Behind the Curtain draft (Eastern Europe) | Final| Skizzo vs Gio 18:15

[Chesterlestreet]

...certainly not when we've set him in front of the two hardest working and defensively responsible midfielders in the entire pool.

No issue with that myself - think it would work well. However, I see Puskas/Kocsis as a striking partnership more than anything (with Puskas operating in a fairly free second striker role which isn’t unlike what he played during his peak years). You haven’t tried to sell him as anything he isn’t in my opinion (I buy your description of what he would actually do here), but people may have gotten a wrong-ish sort of impression both from the formation pic (where he sits conspicuously deep) and parts of the discussion (where he’s being mentioned alongside Nedved in a “squaring up” kind of way).

Add to that the fact that people will think of him as someone who did his best work alongside a false 9 and an outstanding, orchestrating 10 - and there you have it. I stress again that I don’t have an issue with it myself - but it’s understandable that people may take it as something more unorthodox than it actually is.

 

[Enigma_87]

Some fair comments there Enigma, but a couple I have to challenge.

I think you're underestimating how capable Voronin was of running a game. He linked defence with midfield not just with his ability to go box-to-box but also his quality on the ball.

Secondly, I'm not sure why Boniek and Nedved become part of the midfield "battle" when the same doesn't apply for our own wide players. And if Skizzo's attacking players are more involved in defensive duties recovering possession, it seriously blunts what attacking output they can produce.

While I agree that Skizzo's team is well designed on its own merits, I don't think it is particularly well set up to facing someone like Puskas nor does it have the top-end full-backs to deal with Blokhin and Stoichkov. Critical match-changing differences IMO.

Nah I don't underestimate Voronin or Pluskal, both are quality obviously and one of the best midfielders in the draft, but they are up against a very versatile and hard working midfield, which will deny space and time on the ball. As good as Voronin is, he's no Bozsik or Modric when it comes to playmaking and you'll need someone to link the lines and carry the ball. Sure Voronin is an excellent option, but that makes your game a bit more predictable - if Skizzo's team neutralizes Voronin (they have the numbers and quality to overload the midfield) his team can control the game and cut the supply for your forwards. You have a lot of ball carriers, but not many passers that can provide the killer assist.

Even from the back you have Khurtsilava as the only possibility to start an attack with a pass. Both Lovchev and Bessonov are ball carriers and good crossers but moving the ball in a saturated zones like the midfield and Skizzo's wingers harassing the defence constantly is a major issue.

I disagree with this:

Secondly, I'm not sure why Boniek and Nedved become part of the midfield "battle" when the same doesn't apply for our own wide players. And if Skizzo's attacking players are more involved in defensive duties recovering possession, it seriously blunts what attacking output they can produce.

Nedved and Boniek are really those special kind of players that having defensive duties and recovering possession won't hurt their game - on the contrary they epitomize work rate and being team players. Nedved is in the Davids/Cafu tier when it comes to work rate - you can't get better than that, while Boniek is just the level below with Keane's, Kantes, Vidal, Makelele's and the likes. Sure, Stoichkov and Blokhin work hard but they are not in the same league when it comes to supporting the midfield.

What Boniek and Nedved are expected to do here is exactly their biggest virtue in the game - being able to switch it, participate in both phases, and if I might add (not necessary @Skizzo would agree) but depict pretty well his team here - not the biggest talents individually in terms of single criteria - creativity, passing, goalscoring, crossing, etc - but colectivelly they are near the top in every element which fits very well in the entire theme of the team - a unit that compliments pretty well and is not dependent on single part to work properly.

I was pretty surprised in the reinforcement round I think I mentioned it in the main thread. You put Bozsik in Voronin and Voronin in Pluskal's place and for me were the clear winners here. It would change the entire flow of the team dramatically. Sure it won't have the glamour of having Puskas in the ranks and form the grand partnership with Kocsis but you'll have advantage in every area with Bozsik pulling the strings and an already great attacking trio in Stoichkov/Kocsis/Blokhin.

 

[Moby]

I wouldn't waste much time typing as Enigma has pretty much hit the nail on the head on most of the issues here.

I wouldn't call this a 4-2-3-1, Gio, it should be a 4-2-4 if you intend on getting the best out of all those players. Not having a proper creative presence in your team has been an issue for you the whole draft and I don't think you have addressed it here. I much prefer Puskas in a forward role either down the left channel or in a front two or even up front with a creative midfielder in the spot you have him now. Had I won I was going to use him and Kocsis as a front two with Stojkovic behind as the creative #10. For me that's his best use, he's not wasted or anything here but he doesn't compensate what a creative midfielder would bring to the team.

I still think your first formation was best suited for your key players. I don't think you needed BOTH Pluskal and Voronin, Voronin was ace in that role as Enigma said and good enough to provide the platform for a wider creative and expressive cast ahead of him. Those two DMs have looked a bit of an overkill for me and in this case it looks like have 4 forwards and 2 DMs with not a huge deal linking them up in the middle.

