I like both teams, they're well assembled with no glaring weak links. Particularly like Edgar's diamond midfield, it would really get the best out of those four with Gascoigne full of energy, McManaman a superb fetch-and-carrier, Brady offering class and invention, Stiles holding the shape. Equally though no negative comments on Barney and Joga's side, Franklin is a class act, Keegan/McGrory would make a great duo, and like @Chesterlestreet I can see this being Barnes' game.
British + Irish Draft (Barney/Joga vs Edgar) Group D
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
@Gio
@Chesterlestreet
Would appreciate some opinions on how his defense fares against my attack.
I still think I can outscore 'the Barnes game'
@Chesterlestreet
Would appreciate some opinions on how his defense fares against my attack.
I still think I can outscore 'the Barnes game'
Well, in general it's a well balanced defense - with some truly great players in it. O' Leary is run-of-the-mill in this context, nothing special, but solid. The others, however, are great players in one way or the other and with Greig playing a decidedly defensive role I think it's solid enough to handle your attack, even though you're fielding two strikers who will be a handful (being very different - Hughes strong as hell, Owen fast and slippery), with Gazza surging forward behind them. It's an even match for me, which means there could certainly be a goal in it for you - I just don't think it'll be quite enough.
Agreed. John Greig was voted the Greatest Ranger ever by fans and was a versatile player with excellent defensive and leadership qualities.
Armfield is probably England's greatest right back of all time. He won the greatest right back in WC 62 and won best full back in Europe between 62-64, a period when he was regarded as the best full back in the world.
Franklin was, as Gio aptly said, a class act and a truly brilliant all round centre back who was immensely talented.
David O'Leary in such esteemed company is going to be a tad underrated but he was the kind of defender who went by his job without ever sticking out or being spectacular. He was more in the school of Rio/Moore than a Vidic/Terry. Not comparing their quality with his but rather putting his style into context. Tbf his lack of success with Ireland and lean years with Arsenal didn't help but he was a top centre back on his day. Peterstorey puts him up there with the likes of McGrath and Ferdinand. A bit biased maybe but he did put him in his Arsenal all time XI.
My defense might be underappreciated but we think it is pretty great. Most certainly not inferior to a certain defense 'hands down'
.Well thats just my opinion anyway.I wonder what that defence isMost certainly not inferior to a certain defense 'hands down'
It's not really like that though. Leaving aside the fact you are ignoring the presence of the best DM on the pitch, the moment you say both Scholes and Souness are sitting deep and not playing box-to-box at all they look a bit stranded and easier to press. I would also add when dealing with players with that degree of genius, I'd much rather have equally intelligent footballers committed to that task and able to read their intentions than some neanderthal defensive mid. Of course, an intelligent DM would be better but, so long as the workrate and discipline is there I favour intelligence over "destroyership".
On the other hand, you face much bigger problems because his geniuses are free to link-up, move and play in a free-flowing way which will make it much harder for Scholes-Souness to contain even if they are intelligent footballers and defensively more sound. Static vs. moving, static is easier to contain, it's daft to argue otherwise. And you don't even have a spare Stiles...
Concur, the only thing that keeps chipping away in my mind is Barnes, not Keegan. Thing is I can also see EAPs entire diamond shining brightly as well, and Brady-Gascoigne shining brightest.
They are intelligent players alright but I wouldn't call them defensively sound or the right type of players to take on Scholes-Souness. Someone more defensively apt like Seedorf/Breitner would be ideal for those diamond slots. Id clearly left out Stiles as he is the holding midfielder and has his hands full with Keegan and won't be in my midfield duo zones.
Using their intelligence to read others intentions and defend. Now there's something I never thought I'd hear
.I struggle to see how 2 deep players who are solely focused on the midfield, with a spare Keegan who you are ignoring, will find it 'much harder' against 3 primarily offensive players (rather deficient defensively imo other than when it comes to workrate) of whom 2 also have a job of giving cover for their full backs. You make it sound like there are 4 midgets in the middle tiki taka-ing past 2 hopeless midfielders
.But then again i dont blame you, it has become the norm nowdays to view 4-4-2 in a negative light, even one with industrious wingers and a workaholic SS.
