Tuppet vs. 2mufc0 - NT peak draft

[Annahnomoss]

Agree there's little value in splitting hairs over the WC/Euros/Copa. But I think you have to factor in the opposition to some extent. Otherwise why did none of Colombia's perfect defence from 2001 get a call up, never mind the captain who also scored the winner in the final. Hence my post above trying to get a sense of the overall quality of the Olympics in the 1950s beyond the Eastern bloc.

Like with any tournaments it differed a fair bit. Some finalist sides and winners of the Euros or World Cups beat less top quality opponents than some Olympic/Copa winners. There were 3 European sides in the top 4 in the World Cup in 1954 and all those also played the Olympics. And in 1950 there were 2 in the top 4 in Sweden/Spain, so Europe were actually very strong in that era. The '56 version for example was weak with Yugoslavia facing USA and India to reach the final. On the other hand Hungary had to face Italy in the first round, then a semi against Sweden and a final against Yugoslavia which is similar to winning a Euro at least.

Sweden faced Austria(3rd in WC54) in the first round and then Denmark who had beaten Italy, then Yugoslavia who were undoubtedly one of the greats of the era. The fact that the European sides did so good meant the Olympics were good too. West Germany for example only beat Turkey and South Korea to make it out of the group in 1954 after which they only faced great Olympic nations in Austria/Yugoslavia on the way to the final.

A lot of European sides had their greatest teams in history at this period too like Austria, Sweden, Hungary and Yugoslavia so the competition was there.

 

[Raees]

I'm not the biggest fan of the Puskas inclusion in a team built around Garrincha. Not playing with Pele was sort of the reason behind that peak as he suddenly had to step up as the team carry which took him to a whole new level. I love the rest of the side and Garrincha-Zagallo is perfection and a striker upfront who doesn't need to be involved in the build up in Romario is great too.

Puskas gelled well with the likes of Gento and is a good facilitator of talent. He's not a egotist, and someone who can enable others to reach great heights alongside him. I think it would work well personally.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Puskas gelled well with the likes of Gento and is a good facilitator of talent. He's not a egotist, and someone who can enable others to reach great heights alongside him. I think it would work well personally.

I agree with those comments regarding Puskas and they were true for Pele as well. But Garrincha's 1962 performance was so impressive because he took so much responsibility in the side and didn't link up as much as he just used his individual brilliance and egocentric style to fail over and over until he won the game for them. They also relied on a great defense which only conceded more than once in one game and that meant that Garrincha would almost always be the difference maker. I can see Puskas add a lot to Zagallo and Romario's game which would mean more plays through them and less balls for Garrincha to work with.

So I think in an all time draft like this it would be more worth it to further improve the defense by adding a central midfielder as they are not facing the likes of Scherer, Jelinek and Kadraba but a different level of opposition. Garrincha in 1962 was unstoppable, not because of his high success ratio when he did touch the ball but rather because the play went through him so much that he could fail 9 times and then score the 10th.

Not saying it wouldn't work, after all I voted for Tuppet. Just that I don't think we'd see Garrincha from '62 here but rather the performance he usually had with Pele about.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Sweden faced Austria(3rd in WC54) in the first round and then Denmark who had beaten Italy, then Yugoslavia who were undoubtedly one of the greats of the era.

Austria without Happel, Hanappi, Ocwirk, etc. Can't find Italy's roster at the moment but I doubt it was full strength.

Denmark and Sweden may have suffered less from the amateur - or whatever criterion was in place, it wasn't 100% amateur for all federations - policy in the sense that they had good vintages where many fine players still played in the national leagues, even though they obviously missed the heavy hitters who had gone to Italy.

Anyway, it's a bit sketchy. But, yeah, like you say - it differs from one tournament to the next, and the difficulty may certainly be comparable to the Euros in some cases.

EDIT Italy sent a pretty strong team, actually, by the looks of it. Boniperti, not least, and plenty of players from the top Serie A sides.