 

[Enigma_87]

@Skizzo personally I think Gio/Theon have the better full back pair. Bessonov is one of the outstanding right backs in the pool, same probably for Lovchev, however I'd put couple in front of him at least.

Your full backs though are in more restricted/balanced roles. You have Boniek/Dzajic as more conventional outside wingers in terms of stretching the play and providing crosses in the box, which makes their role a bit "easier" in terms of what is expected from them compared to Bessonov/Lovchev providing width and option in attack to more of wide forward roles that Blokhin and Stoichkov have.

So again as multiple matchups in this game it's not about the quality of the individuals but rather the unit that you have across the park and the ability to compliment and help each other, hence more variation in attack and expect more predictable balls in defence.

If I might get back to the reinforcement round I think Gio/Theon did you a favor there without going for some really notable names that would bring another dimension to their game. Bozsik, Piksi, Modric, Hagi, Hidegkuti - is a great wealth of talent that would fit right in the team and link it all up, which would then work in their favor making it two 4-2-3-1's and having the individual quality in the h2h battles as a decider. I think your plan is also more straightforward as you don't go into personal battles across the park but playing to your strengths - your team.

 

[Gio]

What I'm unclear on Enigma is how our lack of playmakers is such a decisive issue when such Bozsik-esque players do not exist on the opposing team. If anything I expected Skizzo to go for Bozsik to strengthen a weak spot and to create a more credible route for the ball to reach his forwards. That was never really Nedved's game - his strength was more about the ball-carrying qualities you've identified in my full-backs. To be consistent you'd have to question the likelihood of Skizzos front three getting that quality service.

With respect to my central midfield balance, we had that debate earlier on in the draft and a consensus emerged IIRC that's Voronin and Pluskal was a very strong combination and one which provided a robust platform to the attackers in front of them. Understandably there are different perspectives around that depending on individual stylistic preferences - e.g. Aldo and yourself prefer a DLP in most midfields.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

You have a lot of ball carriers, but not many passers that can provide the killer assist.

That would be Puskas, I suppose. And it's not hard to see him threading someone through from his free-ish second striker position even though he obviously isn't an actual playmaker in the conventional sense.

The way I see him operate here is pretty much a "classic" second striker role - someone who will provide a) trickery, b) goals and c) throughballs and the like for runners.

It's not a perfect analogy, but for the sake of convenience think something like a Fergie setup: Keano and a water carrier - and then Cantona in that crucial second striker role. It's a setup without a typical string puller (no pure 10 and no pure playmaker deeper either) - but it should nevertheless work. I agree that Bozsik/Voronin would have been a very tasty combo, but I don't think one has to insist on a super playmaker in all setups (there's a tendency to do that in these drafts - and it's potentially a bit dangerous, as it limits what sort of setups people are "allowed" to go for, if you catch my meaning).

 

[Tuppet]

What I'm unclear on Enigma is how our lack of playmakers is such a decisive issue when such Bozsik-esque players do not exist on the opposing team. If anything I expected Skizzo to go for Bozsik to strengthen a weak spot and to create a more credible route for the ball to reach his forwards. That was never really Nedved's game - his strength was more about the ball-carrying qualities you've identified in my full-backs. To be consistent you'd have to question the likelihood of Skizzos front three getting that quality service.

With respect to my central midfield balance, we had that debate earlier on in the draft and a consensus emerged IIRC that's Voronin and Pluskal was a very strong combination and one which provided a robust platform to the attackers in front of them. Understandably there are different perspectives around that depending on individual stylistic preferences - e.g. Aldo and yourself prefer a DLP in most midfields.

Yeah thats kinda true, sadly the best playmaker in both team is on bench in Deyna.

 

[Enigma_87]

What I'm unclear on Enigma is how our lack of playmakers is such a decisive issue when such Bozsik-esque players do not exist on the opposing team. If anything I expected Skizzo to go for Bozsik to strengthen a weak spot and to create a more credible route for the ball to reach his forwards. That was never really Nedved's game - his strength was more about the ball-carrying qualities you've identified in my full-backs. To be consistent you'd have to question the likelihood of Skizzos front three getting that quality service.

With respect to my central midfield balance, we had that debate earlier on in the draft and a consensus emerged IIRC that's Voronin and Pluskal was a very strong combination and one which provided a robust platform to the attackers in front of them. Understandably there are different perspectives around that depending on individual stylistic preferences - e.g. Aldo and yourself prefer a DLP in most midfields.

That's the thing - Skizzo's midfield/wingers are Netto - excellent in one two's and pinging up passes in the middle, Jugovic - top passer both in terms of range and precision, Nedved capable of creating space, with and without the ball. Boniek and Nedved both are not outstanding in that aspect as I mentioned but pretty much top quality. They are not dependent on one man to run the game rather than the movement and synergy between the lines.

Can Jugovic, Nedved, and Netto provide the killer pass or keep the ball ticking in midfield? Absolutely. Can Pluskal and Voronin do the same? Possibly, but being outnumbered in that zone makes it unlikely for me.

