EAP VS Onenil - NT Peak Draft

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

One thing was clear about Rijkaard. He was an extremely active stopper who well covered the zone a destroyer would cover.

A DM Rijkaard is what you need for the above.

van Hanegem...Vieira
..........Rijkaard.........

would have been spectacular (though it'll still clash with Breitner).

But as a CB, what you describe means he plays as a sweeper. You really don't want him stepping out of the line too much as my counter would be very swift considering the bodies I have there.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Question : don't get the "rule" about how many games a player played in said tournament.... it's either a rule or its not? If it is, got to be borne in mind... if it's not, it's not.

Which is it?

It's not a hard rule, rather a guidance for voters. For example, to consider against managers arguing based on 1 spectacular game as "peak" in the tournament. Schuster's influence in Euro 1980 cannot be diluted by stats. He was one of the best players in that tournament.

 

[antohan]

I should explain my tactic choice more. A makelele tyoe destroyer would have been a very poor choice. My inspiration and skeleton was obviously Holland 88. One thing was clear about Rijkaard. He was an extremely active stopper who well covered the zone a destroyer would cover. Makelele would be superfluous in this tactic and unneeded.

It became clear the best midfield to complemwnt Rijkaard and Gullit would consist of a DLP defensively solid box to box. Van Hanegem and Vieira perfectly suit these roles. The other key here is like 88 Dutch we both attack and defend as a unit. Everyone selected fits together to complement each other. The midfield is perfect upgrade on Holland 88 and any talk of uncomplomentary players is much ado nothing. I feel we are well suited as a unit to counter eap narrow formation.

Rijkaard is definitely an asset there in that I can see him precisely occupying that space to cut off Cruyff receiving/going on a run. The issue is the sheer attacking power of that foursome (Cruyff/Messi/Masopust/Schuster) which makes people call for a dedicated destroyer or more defensive oomph in that midfield.

I don't think it would work too well to try contain that adding bodies, it would negate your very own strengths. It's simply a very open game with both sides trading blows. Both will score. The decider for me was EAP being better suited to shut things up at the back: a dedicated midfielder shielding the defence, Briegel is a better pure defender than Breitner, same with Cafú vs. Gerets, and while Krol-Rijkaard is lovely Ruggeri-Collovatti have that reliability and resilience needed to maintain a winning scoreline.

Splitting hairs though.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Just a side remark, really but when @oneniltothearsenal mentions England's tough defence above, the Adams-Wright combo they sported in the middle looks better on paper than it was in reality. They were inexperienced and England suffered greatly from the absence of Butcher, who would have been a top partner for either youngster in that tournament.

Still, if the point is that Holland defeated a very good England, I'd say that's a fair assessment. England's results in '88 were horrible, but the team wasn't bad at all. They misfired and predictably fecked up against Ireland in a match that was always going to be very difficult - and then played well enough against Holland, but were up against Van Basten in all his glory. And then it was essentially over - the last defeat against USSR was just what you'd expect, a frustrated, pissed-off team that had thrown in the towel.

Definitely..... 86 was better (and better balanced) with Butcher but 88 with Robson, Beardsley, Steven, Barnes, Lineker was still a decent attacking force (personally, not a Hoddle fan) and with a bit more luck in the first half, could have been ahead against a very, very good Holland team.

 

[Enigma_87]

This is a tough one. At one side I'm a sucker for Dutch teams and one with Rijkaard, van Basten, Gullit in it is just Onenil has built a great side have no issue with Vieira/Hanegem combo as the latter is pretty versatile and complete midfielder and with Gullit in front is a well structured and working midfield.

On the other hand even with team EAP has a pretty strong core and midfield/attack. Masopust and Schuster in that incarnation are perfect for 3 man midfield capable of drifting right and left and Nobby Stiles anchoring in that WC form is a great foundation.

I can see Cruyff/Messi/Seeler working together even with an uninspiring version of Messi.

On Schuster. I was expecting that subject to be touched ever since Edgar picked him, but even with only two games he was impeccable on those games and really was the star of the team(revelation of the tournament as well).

A short quote on him:

Euro 1980 proved to be the game-changer for Schuster. He appeared in just two of West Germany’s four games in Italy, but excelled in both of those games that made the megaliths of Spain and Italy sit up and take notice. Having been brought into the side to be the puppeteer of the pivotal second group game against the Netherlands, with an elegant style of pushing and prompting that provided Klaus Allofs with an unexpected hat-trick, Schuster sat out the last group game so as to not risk a second yellow card of the tournament that would have kept him out of the final.