Italy often had issues with «politics», though, when it came to who was selected - and dropped. But it looks like a strong roster, so no obvious excuses there.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Austria without Happel, Hanappi, Ocwirk, etc. Can't find Italy's roster at the moment but I doubt it was full strength.

Denmark and Sweden may have suffered less from the amateur - or whatever criterion was in place, it wasn't 100% amateur for all federations - policy in the sense that they had good vintages where many fine players still played in the national leagues, even though they obviously missed the heavy hitters who had gone to Italy.

Sweden 3–0 Austria
Gunnar Nordahl (2'), Gunnar Nordahl (10'), Rosén (71')
2 August 1948
White Hart Lane, Tottenham
Sweden: Lindberg, K. Nordahl, Nilsson, Rosengren, B. Nordahl, Andersson, Rosén, Gren, G. Nordahl, Carlsson, Liedholm
Austria: Pelikan, Kowanz, Happel, Mikolasch, Ocwirk, Joksch, Melchio, Habitz, Epp, Hahnemann, Koerner
Attendance: 9,514
Referee: William Ling, Great Britain

The task was still a daunting one, and few gave the Swedes much hope of winning their first-round match against Austria, particularly as the Austrians had bent the rules slightly by including well-known players like Ernst Ocwirk who had played professionally. But two early goals from Nordahl set Sweden on their way to a 3-0 victory, and the crowd left White Hart Lane singing the praises of Raynor’s team.

Anyway, it's a bit sketchy. But, yeah, like you say - it differs from one tournament to the next, and the difficulty may certainly be comparable to the Euros in some cases.

Yup. 1948 and 1952 were great tournaments while I am unsure about the pre-war era which I have no clue about.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yeah, I was referring to '52, not '48.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Yeah, I was referring to '52, not '48.

Ahh sorry thought as you quoted the Sweden part you referred to that. My bad.

 

[antohan]

I'm not the biggest fan of the Puskas inclusion in a team built around Garrincha. Not playing with Pele was sort of the reason behind that peak as he suddenly had to step up as the team carry which took him to a whole new level. I love the rest of the side and Garrincha-Zagallo is perfection and a striker upfront who doesn't need to be involved in the build up in Romario is great too.

Nah, the single issue with that frontline is that Puskas and Romario don't add to the sum of parts.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Nah, the single issue with that frontline is that Puskas and Romario don't add to the sum of parts.

I get the criticism of Romario here but wouldn't mind him as the lone striker without Puskas. That would offer some threat through the middle even without Puskas and his all-roundness would be more welcome. With Puskas there I don't like it too much either. I would prefer a striker who would thrive on the great wing play and Puskas through the middle, maybe even a two strikers of that ilk.

 

[antohan]

Agree there's little value in splitting hairs over the WC/Euros/Copa. But I think you have to factor in the opposition to some extent. Otherwise why did none of Colombia's perfect defence from 2001 get a call up, never mind the captain who also scored the winner in the final. Hence my post above trying to get a sense of the overall quality of the Olympics in the 1950s beyond the Eastern bloc.

Yeah, I guess the Olympics are a bit intractable in that they went from world championship to Eastern European Cup to an U23 Youth tournament.

Colombia 2001 should have featured. The Córdobas at least. Argentina and the very best players not showing up doesn't take away from going the whole tourno not conceding even once.

And Iván even got the winner in the final. If there ever was a theme for him this was it.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Ahh sorry thought as you quoted the Sweden part you referred to that. My bad.

No, I kept it to '52 since that's most relevant for the Puskas thing.

Shows that it was a bit random, though: Austria with heavy hitters in '48 but not in '52, Italy with heavy hitters in '52.

Makes you wonder what the actual rules were - or to what extent it was simply up to the federations. Some federations sent a «national amateur» team to the Olympics at times, but not always. Others seem to have sent an almost random selection of pros and amateurs (and kids - Brazil sported a 17 year old Vavá, for instance).

 

[Annahnomoss]

No, I kept it to '52 since that's most relevant for the Puskas thing.