In essence Skizzo's team doesn't have a Zidane or Ronaldinho or Maradona in it, to run the game, and 2 hard working midfielders to provide the stage, but they are not set up for that either - they have a lot of passers who might not be at the very top level to those names, but are world class in that aspect and generally have divided responsibilities on the pitch.

To me a lot of that playmaking work in your team is down to one man, where lies the difference. I don't think Pluskal can help in that sense neither you have a libero (Baresi/Bekenbauer or let's take Sammer from the pool) who can distribute the ball from deep.

 

[Gio]

That's the thing - Skizzo's midfield/wingers are Netto - excellent in one two's and pinging up passes in the middle, Jugovic - top passer both in terms of range and precision, Nedved capable of creating space, with and without the ball. Boniek and Nedved both are not outstanding in that aspect as I mentioned but pretty much top quality. They are not dependent on one man to run the game rather than the movement and synergy between the lines.

Can Jugovic, Nedved, and Netto provide the killer pass or keep the ball ticking in midfield? Absolutely. Can Pluskal and Voronin do the same? Possibly, but being outnumbered in that zone makes it unlikely for me.

In essence Skizzo's team doesn't have a Zidane or Ronaldinho or Maradona in it, to run the game, and 2 hard working midfielders to provide the stage, but they are not set up for that either - they have a lot of passers who might not be at the very top level to those names, but are world class in that aspect and generally have divided responsibilities on the pitch.

To me a lot of that playmaking work in your team is down to one man, where lies the difference. I don't think Pluskal can help in that sense neither you have a libero (Baresi/Bekenbauer or let's take Sammer from the pool) who can distribute the ball from deep.

I don't this passing from deep quality difference at all. Khurtislava is the best distributor in either defence and I prefer how both our full backs can use the ball - either in distribution or by carrying it. After all Bezsonov has decent pedigree in central midfield too. And I see Voronin easily matching up to Jugovic, and particularly in the important stuff which is the bread-and-butter consistency of accurate distribution upon which midfield control is often based. And then in forward areas we have the wondrous left pegs of Puskas and Stoichkov both lethal at the killer final ball in a way that is clearly not part of the opposition make-up.

 

[Enigma_87]

That would be Puskas, I suppose. And it's not hard to see him threading someone through from his free-ish second striker position even though he obviously isn't an actual playmaker in the conventional sense.

The way I see him operate here is pretty much a "classic" second striker role - someone who will provide a) trickery, b) goals and c) throughballs and the like for runners.

It's not a perfect analogy, but for the sake of convenience think something like a Fergie setup: Keano and a water carrier - and then Cantona in that crucial second striker role. It's a setup without a typical string puller (no pure 10 and no pure playmaker deeper either) - but it should nevertheless work. I agree that Bozsik/Voronin would have been a very tasty combo, but I don't think one has to insist on a super playmaker in all setups (there's a tendency to do that in these drafts - and it's potentially a bit dangerous, as it limits what sort of setups people are "allowed" to go for, if you catch my meaning).

Cantona is good example of Puskas role actually. It's a good fit, but then I think your second para is more example of Skizzo's team without the need of a super playmaker in the team - you have a lot of passers(quality ones), that can run the game and at some stage of their careers they have(Netto, Jugovic, Nedved). Neither of them is Bozsik, Modric, but the variety and quality is there.

Puskas obviously is the best player on the park, but how do you get the ball to him? If on the other side it was a lesser quality of a midfield you can see the individual quality of Voronin and Pluskal prevailing and getting the edge and advantage, but against Netto/Jugovic and Nedved (even if we take Boniek out of the equation) I just don't see it.

If I have to use analogy in terms of Voronin in that role I'd say that's Vidal as the closest modern day example - excellent passing range(but not a playmaker per say), full of dynamism, but best alongside a Pirlo/Xavi Alonso to pull the strings and play to his best strengths.

That was my conundrum for me as well. Would defence and attack work for Gio/Theon - sure the quality is there and individually they have advantage, but what will link those lines and make the whole machine working? I'll follow the discussions, but Voronin and Pluskal just doesn't cut it for me in terms of creativity, passing, controlling the tempo and generally moving and making a good use of the ball in midfield.

 

[Gio]

I'll follow the discussions, but Voronin and Pluskal just doesn't cut it for me in terms of creativity, passing, controlling the tempo and generally moving and making a good use of the ball in midfield.

When I said earlier that you under appreciated Voronin, this is exactly what I was getting at. Someone compared him to Keane previously, which I think was very astute. And if you levelled those criticisms at Keane people on here would think you're off your head.

I see that Pluskal is less expansive on the ball. But he was still part of the two-man midfield that took Czechoslovakia to within a whisker of a World Cup. And if you look at some of those games, his distribution isn't flashy but it's effective and consistent. Which is generally what matters in the centre of the park.

 

[Enigma_87]

I don't this passing from deep quality difference at all. Khurtislava is the best distributor in either defence and I prefer how both our full backs can use the ball - either in distribution or by carrying it. After all Bezsonov has decent pedigree in central midfield too. And I see Voronin easily matching up to Jugovic, and particularly in the important stuff which is the bread-and-butter consistency of accurate distribution upon which midfield control is often based. And then in forward areas we have the wondrous left pegs of Puskas and Stoichkov both lethal at the killer final ball in a way that is clearly not part of the opposition make-up.