Last edited:
Tbf I did deserve it after needlessly mentioning Brown in the OP.I wonder what that defence is
Nothing against O' Leary - certainly not. He was a top CB on his day, as you say. It's just that there are quite a few in that category in this draft, players who were first rate in the league at the time. I'd have O' Leary in, say, the Butcher/Bruce/Pally/Walker bracket, somewhere around that level - below yer Rios, certainly, but a very good player nevertheless.
And, yes - there is a point to be made here about lack of success and lean years. I have the same problem with Rice, I reckon. Not much between him and Dixon, yet the latter is bound to be an easier sell because he was part of a more successful Arse vintage. Extend that one to our Gaz - and the thing becomes very obvious: Solid, loyal, hard working, mentally brilliant, intelligent players, but clearly not exceptional footballers. Was Neville a much better right back than...whoever, really, in that bracket? Not as such, not really, perhaps a wee bit - but the actual selling point is nevertheless his trophy haul, to put it brutally simple.
Name of the game, though, obviously - nowt to do 'bout it.
Hey, hey, hey....settle down there, you
Heh! No, I'm serious - and it's not any great slight on Neville either, I reckon: How many truly brilliant footballers at right back are out there? In this draft, in particular? Not that many, I reckon - and Neville's qualities made him an excellent player in his position. But I think it's obvious that he wasn't a great player - and in all honesty he wasn't head and shoulders above someone like Lee Dixon, not in my opinion anyway.Hey, hey, hey....settle down there, you
Yeah not too many outstanding RBs in this draft. McGrain, Neville, Neal and Armfield all in with a shout amongst others but even then the margins are very fine.
No, I'd agree with you for the most part. I don't think it would be outrageous to have most of the top 4 right backs in this draft in any particular order from 1-4. The biggest reason Neville worked so well was because of the way he played with Beckham, which would be the biggest advantage in his favour here...but as a stand alone RB, I agree he wouldn't stand above Dixon, etc.
I've got to go now and probably won't be back till the match ends. 7-8 as of now and it can go either way.
Regardless of the result, great game @Edgar Allan Pillow . You've assembled a fine team.
Regardless of the result, great game @Edgar Allan Pillow . You've assembled a fine team.
The Bundesliga really was incredibly strong in the late 70's/early 80's and it's a bit of a shame that our teams regularly fecked up CL finals despite being the 'better' team. I was always surprised that it was that highly rated by France Football though, we had 6 consecutive Ballon d'Or winners from 76 to 81 (Beckenbauer, Simonsen, Keegan twice, Rummenigge twice) and only one (Sammer in 96) in the following 33 years
. As an example how strong the Bundesliga was, we were really dominant in the UEFA Cup for a while, 3 German semifinalists in 79 when Gladbach won it, followed by an all German semifinal (crazy, I know) in 1980 when Frankfurt won it.I agree that it was a time inbetween superstars though, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Müller were past their peak and the Platini, Maradona era was only about to start. Rummenigge was probably the only exception, but Keegan and Simonsen are a bit underrated because the Bundesliga always lacked that special flair that attracts worldwide attention, doesn't capture the imagination of foreign fans. The Gladbach side from the 70's is easily one of the most underrated teams ever because of it and were unlucky like few other teams to never win the European Cup.
Last edited:
I reckon Keegan suffers a bit from what Balu says here - the relatively "unglamorous" air of the Bundesliga compared to Serie A or what have ya, which is probably more of a retrospective phenomenon than anything these days, in the sense that people look back and compare the BL over the years to other big leagues. It was clearly a well recognized league back in the 70s, as evidenced by all those Ballon winners.
That said, Keegan for me has always been an odd one. I was too young to properly see him in his absolute pomp (the Ballon years - I was a nipper at the time), but growing up I remember two things very distinctly about Keegan: 1. He was a superstar - as in THE most talked about player around the time I became aware that there was such a thing as superstar footballers. 2. As I became somewhat older I never came across ONE person who rated Keegan above, say, Dalglish - or even less obvious candidates.