Shows that it was a bit random, though: Austra with heavy hitters in '48 but not in '52, Italy with heavy hitters in '52.

Makes you wonder what the actual rules were - or to what extent it was simply up to the federations. Some federations sent a «national amateur» team to the Olympics at times, but not always. Others seem to have sent an almost random selection of pros and amateurs (and kids - Brazil sported a 17 year old Vavá, for instance).

Yup. Some took it serious enough to cheat their star players in and others like you said didn't bother. Yugoslavias route to the final in 1948 went through Luxembourg, Turkey and then Great Britain. They proved their legitimacy elsewhere too of course but it is quite funny how much it could differ. Still does today as well though. Portugal 2014 came third in their easy group without a single victory, then faced Croatia, Poland and Wales. Basically teams that we'd never rate when looking back at it in 10 years with France being their first real game.

 

[antohan]

I get the criticism of Romario here but wouldn't mind him as the lone striker without Puskas. That would offer some threat through the middle even without Puskas and his all-roundness would be more welcome. With Puskas there I don't like it too much either. I would prefer a striker who would thrive on the great wing play and Puskas through the middle, maybe even a two strikers of that ilk.

I'll be a hipster and tell you Jan Ceulemans instead of Puskas solves all these issues. Fits the theme and all.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I'll be a hipster and tell you Jan Ceulemans instead of Puskas solves all these issues. Fits the theme and all.

Yup. That sort of player would add a lot more to that side.

 

[antohan]

Yup. That sort of player would add a lot more to that side.

Actually, was he picked at all? Absolutely cracking player.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Actually, was he picked at all? Absolutely cracking player.

He wasn't and yeah he was a great player. Bit unfortunate like so many attacking midfielders and even offensive box to box players who rarely makes the cut in these drafts.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Anyway, to finish the Olympics musing, I suppose the obvious conclusion is simple: Don't take things at face value. Many top nations sent shabby teams, and goal scoring records, etc. may be boosted in certain cases by the presence of truly shocking teams.

Later on it becomes much simpler, of course. The troublesome (but very interesting) years are post WW1 to late 50s or thereabouts.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I get the criticism of Romario here but wouldn't mind him as the lone striker without Puskas.

I think the comments stem from the fact that a traditional CF who can hold up defenders and drag them out to make space for others will bring out the best in Puskas and Garrincha. Rather than somebody to feed to, they are better with somebody who can assist them to shine.

 

[antohan]

Anyway, to finish the Olympics musing, I suppose the obvious conclusion is simple: Don't take things at face value. Many top nations sent shabby teams, and goal scoring records, etc. may be boosted in certain cases by the presence of truly shocking teams.

Later on it becomes much simpler, of course. The troublesome (but very interesting) years are post WW1 to late 50s or thereabouts.

I'd start from the 30s with there being a World Cup and the start of professionalism (not sure that's a global thing???).

At least in South America from 1932 on there's a split between amateur and pro football, Olympics becoming the amateur world championship and World Cup the pro one.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I'd start from the 30s with there being a World Cup and the start of professionalism (not sure that's a global thing???).

At least in South America from 1932 on there's a split between amateur and pro football, Olympics becoming the amateur world championship and World Cup the pro one.

Probably thereabouts most places, somewhat earlier in Italy, iirc, and of course much earlier in England and Scotland.

 

[Tuppet]

I think the comments stem from the fact that a traditional CF who can hold up defenders and drag them out to make space for others will bring out the best in Puskas and Garrincha. Rather than somebody to feed to, they are better with somebody who can assist them to shine.

I am really bemused at People not liking Romario in this role, I can may be understand it about Puskas, but Romario I obviously feel is perfect to play with Garrincha which is why they were my first & second picks. I've seen every game of 62 WC and I don't think I've seen Vava holding up the ball so he can lay it off for Garrincha play even once. I haven't actually seen Garrincha do a one two with forward at all. For Garrincha it was always collect the ball run toward the defense, beat as many people as he can and then shoot or cross.