Passing from deep I meant having someone like Belodedici or Sammer to run in space between defence and midfield and shoulder Voronin playmaking responsibilities - give you option in midfield but also being able to distribute the ball vertically or diagonally to the wings.

I'll follow the discussion tomorrow, but again no one is denying your individual talent but rather utilizing those strengths and getting the ball in the attacking third to create those 1 on 1 situations. I can see where you come from with Voronin being arguably the best midfielder on the pitch (would say he edges Netto personally in terms of overall stature) and making that case, but he has to do a lot of multitasking and also link the two lines.

When I said earlier that you under appreciated Voronin, this is exactly what I was getting at. Someone compared him to Keane previously, which I think was very astute. And if you levelled those criticisms at Keane people on here would think you're off your head.

I see that Pluskal is less expansive on the ball. But he was still part of the two-man midfield that took Czechoslovakia to within a whisker of a World Cup. And if you look at some of those games, his distribution isn't flashy but it's effective and consistent. Which is generally what matters in the centre of the park.

It's not the quality I'm getting at mate, neither underrating him. You can pick Keane's example in Turin where he put a MoTM performance, although at stages of the game we were overran in midfield and probably the decision to put Davids on the flank and Amoruso on for a 4-4-2 for Juve was key factor in helping him out, to illustrate your point, but then again that team had Giggs(not at that particular game but as a whole), Beckham on the wings, Scholes in the middle who again shared a lot of that responsibility on the ball and were important cogs in that team.

It's different teams and formations obviously and in 4-4-2 he gets plenty of support, rather than in 4-2-4 - which is what I'm getting at.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

4-2-4 isn't quite right, though. It's certainly not what you normally associate with that: What you have is a striker combo flanked by a pair of wide-ish men, neither of whom is line hugging and neither of whom is remotely lazy (with Blokhin in particular being a very disciplined team player).

Puskas is the detail which makes it a bit awkward to define it as a 3-1 combo of the sort you normally get - the wide players, however, are just what you'd expect in that sort of trio behind the striker.

This is just nominal mumbo jumbo, though: It's neither a 4-4-2 nor a 4-2-4 nor a 4-2-3-1, but some kind of hybrid, I suppose. And why not? The players feature in roles that suit them - and roles that are very similar to the ones they had historically.

As for Voronin/Pluskal - I don't quite get that argument: They may not be able to "dominate" the middle of the park, but that's a far cry from not being able to kick a ball or two in Puskas' direction: Their explicit function is to be - well - solid and sound behind Puskas (who has a crucial role here, obviously - if you don't buy him in that role, it's curtains). Voronin is your typical allround midfielder who can certainly be trusted to keep the ball a bit, and to find a team mate further up the pitch with a simple pass. Again, I don't get this particular criticism: You don't need a super playmaker there in order to make this work, and I don't see how Voronin in particular would be shut down here to the extent that it becomes fatal and fecks up the dynamics of the thing.

 

[Skizzo]

Hoping that Nedved's creativity isn't overlooked here, as it seems to be a fairly underrated aspect of his game. As enigma mentioned, we don't have that standard #10 to pull the strings, as we felt Deyna, while obviously talented, would be easier to stifle with Pluskal as he didn't offer the same physical traits to move around.

The thinking of Dzajic - Nedved - Boniek in trio in front of Netto - Jugovic is two fold. One, it gives us a much higher work rate in terms of pressing to win the ball back, and in defending as a unit to keep within the team ethos.

secondly, having Nedved take up a central role gives him the freedom to roam when we do attack, and be able to swap to either flank when Boniek or Dzajic cut inside or move from those channels. Nedved being comfortably talented with both feet adds to his ability to play the exact role we need him to.

His creativity, as touched upon already, still shouldn't be overlooked. He still had a keen eye for a pass when a runner was available, and he wouldn't struggle to find someone to latch onto a killer ball with Dzajic, Shevchenko and Boniek all doing their thing.





and his work rate creates a different nuance when he takes that dogged attitude and work rate and runs himself into the ground for the team, as any of these players would.



Coupled with the ability of Jugovic to offer a creative outlet from a deeper midfield area as well, it gives us multiple facets to work with and operate through as opposed to a standard string-pulling #10. Our team wouldn't work as well if we focused on the individuals, and its why we've tried to emphasize the "working as a unit" aspect so much, because these players would all bring out the best in each others game, as well as offer a good amount of overlap in roles without stepping on each others toes.

 

[Ecstatic]

The managers are I know that feeling

 

[Ecstatic]

The 2 teams are well-engineered.

I agree with @Chesterlestreet in the sense that it's not mandatory to have a classical attacking midfielder in any set-up.