He had a reputation for being what is now popularly called "overrated". And seeing him play...I don't know. Perhaps it's more prejudice than anything, but to me there's something manic about him which "shines" in the place where something else should be, given that he's gone and won two Ballons on the trot: He lacks genius, I'm tempted to say - knowing well that it's flimsy as feck.
But that - the lack of genius thing - is something many others have remarked on too over the years. I remember reading somewhere that Keegan is the epitome of the sort of player I went on about above - the Neville type - in that he made it to the very top of the game without possessing an excess of natural talent. In that he would be absolutely unique, if it's even partly true: Achieving such success and such recognition from...what? Hard bloody work, I guess - and he was always known for that, of course. But still - flimsy, at least partially so. If we're talking second strikers - as opposed to No 10s - there can't be many you can claim is clearly better than Keegan. It's just this...thing...which hangs over him.
He's a bit weird, Keegan - I think that sums it up.
That said, Keegan for me has always been an odd one. I was too young to properly see him in his absolute pomp (the Ballon years - I was a nipper at the time), but growing up I remember two things very distinctly about Keegan: 1. He was a superstar - as in THE most talked about player around the time I became aware that there was such a thing as superstar footballers. 2. As I became somewhat older I never came across ONE person who rated Keegan above, say, Dalglish - or even less obvious candidates.
He had a reputation for being what is now popularly called "overrated". And seeing him play...I don't know. Perhaps it's more prejudice than anything, but to me there's something manic about him which "shines" in the place where something else should be, given that he's gone and won two Ballons on the trot: He lacks genius, I'm tempted to say - knowing well that it's flimsy as feck.
But that - the lack of genius thing - is something many others have remarked on too over the years. I remember reading somewhere that Keegan is the epitome of the sort of player I went on about above - the Neville type - in that he made it to the very top of the game without possessing an excess of natural talent. In that he would be absolutely unique, if it's even partly true: Achieving such success and such recognition from...what? Hard bloody work, I guess - and he was always known for that, of course. But still - flimsy, at least partially so. If we're talking second strikers - as opposed to No 10s - there can't be many you can claim is clearly better than Keegan. It's just this...thing...which hangs over him.
He's a bit weird, Keegan - I think that sums it up.
@Chesterlestreet
Keegan wasn't the most naturally talented and did lack a bit of sheer flair and genius which you'd typically associate with balon d'Or winning forwards.
Viewed as an individual in isolation, perhaps he didn't deserve those awards but Keegan had one thing going for him that many players more talented than him don't normally possess imo. That was his ability to be an influential talisman, elevate his team and drive them on.
Keegan wasn't the most naturally talented and did lack a bit of sheer flair and genius which you'd typically associate with balon d'Or winning forwards.
Viewed as an individual in isolation, perhaps he didn't deserve those awards but Keegan had one thing going for him that many players more talented than him don't normally possess imo. That was his ability to be an influential talisman, elevate his team and drive them on.
Although in saying that, the fact that he won his first balon d'Or when Hamburg finished 10th (if I'm not mistaken) and he allegedly had troubles settling in puzzles me. Were his individual performances that good or was the overall talent pool for balon d'Or that poor? Perhaps @Balu could enlighten us here on his performances for Hamburg that season.
It looks puzzling on the face of it, certainly. Not least when you consider that he struggled a bit settling in, so he certainly didn't have a perfect season. They did indeed finish 10th, with Keegan scoring 12 goals (hardly the stuff of legend). As for other candidates, there were several big names knocking about in those years - Krol, Rensenbrink, Rummenigge, a young Platini was starting to make an impression, etc.
Yet another odd factor is that Keegan was brought to Hamburg as a Messiah of sorts, record transfer (I think, not sure about that), highest earner in the league, was clearly expected to set the BL on fire - and then they go and finish 10th.
However, the Ballon was awarded at the end of the calendar year back then too, wasn't it? So, Keegan's exploits in the first half of his second season would have been considered too - and Hamburg were much better then (ended up winning the league). In other words, his first Ballon would have been awarded based partly on the second half of his last season for Liverpool - which was excellent. And that would go some way towards explaining this.
