right, it's 4-2-3-1 vs a lop-sided 4-3-3 with Socrates' lesser influence out wide well matched by Fachetti being on that side.
I rate Gio/Theon's defence higher, but the midfield is definitely Aldo's.
The central midfield trios are fairly similar in style and quality - Desailly/Monti, Saurez/Bozsik, Zico/Pele. I agree that Socrates will play ever so slightly narrower and deeper than Ronaldinho. But meaningfully involved in the outcome of the match? I think Ronaldinho wins that clearly both on a quality basis and on a partnership basis with the dynamic flank support he'll have from Carlos.
Its a Socrates, Bozsik, and Monti midfield and it does have more balance than suarez, desailly and zico.
Zico has a much higher work rate than Socrates - there's really no difference there. Zico would play slightly further forward but in terms of contribution off the ball Zico is more effective, and in terms of contribution overall it's not a contest as Zico was a much better player.
I know you haven't disputed Zico being better, but on the balance part I just don't agree. Socrates did play deeper but that doesn't mean he adds more to a midfield battle - this is an accurate description of Socrates' influence off the ball,
As well as being the better footballer, Zico was the much fitter of the two and he had a much better workrate.
I don't see how it's more balanced at all - and of course let's not ignore George Best vs Garrincha off the ball either. Both wonderful footballers, but Best was aggressive, spiteful at times and a consummate team player. Garrincha was none of those things.
And as I've mentioned, Beckenbauer is vital to any midfield/possession battle. He's better than any midfielder on the pitch.
They aren't similar types of players which is what I'm getting at. One player is more about making the play and the other about making match winning plays. The other team needs a Socrates/Rivelino/Zidane/Iniesta/Seedorf/Valeron sort of player and just doesn't have one. It instead has 4 pure attackers who decide matches but without as much supply they won't be as dangerous. Socrates played deeper than Zico, him and Falcao basically dictated the game for that brazil team while zico destroyed the oppositions defence. Socrates is the one that collected the ball deep, kept things ticking, distributed the ball to all corners, and never gave it away.
Its not about work rate but rather about the tactical positioning of the players. 3 v 2 In midfield with players of this quality never ends well for the 2 men. Suarez is going to have too much on his plate for him to be effective.
Is Zico better than Socrates? Yes, is he better at doing the role than him? Nope. How can he not add more to a midfield battle? He's actually in midfield while zico isn't.
Beckenbauer isn't in midfield, with Pele on the pitch he isn't going to be pushing up much, he's just going to be passing the ball out of the back like he did in a lot of the big games(I.e play like baresi). They'll probably cancel each other out like Charlton and him in the 66 final. If he was going to take the leading role on the ball he'd have to either be deployed in midfield or the team would need to use a 5 man defence to cover his space as he goes wondering about. Neither is happening here.
Okay mate, I don't agree with any of that but we're not going to agree so fair enough.
Zico and Socrates were both attacking midfielders, the difference in position between the two of them is no where near as significant as you're suggesting. You're making Socrates sound like an Xavi styled player when he was nothing like that. The biggest difference between the two is that Socrates lacked Zico's mobility and agility to get forward - both were playmakers.
And Zico was a better passer than Socrates anyway.
Irrespective of Zico this team very clearly has two players responsible for the transition from defence - Beckenbauer and Suarez. I don't agree with you at all that the front four players will struggle to get the ball. Suarez was the lynchpin and playmaker the Grande Inter side which dominated Europe playing counter attacking football - Suarez' whole game was built around ensuring a transition from defence to attack.
And Beckenbauer will take a leading role on the ball. We deliberately drafted a defensive right back in Vogts so that he could cover Beckenbauer in possession, as well as reuniting him with Schwarzenbeck. Impacting the game from defence and playing out from the back is exactly what Beckenbauer did - there's nothing strange about that. He doesn't need to be played in midfield to contribute to the build up, it's what he did every week from defence and the role that made him the best player in Europe.
He's more than capable of slipping pass through the lines to Zico or knocking it wide to George Best.
Gentile is perfect to handle Toothy. Between Monti and Facchetti the can negate Best to a good extent. Though Facchetti will not provide his usual attacking contribution.
Garrincha on Carlos, esp with later linking with Toothy will get opportunities for Aldo. Kaizer on Pele would be awesome! Though Aldo has Socrates to orchestre play instead.
Garrincha on Carlos, esp with later linking with Toothy will get opportunities for Aldo. Kaizer on Pele would be awesome! Though Aldo has Socrates to orchestre play instead.
The more I look at the two teams the clearer it is that it boils down to Aldo having better control of the game. There's little to separate Bozsik-Monti from Suárez-Desailly, but Gio/Theon's front four are largely detached up there and relying on service materialising.
It's a game that if played 10 times neither team would win it more than 6, but I'm inclined to believe Socrates-Monti-Bozsik can better control the game. Also, the biggest mismatch on the pitch is Carlos vs. Garrincha. I can see all other defenders doing as good a job as possible on the forwards they face, but I can see Desailly getting dragged wide regularly to suppport Carlos and that gives Pelé a hall pass.
Pelé and Garrincha vs. Desailly constantly having to go off to to the flank to support Carlos. I think that's where the killer blow will materialise.
It's a game that if played 10 times neither team would win it more than 6, but I'm inclined to believe Socrates-Monti-Bozsik can better control the game. Also, the biggest mismatch on the pitch is Carlos vs. Garrincha. I can see all other defenders doing as good a job as possible on the forwards they face, but I can see Desailly getting dragged wide regularly to suppport Carlos and that gives Pelé a hall pass.