To illustrate my point, I like the case of Monaco:

- You have 2 strikers who tend to operate in the middle: Falcao + Germain (yesterday it was Mbappe)
- 2 players on the wings: Lemar and Bernardo Silva. They are not traditional wingers nor side-midfielders because they tend to cut inside.
- At the heart of the game: Bakayoko and Fabinho

Monaco is ranked 1st now in the French league, the best attack in Europe statistically and they would have beaten that City side with a better RB on the defensive side and a better defensive organizations on set pieces (2 goals conceded).

Great to have an opposition of styles.

 

[harms]

Some terrible underrating of Voronin's on the ball skills.

From the Euro's final in 1964, from the text script of the game:
1. a key pass to Khusainov after a dribbling run
2. an assist to Khusainov
3. interplay between Voronin and Chislenko leads to an uncalled penalty
4. a shot by Voronin is blocked by Suarez

An article by France Football about the game compares Voronin to south american players because of his immaculate technique, dribbling and passing (despite the ball being hard and heavy after the rain). More so, they compare him to Suarez, noticing that they performed the same roles on the pitch, regularly clashing with each other in the midfield battle


I'll probably do a match compilation of Voronin at some point as I'm tired of showing that one gif again and again

 

[Ecstatic]

I see Puskas as a 2nd striker, Voronin as a CM with 'playmaking skills' and Pluskal as DM.



Tough game because nobody has deployed a sweeper as a RB (Dinu ).

Sad not to see a team* comprised of players like Zebec, Bozsik

* quickly disqualified

 

[Ecstatic]

On the hand, I appreciate the versatility of players like Boniek, Nedved: they can swap their roles.

Nedved can move around Scheva or operate on the wing.

As you can see, I'm not lobbying for a specific team.

 

[Gio]

Obviously appreciate that Aldo and Enigma have shared their reasons for their votes, but it would be helpful if at least a handful of the other 14/15 or so on the opposition side could offer up some reasoning. Not that I'm saying who you vote for is wrong, or that everyone has to provide a long-winded justification - but it's hard to invest time in the match thread if next to none of those voters are participating in the discussion and giving the likes of Skizzo and I something to work with. Any insights from @Salwan @Jerzol78 @Anders Emil Våge @Janson @Red Star One @Raees @Mani @2mufc0 @SirScholes etc would be gratefully received.

 

[Raees]

Sorry @Gio @Theon been absolutely slammed with work and didn't want to provide a half-arsed response.

First of all, like always.. my vote is never final until it is final, so it is still up for grabs. Just wanted to vote based on initial impressions based on write up just in case I don't have time to follow the game due to work.. worst thing is when no one votes at all.

At the moment, I admire the fact you guys upgrade Sekularac with a guy who can actually pass a ball like no other, and Puskas is the best second striker and link player in the draft for me. So definite upgrade.

My issue is the chemistry of that front 4 in relation to the balance of a side as a whole.. it is definitely a 4-2-4, uber-attacking side.. but if one of your widemen was like a Beckham and you had a lopsided 4-2-4, but with a slightly withdrawn playmaking wide player like Becks/Rivelinho or even a Dzajic, and then the other flank was turbo goalscoring wide-forward, that would be a thing of absolute beauty.

I think Albert was a better fit for your side, as he is more AM than just a SS which is what Puskas is. Nevertheless if you are going to go all out attack, there is no better midfield duo than a Pluskal-Voronin which is absolutely rock solid defensively.

A big criticism I have have Skizzo's side is his full backs, I don't rate as good enough to keep your widemen quite, but I do think Netto can keep Puskas quiet. Defensively he's a beast for me based on what I have seen.

His CB pairing is a decent match for Kocsis. Another criticism I have of Skizzo's side is the lack of goalthreat in comparison to yours, but his side has a cohesive chemistry in attack.. it is more straightforward and balanced from front to back. His team can defend as a whole, and do it well.. it seems a more tactically disciplined side. Dzajic will be key for him, and he's given Dzajic a really good platform to do well here.. Dzajic has alot of workhorses around him, whereas your side looks very top heavy.

Like I said, haven't fully made my decision yet.. and am sorry, I haven't had chance to offer my thoughts earlier. Look forward to seeing your responses to the points I made.

 

[Mani]

Obviously appreciate that Aldo and Enigma have shared their reasons for their votes, but it would be helpful if at least a handful of the other 14/15 or so on the opposition side could offer up some reasoning. Not that I'm saying who you vote for is wrong, or that everyone has to provide a long-winded justification - but it's hard to invest time in the match thread if next to none of those voters are participating in the discussion and giving the likes of Skizzo and I something to work with. Any insights from @Salwan @Jerzol78 @Anders Emil Våge @Janson @Red Star One @Raees @Mani @2mufc0 @SirScholes etc would be gratefully received.

Too me its not much difference between either side, but when it comes to creativity from MF, Skizzo slightly edges especially with Nedved making the difference.As well I can't discount the work rate of both Nedved and Boniek in support towards their midfield.Sorry Gio.

 

[Raees]

Too me its not much difference between either side, but when it comes to creativity from MF, Skizzo slightly edges especially with Nedved making the difference.As well I can't discount the work rate of both Nedved and Boniek in support towards their midfield.Sorry Gio.