EDIT Ignore that - I'm talking bollocks. His first Ballon came in '78 and would have been based on the first half of the excellent second season (in which Hamburg won the league).
He was nominated for the '77 Ballon too (came in second) - and THAT would have been based partly on his excellent last season for Liverpool.
Last edited:
Do you really think I can read the mind of all those journalists who voted for the Ballon d'Or in 1978 ? There obviously wasn't a standout European footballer that season (Kempes dominated the World Cup and the best European team was Holland without their superstar Cruyff) and after a bad first season, Hamburg started incredibly well with Keegan being the driving force in the team. If you look at the Ballon d'Or votes back then, it probably was the winner with the least points overall, so you could say it was a bit of a best of a bad bunch thing:
http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/europa-poy78.html
Pos Player Country Club Total 1P 2P 3P 4P 5P Votes
===========================================================================================================
1. Kevin Keegan England Hamburger SV 87 9 6 4 3 - 22
2. Hans Krankl Austria FC Barcelona 81 8 3 8 2 1 22
3. Rob Rensenbrink Netherlands Anderlecht 50 3 4 4 3 1 15
4. Roberto Bettega Italy Juventus 28 1 1 2 6 1 11
5. Paolo Rossi Italy Lanerossi Vicenza 23 - 2 3 2 2 9
6. Ronnie Hellström Sweden Kaiserslautern 20 2 1 - 1 4 8
Ruud Krol Netherlands Ajax 20 1 2 - 2 3 8
8. Kenny Dalglish Scotland Livepool 10 - 1 1 1 1 4
Allan Simonsen Denmark Borussia M’Gladbach 10 - 1 - 2 2 5
10. Peter Shilton England Nottingham Forest 9 - 1 1 1 - 3
It's definitely interesting that Dalglish wasn't rated very highly back then, despite scoring the winner in the final to give Liverpool a 2nd consecutive European Cup win.
He won it in 1978 though, in December. Which means he was already playing in Germany for 18months. He finished 2nd the previous year at the back of his performances for Liverpool, when they beat Gladbach in the European Cup final. Unless I completely fecked up the timeline in my head now, which is definitely possible
Good point forgot about that. Keegan's ridiculous form at the start of that year and the fact that Liverpool would have won a quadruple, had it not been for us
, with Keegan being their driving force means it was rather well deserved then, despite his poor second half of the year.No - you're absolutely right. I edited my post above - was talking bollocks there.He won it in 1978 though, in December. Which means he was already playing in Germany for 18months. He finished 2nd the previous year at the back of his performances for Liverpool, when they beat Gladbach in the European Cup final. Unless I completely fecked up the timeline in my head now, which is definitely possible
It's helpful to get that perspective on the Bundesliga. I can see Theon's point there for a couple of reasons. While the 1982 and 1986 World Cups boasted a lot of exciting and technically impressive football, 1978 was a bit meh in many ways. And even considering the club game, that Liverpool team, no doubt under-appreciated here, don't really stack up against the 2-4 very best club sides of all time - despite winning 4 European Cups. Same goes for Forest - do we for example have a single Forest player in the draft?! Or we look at how not a single European team won the Intercontinental Cup between Bayern in 1976 and Juventus in 1985. Not that these weren't anything but great sides, but maybe evident of a blip at the top end of the European game.The Bundesliga really was incredibly strong in the late 70's/early 80's and it's a bit of a shame that our teams regularly fecked up CL finals despite being the 'better' team. I was always surprised that it was that highly rated by France Football though, we had 6 consecutive Ballon d'Or winners from 76 to 81 (Beckenbauer, Simonsen, Keegan twice, Rummenigge twice) and only one (Sammer in 96) in the following 33 years
I agree that it was a time inbetween superstars though, Cruyff, Beckenbauer, Müller were past their peak and the Platini, Maradona era was only about to start. Rummenigge was probably the only exception, but Keegan and Simonsen are a bit underrated because the Bundesliga always lacked that special flair that attracts worldwide attention, doesn't capture the imagination of foreign fans. The Gladbach side from the 70's is easily one of the most underrated teams ever because of it and were unlucky like few other teams to never win the European Cup.