A Traditional CF holding the ball so he can lay it off for a wing forward seem a generic play which would work well for an inside forward like CR7 but it just doesn't work with Garrincha at all. There is merit in Harms' argument that an aerially dominant forward would take advantage of the wing play but if given a trade off between having a poacher vs target man I would definitely pick former.

 

[antohan]

I am really bemused at People not liking Romario in this role, I can may be understand it about Puskas, but Romario I obviously feel is perfect to play with Garrincha which is why they were my first & second picks. I've seen every game of 62 WC and I don't think I've seen Vava holding up the ball so he can lay it off for Garrincha play even once. I haven't actually seen Garrincha do a one two with forward at all. For Garrincha it was always collect the ball run toward the defense, beat as many people as he can and then shoot or cross.

A Traditional CF holding the ball so he can lay it off for a wing forward seem a generic play which would work well for an inside forward like CR7 but it just doesn't work with Garrincha at all. There is merit in Harms' argument that an aerially dominant forward would take advantage of the wing play but if given a trade off between having a poacher vs target man I would definitely pick former.

I agree with you and don't see a problem with Garrincha-Romario at all. In fact, in the last draft I was arguing far lesser wingers would consistently deliver more crosses for a target man. No, Garrincha is more likely to cut back or drill a low cross and Romario is a far better option.

The issue has more to do with Puskas-Romario not adding to the sum of parts and jointly offering nothing aerially (there's still a left flank with Zagallo and Nilton overlapping).

As said, I think your attack would be better with Ceulemans instead of Puskas. Let alone Gullit... or Pelé obviously.

 

[Annahnomoss]

I agree with you and don't see a problem with Garrincha-Romario at all. In fact, in the last draft I was arguing far lesser wingers would consistently deliver more crosses for a target man. No, Garrincha is more likely to cut back or drill a low cross and Romario is a far better option.

The issue has more to do with Puskas-Romario not adding to the sum of parts and jointly offering nothing aerially (there's still a left flank with Zagallo and Nilton overlapping).

As said, I think your attack would be better with Ceulemans instead of Puskas. Let alone Gullit... or Pelé obviously.

Feck that, should have been Vieri/Nordahl together upfront. One of them would reach every single cross that came in the box.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

So, a second striker type who doesn't clash with Garrincha, suits Romario well, holds an insanely high standard, and offers something specific which makes the whole axis logical.

Should be easy. Pelé and...Gullit. If you want a Puskas level player whose special trait would be that he offers something more physical, plus is great in the air - well, it's them. Can't think of many others given the nature of the draft/pool.

The Belgian is great and all, but he isn't on that level, and would be much harder to sell than Puskas. So, draft-tactically speaking I can't say I blame Tuppet.

 

[antohan]

So, a second striker type who doesn't clash with Garrincha, suits Romario well, holds an insanely high standard, and offers something specific which makes the whole axis logical.

Should be easy. Pelé and...Gullit. If you want a Puskas level player whose special trait would be that he offers something more physical, plus is great in the air - well, it's them. Can't think of many others given the nature of the draft/pool.

The Belgian is great and all, but he isn't on that level, and would be much harder to sell than Puskas. So, draft-tactically speaking I can't say I blame Tuppet.

I know it wouldn't work votes-wise, the point was explaining what was missing to make it all work. That team would defo work better with Ceulemans, but if you want to win you want Pelé, simple as. The crux of it though is: Romario isn't the issue.

Translation of the wider issue (leaving aside height, etc):

Bozsik isn't Didí. In fact, he is specifically tasked with pinging balls from deep. The wings are all well and good, but who the feck is addressing 2 (if not 3) of the 5 attacking channels?

@Tuppet cleverly hid it pulling his two forwards back into the mix. I put them where they would really be and suddenly there's tonnes of space he simply isn't addressing at all.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Not bad.

I don't disagree wildly with the argument. You could say that in reality Puskas would probably drift in and out of that area to some degree, seeking out ideal positions (he would have done that), but no - it's not where he'd be per default in a '52 incarnation.