If we are talking creativity, Puskas alone trumps the entire midfield trio of Skizzo in my opinion. I don't buy the argument that Gio and Theon lack creativity. As good as Nedved was, Puskas is in a different league from a creative standpoint.

For me it is more a balance issue rather than a chance creation issue. No one can look at Gio's attack and say it will struggle to create chances, that isn't logicial. Too much firepower even if all the parts aren't strictly complementary.

 

[harms]

Went with Gio/Theon in the end, although it's very close. I have some doubts about the suitability of his front four but still they have it in them to make it work, even if it doesn't fully maximize their potential, as none of them were incredibly selfish and Kocsis-Puskas used to play in an overcrowded attacking set-ups.

But my vote was won by Voronin - Pluskal. It's quite simply a better pairing that Netto - Jugovic in my eyes as the latter don't have that defensive stability, even with the help of Nedved/Boniek. While Voronin - Pluskal is hardly upgradable in this draft, especially from the defensive point of view, and I have no doubts that Voronin's playmaking is enough to provide a constant supply to the front four (and those don't have to be hollywood balls, just a simple yet effective forward passes). He is also absolutely amazing under pressure, one of the best defensive midfielders ever in this particular sense, it was almost impossible to get the ball from him without a foul.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

That would be Puskas, I suppose. And it's not hard to see him threading someone through from his free-ish second striker position even though he obviously isn't an actual playmaker in the conventional sense.

The way I see him operate here is pretty much a "classic" second striker role - someone who will provide a) trickery, b) goals and c) throughballs and the like for runners.

It's not a perfect analogy, but for the sake of convenience think something like a Fergie setup: Keano and a water carrier - and then Cantona in that crucial second striker role. It's a setup without a typical string puller (no pure 10 and no pure playmaker deeper either) - but it should nevertheless work. I agree that Bozsik/Voronin would have been a very tasty combo, but I don't think one has to insist on a super playmaker in all setups (there's a tendency to do that in these drafts - and it's potentially a bit dangerous, as it limits what sort of setups people are "allowed" to go for, if you catch my meaning).

Good post. Its surprising that none of the elite No. 10s in the draft (Hagi, Deyna and Stojkovic IMO) are featuring in the final but I agree with the bolded part in particular. There's no lack of creativity in either side, and both midfield duos have enough about them in possession to exert some control over the game.

 

[Gio]

On the cohesion of the attack, while we all know Kocsis is the best goalscorer around and is absolutely lethal when any chances fall his away, his ability to set up others is a trait that will be particularly useful in this game given the goal-grabbing ability of the attackers around him.

From the famous Wolves v Honved tie, that's him delivering a lovely first-time through-ball facing his own goal - exactly the sort of dynamic we'd get with Stoichkov or Blokhin. As an aside, note how that pitch is a quagmire - on the instruction from the great Wolves manager Cullis - again foiling that great generation.

Spoiler

Clever angled header to set up Czibor. For Czibor see Blokhin.

Spoiler

With Puskas out injured in the crunch semi-final against Uruguay, Kocsis took on a more active creative role, dropping deep here to allow runners to overlap him and thread in the right-winger, then using his pace to get on the end of what should have been the return.

Spoiler

Nifty back-heel lay-off for the wide attacker cutting in to attack against Scotland (why are there hay bales around Hampden Park?!). Can see Stoichkov loving that kind of interplay.

Spoiler

]

Dropping deep against England before switching play. England worked hard enough off the ball but couldn't keep pace with that kind of technique. Lots of willing runners to target either side of him which he'd get here.

Spoiler

 

[BorisDeLeFora]

Gone with Gio/Theon, think Skizzo's team has a better balance, but the attacking quality on the other side would be too much. And as for there being a missing link between defense and attack, all it takes are passes into feet for Puskas to get on the turn, or to give one of the wide players the opportunity to face up the full backs 1v1, which doesn't require huge amounts of creative ability.

 

[Mani]

If we are talking creativity, Puskas alone trumps the entire midfield trio of Skizzo in my opinion. I don't buy the argument that Gio and Theon lack creativity. As good as Nedved was, Puskas is in a different league from a creative standpoint.

For me it is more a balance issue rather than a chance creation issue. No one can look at Gio's attack and say it will struggle to create chances, that isn't logicial. Too much firepower even if all the parts aren't strictly complementary.

May be I'm looking Puskas more as second striker than the creative outlet of Gio's team.Also when looking at Gio's team it look like one men short in MF, its 3 vs 2 situation with Nedved supporting both Netto/Jurgovic.

 

[Raees]

May be I'm looking Puskas more as second striker than the creative outlet of Gio's team.Also when looking at Gio's team it look like one men short in MF, its 3 vs 2 situation with Nedved supporting both Netto/Jurgovic.

I get what you're saying, but you have to look at the functions of the midfield before determining whether or not a midfield battle is the defining feature of the match.

Gio's midfield is not designed to battle for supremacy and run the game. It is a facilitating midfield, a straightforward supply line to the gifted forwards and designed to cover the asses of a very attacking quartet.