Only Forest man in the draft is Viv Anderson, I think. The obvious omission, if one can put it like that, would be Trevor Francis - he could have gone here, given some of the others who have gone. But it wasn't exactly a star studded side - the manager was a bigger star than any of the players, I'd say.
Oh, and Shilton, obviously - but we all know how that keeper thing went down...
http://www.theguardian.com/football...eegan-hamburg-liverpool-ballon-dor-bundesliga
Nice article on Keegan's brief stay in Germany.
Nice article on Keegan's brief stay in Germany.
Up until the mid 70's European football really was at an incredible high, one that we haven't seen since in my opinion. Best, Eusebio, Beckenbauer and Cruyff are all born within 5 years and each of them had club sides to back up their brilliance. There definitely was a bit of a drop after those four had peaked, add to it that Southamerican football caught up with the tactical development in Europe and it makes sense that Southamerican football became more dominant.
From 1985 onwards it changed again, more and more Southamerican players went to Europe, which I guess lead to a European dominance in the Intercontinental Cup/Club world cup since.
We were looking at John Robertson as a possibility if we couldn't get Lennox. A very good player, and I'm surprised he wasn't picked, but it certainly wasn't a team that was overflowing with big names as you say. I looked at the Villa team that won the EC in 1982 and it was even more lacking in obvious quality, although they did beat a Bayern side with some huge names in the final.
Both Villa and Forest played Uruguayan teams in the Intercontinental Cup. I remember watching them and thinking I certainly wasn't missing out on anything if that was what the English league had to offer. Boring and workmanlike, they seemed to be completely dazzled when confronted with even minor flashes of flair/genius.
Not bad waking up to a win.
Great game and I was so sure that I would lose the lead eventually. Your player profiles were so interesting!
All the best for your next game.
Aye, in that Villa team Tony Morley jumps out as one of the few with any real flair. I remember Gordan Cowans as a good midfielder even when he got old, but for the most part it was a very workmanlike team as you say.
Well done EAP, great win against one of the strongest teams in the draft!
You too. Great game and discussions. Enjoyed it.
Sorry I haven't got back earlier, been busy writing my own write up and mainly had the phone to access. I think that is a really good response, the right way no doubt to use your midfielders. Would have made the game a lot closer and I feel lucky I didn't have the time to read up on this thread.
Very smart tactical choice though! Often people hold it against you if you don't play every player in their best position/role, but sometimes it is necessary to make the team function and play better as a whole.
Damn you. It could have made a lot more than the game closer if your vote was different You should read it if you have the time though, its a pretty decent discussion.
Yeah I agreed with EAP that we didn't utilize Scholes and Souness in their best roles but utilized them best as per what this match required. We would have used them in their more adventurous roles if we had played against a midfield duo or heck even a trio but against a diamond it would have been suicide.
We also had a real workhorse in Keegan always dropping deep, getting in the thick of things and being influential. Even if he didn't have a great game individually, his phenomenal work rate and ability to drop deep would have quite easily have facilitated a deep midfield duo. There could be better attacking mids/SS in the draft but I can't think of a more suitable player for this mobile link-up role.
Besides our wingers were always going to get more joy attacking the relatively less manned flanks, with reliable service from Scholes, than my central midfielders attacking through the centre esp against Stiles.
To me it seems to me that you are damned if you do or damned if you don't when it comes to Scholes-Souness or similar duos. If we play them as box to box players, we can't control matches and our back four has no protection. If we play them in deeper conservative roles, then we aren't using them in their best roles, they will be stifled and won't play well. Unfortunately it seems too easy to downplay the 4-4-2 or its variant esp with the current state of affairs in football
Agree. I think this is due the the extreme specialization of roles in football now. You need to be a DM, CM or AM. A combination (traditional box-to-box) seems to have lost it's place in the teams today. In current situation, a player needs to have a specific job to perform out there.
Example was Matthaus in one of the recent drafts. He had to be a DM or a attacking CM. If it's happening to Matthaus, then anyone else is open season.