What you could do, though, if you scratch the specific aerial threat part of the business is to «simply» dig up a more generic second striker who would thrive naturally in that area - without being a ball hogger/playmaker/whatever who'd steal Garrincha's thunder. Someone shinier than Ceulemans.

 

[antohan]

Not bad.

I don't disagree wildly with the argument. You could say that in reality Puskas would probably drift in and out of that area to some degree, seeking out ideal positions (he would have done that), but no - it's not where he'd be per default in a '52 incarnation.

What you could do, though, if you scratch the specific aerial threat part of the business is to «simply» dig up a more generic second striker who would thrive naturally in that area - without being a ball hogger/playmaker/whatever who'd steal Garrincha's thunder. Someone shinier than Ceulemans.

Tonnes of AMs could try bridge that gap, David Silva would, but surely you must bring an aerial presence into it + the fact that midfield could need support defensively + the tournament peak element.

That leaves 1. Pelé 2. Gullit and 3. Get your shoe shine polish out on Ceulemans' excellent Euro 80 or WC 86.

A final and a semifinal for Belgium, you can't ask for more from their captain. It's Belgium, it's bound not to be shiny.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

It's obviously different if we're talking players who went unfancied - in that group Ceulemans is a glorious pick, to be fair.

Puskas must have gone early, though, so I imagine there were alternatives available for this idea, had Tuppet gone for it.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Hard luck @2mufc0 . You had a brilliant attack. Despite being overshadowed by Garrincha discussions, it was a well built team. Stick around for the next draft.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I agree with you and don't see a problem with Garrincha-Romario at all. In fact, in the last draft I was arguing far lesser wingers would consistently deliver more crosses for a target man. No, Garrincha is more likely to cut back or drill a low cross and Romario is a far better option.

The issue has more to do with Puskas-Romario not adding to the sum of parts and jointly offering nothing aerially (there's still a left flank with Zagallo and Nilton overlapping).

Why, Puskas - Romario? He had a great partnership with Bebeto in 94 'WC and Puskas is ideally an upgrade here.

 

[antohan]

Why, Puskas - Romario? He had a great partnership with Bebeto in 94 'WC and Puskas is ideally an upgrade here.

On that basis you could stick almost anyone better than Bebeto there and argue it would work better.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Why, Puskas - Romario? He had a great partnership with Bebeto in 94 'WC and Puskas is ideally an upgrade here.

The argument is that '52 Puskas would be an ideal foil for - well - Hidegkuti, or a player who largely operates deep, in that area highlighted above. Puskas himself would not operate there so much, but rather function as a striker (to the left).

So, the area itself - usually an important one - would be left unmanned, so to speak (Bozsik wouldn't push that far up the pitch, Zagallo wouldn't venture that far into the middle, and Puskas '52 simply wouldn't hang around there much).

It's an interesting problem. Very theoretic, though. Like I said above, in an actual match Puskas wouldn't pretend that a non-existing false nine operated somewhere behind and to the right of him - he would use that space as he saw fit, as a more «standard» second striker.

But the player picked here isn't a standard second striker, he's - specifically - the '52 version of Puskas. And so forth. Theory versus history versus fantasy.

 

[antohan]

The argument is that '52 Puskas would be an ideal foil for - well - Hidegkuti, or a player who largely operates deep, in that area highlighted above. Puskas himself would not operate there so much, but rather function as a striker (to the left).

So, the area itself - usually an important one - would be left unmanned, so to speak (Bozsik wouldn't push that far up the pitch, Zagallo wouldn't venture that far into the middle, and Puskas '52 simply wouldn't hang around there much).

It's an interesting problem. Very theoretic, though. Like I said above, in an actual match Puskas wouldn't pretend that a non-existing false nine operated somewhere behind and to the right of him - he would use that space as he saw fit, as a more «standard» second striker.

But the player picked here isn't a standard second striker, he's - specifically - the '52 version of Puskas. And so forth. Theory versus history versus fantasy.