Its the perfect pairing for a 4-2-4. Their time on the ball will be minimal. their aim is to shield the defence, win the ball and straightforward passes to widemen or into Puskas feet.

Skizzo's midfield is more about controlling the game and dictating the tempo.

Skizzo's side will dominate possession here for sure. I don't think Gio minds that. So winning that battle is neither here nor there because it isn't key to Gio's attacking strategy.

No direct conflict for midfield supremacy here. Both midfield's are perfectly set up for what they want to achieve and can do so in parallel to each other.

 

[Gio]

Skizzo's side will dominate possession here for sure. I don't think Gio minds that. So winning that battle is neither here nor there because it isn't key to Gio's attacking strategy.

No direct conflict for midfield supremacy here. Both midfield's are perfectly set up for what they want to achieve and can do so in parallel to each other.

I suppose to further that point, I'm quite relaxed about Skizzo's team having the ball in deeper areas. There is no threatening use of the ball in that back four to cause any concerns - it might get quite clunky at times to be honest - and while both Jugovic and Netto can play, it's nothing that IMO cannot be handled quite comfortably by both Voronin and Pluskal.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Passing from deep I meant having someone like Belodedici or Sammer to run in space between defence and midfield and shoulder Voronin playmaking responsibilities - give you option in midfield but also being able to distribute the ball vertically or diagonally to the wings.

I'll follow the discussion tomorrow, but again no one is denying your individual talent but rather utilizing those strengths and getting the ball in the attacking third to create those 1 on 1 situations. I can see where you come from with Voronin being arguably the best midfielder on the pitch (would say he edges Netto personally in terms of overall stature) and making that case, but he has to do a lot of multitasking and also link the two lines.

Tbf, Khurtsilava was pretty good at bringing the ball out of defense and was a handy player on the ball capable of building play from the back. Even recall him hitting the post against the Germans and looking a decent threat from the back on the ball, esp when he was venturing slightly further into midfield. Definitely can see him dovetailing with Voronin and sharing the build-up play burden with Voronin here.

Perhaps @harms can expand more on Khurtsilava.

You don't need a super playmaker there in order to make this work, and I don't see how Voronin in particular would be shut down here to the extent that it becomes fatal and fecks up the dynamics of the thing.

Agreed, I see Gio/Theon's side being more of a direct side which doesn't really 'require' a playmaker as such, nor are they in danger of Voronin being shut down as you've stated. It's always nice to have one of those but here, I can see Voronin and Puskas being good enough for the tactics that Gio/Theon are trying to pull off.

Torn on this one and I can see both excellent wing duos causing the full-back pairing some problems, although Gio/Theon do have a more sturdy set-up with better full-backs and a compact midfield duo. However, I can see Shevchenko's explosiveness causing some headaches for Gio/Theon's CB duo whilst Puskas looks poised to have a good game imo. Undecided as it stands.

 

[harms]

Tbf, Khurtsilava was pretty good at bringing the ball out of defense and was a handy player on the ball capable of building play from the back. Even recall him hitting the post against the Germans and looking a decent threat from the back on the ball, esp when he was venturing slightly further into midfield. Definitely can see him dovetailing with Voronin and sharing the build-up play burden with Voronin here.

Perhaps @harms can expand more on Khurtsilava.

Yeah, very cultured on the ball and used to join the attack occasionally, or to just pass it from the back, it was one of his best qualities. Gio himself already mentioned Khurtsilava hitting the bar against Germans from an open play. Had a great technical arsenal - shooting from long distance, short and long passing, crossing, dribbling, one-twos etc. He said that Metreveli (on the bench) was his best partner because he always cleared the space for his runs by drawing defenders away and was always available as a passing option in case anyone was closing in on him.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Can anyone shed any light on Lovchev and how he stacks up to Anczok and Urbanczyk in terms of quality. I think everyone had Bezsonov pegged as one of the very best full backs in the pool from the beginning, but beyond being fast as feck Lovchev is something of a mystery to me. Tagging @harms and @Šjor Bepo as I know they're better acquainted with this pool of players than most of us.

 

[Raees]

Yeah, very cultured on the ball and used to join the attack occasionally, or to just pass it from the back, it was one of his best qualities. Gio himself already mentioned Khurtsilava hitting the bar against Germans from an open play. Had a great technical arsenal - shooting from long distance, short and long passing, crossing, dribbling, one-twos etc. He said that Metreveli (on the bench) was his best partner because he always cleared the space for his runs by drawing defenders away and was always available as a passing option in case anyone was closing in on him.

Now that I am out of the competition, can say that from the matches I watched of Khurtislava.. he was like a proper libero, with really outstanding ball playing skills. Loved bombing forward based on the one game I saw and had really good decision-making skills on the ball and effortless technique.

I'd have him just below Vasovic in this pool on that front.

 

[harms]

Can anyone shed any light on Lovchev and how he stacks up to Anczok and Urbanczyk in terms of quality. I think everyone had Bezsonov pegged as one of the very best full backs in the pool from the beginning, but beyond being fast as feck Lovchev is something of a mystery to me. Tagging @harms and @Šjor Bepo as I know they're better acquainted with this pool of players than most of us.