Pelé and Garrincha vs. Desailly constantly having to go off to to the flank to support Carlos. I think that's where the killer blow will materialise.
I don't agree that our front four is detached. In our back four we have two players who excel at making transitions from defence into midfield and then beyond into attack. Beckenbauer through his ability on the ball and Carlos through his dynamism and exceptional left peg mean we can move from back to front more naturally than the opposition. With Beckenbauer at the back we are bound to get a foothold of possession which will bring our attacking midfield trio into the game. That seems very clear and, with both teams set up fairly offensively, should happen regularly. In our central midfield pairing, we have Luis Suarez who is completely proven as a deep-lying playmaker for Inter. In fact he is probably the only player of that ilk who has ever received such stellar recognition in the Ballon D'Or since its inception in 1956. That's a strong package to transition from the back and get our talented attacking midfield trio fully involved.
Saying they were the same is like saying Deco and Dinho were the same. I'm not making him sound like xavi(that was Falcao) but rather like iniesta.
Nope, Zico had a better final pass and more vision, Socrates had him beat on all the other passes, especially his one touch passing.
Let's put it like this, I'd say Aldo's team will have its attackers in dangerous positions more than the opposition and given the negligible difference in quality between the two attacks of either team, that'll count more than any other factor in the match.
With more bodies around him than those closing passing lanes, suarez will struggle to get the ball to the men that count. We saw this especially with Viera/scholes and arsenal/us in europe in the early 00's. They/we lacked that sort of player and couldn't really get a foothold in matches.
The team has 2 classic 10's and no organizer in front of the 2 deepest midfielders. Dinho and Zico in the same team is a conflict of roles which will hold the team back against a team with a 3 man midfield. Brazil tried that in 06 with Kaka and Dinho, needless to say it didn't work.
If Vogts covers Beckenbauer, who's covering him? When the ball is lost one of Pele or Ronaldo will peal into that space(especially Ronaldo who loved doing that), one quick pass and all hell will break lose. Tactical discipline will be needed to win such a match rather than heavy in-game adjustments. I'd even argue dropping Desailly to the back, and playing beckenbauer in midfield makes more sense than an in game reshuffle with some of the greatest attackers to have graced the game around.
He'll play it out from the back exceptionally well, but he won't be running things from there in such a match with this much quality around ala 66 and 74 wc finals. Pele and Ronaldo were renowned for there hard work and athleticism, both will be a hassle for him.
Woah this got closer than I expected. Just two votes in it!
@RooneyLegend I take your point on a typical 3 v 2 central midfield battle. It's not really the case here though. We both have very similar central midfield shapes, styles and roles. The only difference between both set-ups is Socrates playing a slightly withdrawn role (compared to Ronaldinho), while we've already advised that Zico would play slightly deeper than the first round match to help connect midfield and attack (and put some of his hard graft to work).
Fundamentally we need to look at it in the round and we get good shifts out of our back four, Desailly, Suarez, Zico and Best.
Similarly I'm not making any claims for Romario in this regard. But then when you can finish like this...
Fundamentally we need to look at it in the round and we get good shifts out of our back four, Desailly, Suarez, Zico and Best.
I'm not convinced about that. Pele was criticised ahead of the 1970 tournament for not working hard enough in his deeper role, while Ronaldo was never one to bother hounding defenders.
Similarly I'm not making any claims for Romario in this regard. But then when you can finish like this...
Almost over... close match...
Pele and Garrincha finally lose a game together. Good game @Aldo - as you know you drafted the first round near flawlessly, probably the best I've seen in any of our auction drafts.
Good game lads. Decided not to vote firstly because of conflict of interest, and secondly because I had very little idea who would win.
The upgrades should be interesting. Facchetti is a no-brainer, but who else?
Yup. What a first round team that was.
I meant detached as in requiring service, not dropping deep to produce their own service or get involved in defensive phases. I was fully aware of Beckenbauer and Suárez providing service, but without the ball you were sporting four passengers.
Yeah, like I said before we just don't agree at all here as I disagree with pretty much everything you have said.
Effectively your most fundamental point seems to be that a three man midfield will always beat a two man midfield. I think it's a bizzare view and you only have to briefly look at the sport to see that you can win with any formation.
I think it's an even more bizarre view when you discount the actual players on display - Socrates was exceptionally lazy, he's adding nothing to the midfield battle yet you've someone got his negligible influence tipping the course of the match. Zico was a better passer than Socrates and he also had a much higher work rate. Like Socrates, Zico was a playmaker capable of picking the ball up from deep.
Further to that, you not only significantly overstate the influence Socrates would have in midfield but also significantly understate the influence Beckenbauer will have. Can't understand that at all.
Like I say we just disagree here, I don't think we'll change each other's minds and it's always good when people state their reasons/views in the thread so no hard feelings there.
Thanks Aldo
This is very true, but differently from Platini, Zico was more a case of either/or. You could have him terrorising defences and scoring for fun (Flamengo/Brazil up to '82) or dropping deep and dictating (his older self), I don't recall seeing the two Zicos in play simultaneously. It's a bit like selling Scholes B2B and DLP at the same time.
If you determined it was deep playmaking Zico, the one that carved up France within minutes of coming on in 1986, then you were about level if not better off, but you kept alluding to goalscoring Zico. Can't have your cake and eat it kind of thing.