Indeed. But at some point you must draw the line. If you are participating in a draft based on players' peak tournament performance then you should deploy them to operate in the same peak role. Else it's like picking Brehme '90 and sticking him at RB because, well, we know he could do that too.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yes, that's the thing.

If the peak and the pick is specific, you have to put some emphasis on that.

IIRC it was stated explicitly early on that you weren't allowed to use general footage of the player to illustrate that he can do this or that - it had to be footage from the tournament you select as his peak.

So, based on that - well, the challenge would be to show '52 Puskas as more of a typical second striker, operating in that «problem area» we're talking about. Stick him up front and claim that he'd work with an AM or a second striker, or any fecker who hangs out more or less in the hole - and it should be easy.

What you need is himself in the hole, so to speak.

 

[Tuppet]

I know it wouldn't work votes-wise, the point was explaining what was missing to make it all work. That team would defo work better with Ceulemans, but if you want to win you want Pelé, simple as. The crux of it though is: Romario isn't the issue.

Translation of the wider issue (leaving aside height, etc):

Bozsik isn't Didí. In fact, he is specifically tasked with pinging balls from deep. The wings are all well and good, but who the feck is addressing 2 (if not 3) of the 5 attacking channels?

@Tuppet cleverly hid it pulling his two forwards back into the mix. I put them where they would really be and suddenly there's tonnes of space he simply isn't addressing at all.

Hmm its a good point, however in practice situation is hardly as extreme. We are playing a 4-2-4, which is similar to what Brazil 62 played. The place where Puskas is right now was taken by Amarildo who was basically a Left/Center forward. If anything Puskas is going to drop deeper more often than he did (all that attack together, defend together thing). The role of bridging that gap between midfield and attack falls onto the right half (Right central midfielder) Didi, and Bozsik is totally capable of playing it here, its infact a role that he played most his career. While like Didi he is very much a passer first, he was at least as agile and adventurous as 34 years old Didi was.

Hidegkuti was almost universally referred to as a withdrawn centre-forward, but the term is misleading, derived largely from his shirt number. He was, in modern terminology, simply an attacking midfielder. ‘I usually took up my position around the middle of the field on [József] Zakariás’ side,’ he explained, ‘while [József] Bozsik on the other flank often moved up as far as the opposition’s penalty area, and scored quite a number of goals, too.

Fluidity is all very well, but, of course, the more fluid a team is, the harder it is to retain the structures necessary to defend. That is where Sebes excelled. He was so concerned with detail that he had his side practise with the heavier English balls and on a training pitch with the same dimensions as Wembley, and his notebook shows a similar care for the tactical side of the game. He encouraged the two full-backs, Buzánszky and Mihály Lantos, to advance, but that meant the centre-half, Gyula Lóránt, dropping even deeper, into a position not dissimilar to the sweeper in Karl Rappan’s verrou system. Puskás had licence to roam, while Bozsik, notionally the right-half, was encouraged to push forwards to support Hidegkuti. That required a corresponding defensive presence, which was provided by the left-half, Zakariás, who, in the tactical plan for the game Sebes sketched in his notebook, appears so deep he is almost playing between the two full-backs. Two full-backs, two central defensive presences, two players running the middle and four up front: the Hungarian system was a hair’s-breadth from 4-2-4.

I suppose its my fault to not make this point more explicit, and giving the impression that Bozsik is sitting deep playing more like Pirlo (Well at least old Pirlo) while he is playing a natural CM role here.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Part of the problem, specifically, is the idea (as conveyed) of Bozsik as fairly static/pinging - yes. Imagine him being more dynamic (which he certainly could be), and you get more activity in that area of the pitch.

It still doesn't solve the potential issue, though, because you still lack that AM piece of the puzzle which Hidegkuti represents. You can't have Bozsik operating as an actual AM, as that would feck up the balance the other way, and the fluency of the setup in which he played his natural game did depend on having Hidegkuti there. Nominal inside forward becomes more like a striker, nominal striker actually becoming an AM, etc.