Well, he was voted the best USSR player in 1972 and came third in 1975, so he was a quality player, obviously, although he was a part of a very strange Spartak team that ended up being relegated. Had conflicts with many people on and off the pitch, most notably Beskov.

I don't like the guy to be honest, but he was your usual hard-working attacking fullback. He himself states that he sometimes ran faster than Blokhin at training, which sounds possible. Was very attacking and sometimes even played in midfield, and was pretty solid at the back, although nothing special.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

cheers for the tag @Pat_Mustard but unfortunately i dont know much about the trio, part of the reason im yet to vote in this one.

 

[Gio]

Well, he was voted the best USSR player in 1972 and came third in 1975, so he was a quality player, obviously, although he was a part of a very strange Spartak team that ended up being relegated. Had conflicts with many people on and off the pitch, most notably Beskov.

Yeah. Always seemed strange or impressive that he managed to come 3rd in 1975 the same year that Kiev tore it up in Europe and despite playing as a full-back (the least glamorous of all award positions IMO) for a Spartak team that struggled so badly. Must have really ripped it up down that flank. Don't think he's very popular though as a pundit from what I've heard.

@Pat_Mustard It's hard to get much meaningful footage. Most of the highlights of that Soviet team are about 30 seconds long, grainy and in black-and-white.

Spoiler: Rapid burst of pace to win the ball against England's Martin Peters

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Well, he was voted the best USSR player in 1972 and came third in 1975, so he was a quality player, obviously, although he was a part of a very strange Spartak team that ended up being relegated. Had conflicts with many people on and off the pitch, most notably Beskov.

I don't like the guy to be honest, but he was your usual hard-working attacking fullback. He himself states that he sometimes ran faster than Blokhin at training, which sounds possible. Was very attacking and sometimes even played in midfield, and was pretty solid at the back, although nothing special.

cheers for the tag @Pat_Mustard but unfortunately i dont know much about the trio, part of the reason im yet to vote in this one.

Yeah. Always seemed strange or impressive that he managed to come 3rd in 1975 the same year that Kiev tore it up in Europe and despite playing as a full-back (the least glamorous of all award positions IMO) for a Spartak team that struggled so badly. Must have really ripped it up down that flank. Don't think he's very popular though as a pundit from what I've heard.

@Pat_Mustard It's hard to get much meaningful footage. Most of the highlights of that Soviet team are about 30 seconds long, grainy and in black-and-white.

Spoiler: Rapid burst of pace to win the ball against England's Martin Peters

Cheers lads. Its tough to split the full backs aside from Bezsonov. Still can't decide who to vote for. Gio/Theon have the advantage in terms of goal threat, but then Vidic looks a better match for Kocsis than Weber and Khurtsilava for Shevchenko imo, and SkizzAnnah will possibly have the edge in terms of control. Edging towards Puskas making the difference here if anything.

 

[Gio]

Tbf, Khurtsilava was pretty good at bringing the ball out of defense and was a handy player on the ball capable of building play from the back. Even recall him hitting the post against the Germans and looking a decent threat from the back on the ball, esp when he was venturing slightly further into midfield. Definitely can see him dovetailing with Voronin and sharing the build-up play burden with Voronin here.

The more I've watched of that team, the more impressed I've been of his use of the ball.

Spoiler: Sharp angled pass and looking for return against England

Spoiler: Thumping 30-yard free-kick into the top corner against East Germany

Spoiler: 30-yard strike off the bar against West Germany in the 1972 European Championships Final

Go to 16.15

 

[Gio]

The 2 teams are well-engineered.

I agree with @Chesterlestreet in the sense that it's not mandatory to have a classical attacking midfielder in any set-up.

To illustrate my point, I like the case of Monaco:

- You have 2 strikers who tend to operate in the middle: Falcao + Germain (yesterday it was Mbappe)
- 2 players on the wings: Lemar and Bernardo Silva. They are not traditional wingers nor side-midfielders because they tend to cut inside.
- At the heart of the game: Bakayoko and Fabinho

Monaco is ranked 1st now in the French league, the best attack in Europe statistically and they would have beaten that City side with a better RB on the defensive side and a better defensive organizations on set pieces (2 goals conceded).

Great to have an opposition of styles.

To further that point Downcast, it was impressive how many crosses Monaco were able to fling into the box last night. Mostly from their full-backs rather than the wide attackers. But I think that's more a reflection of the modern game with full-backs providing the majority of the crosses. After all Antonio Valencia leads the way in the Premier League for crosses this season and I think James Milner is second or third. And for Monaco it really worked in getting the best out of Falcao who relishes that kind of delivery. I think it's an aspect to this game we'd have with supplying service to Kocsis. Much of that would come through the middle, through the axis with Puskas, or from wider areas interlinking with Blokhin and Stoichkov. But a chunk could easily come from a full-back too just to add another dimension to the attack and give Golden Head something to meet.