But, yeah, if you stress that Boszik would venture up into AM territory as part of the gameplan, it would certainly look more balanced offensively, and would give '52 Puskas more of the familiar movement around him (we are still imagining that he, himself, would stick to his historical role).

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

On that basis you could stick almost anyone better than Bebeto there and argue it would work better.

It was just in relation to lack of aerial ability in that duo.

The argument is that '52 Puskas would be an ideal foil for - well - Hidegkuti, or a player who largely operates deep, in that area highlighted above. Puskas himself would not operate there so much, but rather function as a striker (to the left).

So, the area itself - usually an important one - would be left unmanned, so to speak (Bozsik wouldn't push that far up the pitch, Zagallo wouldn't venture that far into the middle, and Puskas '52 simply wouldn't hang around there much).

Agreed. Personally I'd rather have Baggio than either Puskas or Ceulemans there.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Having said all that, there's something absurd about imagining Puskas (and now Bozsik, partly) playing their familiar roles as per a blueprint - because they most likely wouldn't do that with Garrincha being the obvious main man in the team.

It comes back to the Garrincha conundrum, in other words.

Put it like this, if you will, playing '52 Puskas (one of the greatest players ever) may make the Garrincha conundrum more pronounced. Swap Puskas with someone who doesn't have that «needs to interact with some kind of AM (because strictly speaking he won't operate much in the hole himself)» tag, and you are freer to find a second striker who would work well enough with a) Romario as his partner, and b) Garrincha as the (idiosyncratic) band leader without having to worry about all sorts of pesky details.

 

[antohan]

I suppose its my fault to not make this point more explicit, and giving the impression that Bozsik is sitting deep playing more like Pirlo (Well at least old Pirlo) while he is playing a natural CM role here.

I have to admit I skim through the walls of text. The headline and first paragraph was all about ball-pinging, long range passing, picking out Garrincha, Puskas, etc. I still think you 1st lack a player who is largely dedicated to working the channels behind Romario, 2nd an aerial presence to exploit crosses, 3rd if that player also got stuck into the midfield battle it would help no end with a midfield pair which is bound to be overloaded by other midfields.

Someone like Baggio 94 would shore up 1 better than Puskas, while losing nothing (relative GOAT standing goes out of the window if we are talking peak tourno form). Pelé shores up 1 and 2 (and 3 to some extent, to be fair, although nobody will give him any credit for that). Gullit shores up 1, 2 and 3 (but Pelé will add more in the priority ones). Ceulemans would do the latter fittingly, but you obviously wouldn't go far with him in such a big role (you would have had a better functioning side here though).

It was just in relation to lack of aerial ability in that duo.

Agreed. Personally I'd rather have Baggio than either Puskas or Ceulemans there.

See above

Having said all that, there's something absurd about imagining Puskas (and now Bozsik, partly) playing their familiar roles as per a blueprint - because they most likely wouldn't do that with Garrincha being the obvious main man in the team.

It comes back to the Garrincha conundrum, in other words.

Put it like this, if you will, playing '52 Puskas (one of the greatest players ever) may make the Garrincha conundrum more pronounced. Swap Puskas with someone who doesn't have that «needs to interact with some kind of AM (because strictly speaking he won't operate much in the hole himself)» tag, and you are freer to find a second striker who would work well enough with a) Romario as his partner, and b) Garrincha as the (idiosyncratic) band leader without having to worry about all sorts of pesky details.

Agreed. The team is supposed to be built around Garrincha, and that's why I focus on Puskas: Zagallo/Santos, Romario and Andrade behind Mané are spot on. The playmaker/destroyer tandem in midfield works for me (you would prefer Didí, but there's nothing wrong with Bozsik as Plan B). Puskas is the misfit.

 

[2mufc0]

Hard luck @2mufc0 . You had a brilliant attack. Despite being overshadowed by Garrincha discussions, it was a well built team. Stick around for the next draft.

Thanks! will do.