In the final against Belgium Schuster again pulled the strings, and Horst Hrubesch was this time the goalscoring beneficiary. At the age of 20 Schuster had a European Championship winner’s medal in his possession and what looked to be a long and glorious international career ahead of him. The German, however, would never appear in the finals of a major international tournament again. By 24, he had retired from international football.

 

[antohan]

A DM Rijkaard is what you need for the above.

van Hanegem...Vieira
..........Rijkaard.........

would have been spectacular (though it'll still clash with Breitner).

But as a CB, what you describe means he plays as a sweeper. You really don't want him stepping out of the line too much as my counter would be very swift considering the bodies I have there.

What he describes is how he played as a defender. He did exactly what you say he needs: step into midfield. Same with Blind at Ajax, Rijkaard came forth to DM (an aggressive/uberattacking inverse of the DM becomes third CB the Germans did quite a lot in the late 90s and early 00s) and Blind stayed back sweeping up.

 

[Ecstatic]

@Annahnomoss

When you present a game, you may add a disclaimer saying 'international peak: only the performances of the player with the NT in the specified tournament matter'

 

[Moby]

I should explain my tactic choice more. A makelele tyoe destroyer would have been a very poor choice. My inspiration and skeleton was obviously Holland 88. One thing was clear about Rijkaard. He was an extremely active stopper who well covered the zone a destroyer would cover. Makelele would be superfluous in this tactic and unneeded.

It became clear the best midfield to complemwnt Rijkaard and Gullit would consist of a DLP defensively solid box to box. Van Hanegem and Vieira perfectly suit these roles. The other key here is like 88 Dutch we both attack and defend as a unit. Everyone selected fits together to complement each other. The midfield is perfect upgrade on Holland 88 and any talk of uncomplomentary players is much ado nothing. I feel we are well suited as a unit to counter eap narrow formation.

I like it.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

What he describes is how he played as a defender. He did exactly what you say he needs: step into midfield. Same with Blind at Ajax, Rijkaard came forth to DM (an aggressive/uberattacking inverse of the DM becomes third CB the Germans did quite a lot in the late 90s and early 00s) and Blind stayed back sweeping up.

Not disputing that. Just saying his team is better off with a DM Rijkaard than a sweeper Rijkaard.

 

[antohan]

Not disputing that. Just saying his team is better off with a DM Rijkaard than a sweeper Rijkaard.

Which other CB does he have? I would agree van Hanegem and Rijkaard behind Gullit would be friggin' awesome.

 

[Annahnomoss]

@Annahnomoss

When you present a game, you may add a disclaimer saying 'international peak: only the performances of the player with the NT in the specified tournament matter'

Thanks mate, noted!

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I like it.

Just curious, do you think his team can score more than ours?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

In 2016 Argentina beat Chile WITHOUT Messi but then lost to Chile WITH Messi, including Messi missing one of the most iconic PK. In normal draft I would say that doesnt matter but with specific criteria and so few matches this has ro be taken account.

His stats came against really weak sides like Bolivia and Panama while his worst match was his only decent opposition. That is not Messi the Barca game changer so I hope voters take stated criteria into account.

 

[Moby]

Just curious, do you think his team can score more than ours?

Well, yeah. Gullit vs Stiles in particular doesn't sit well with me, he was phenomenal in 1988.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Well, yeah. Gullit vs Stiles in particular doesn't sit well with me, he was phenomenal in 1988.

So was Stiles in 1966. In fact if there was a list of DM suitable for the physicality of Gullit, I'd put Stiles on/near top of the list. He matches, Gullit's energy and can follow him around all match. Plus there's always Masopust and Schuster to provide coverage.

And thoughts on Vieira/van Hanegem on right, duo? Think that's a match for Cruyff/Messi?

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

So was Stiles in 1966. In fact if there was a list of DM suitable for the physicality of Gullit, I'd put Stiles on/near top of the list. He matches, Gullit's energy and can follow him around all match. Plus there's always Masopust and Schuster to provide coverage.

And thoughts on Vieira/van Hanegem on right, duo? Think that's a match for Cruyff/Messi?

Yes he was...... in 1966, but 88 Gullit is a different animal physically to Eusebio (what, 5' 9""?)

P.S...... love Stiles.... the player and the character.

And yes ,they may struggle vs M/C

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Yes he was...... in 1966, but 88 Gullit is a different animal physically to Eusebio (what, 5' 9""?)

It's a midfield battle If in the box, height does make a big difference, but then I have Ruggeri to deal with it aerial balls. In a midfield battle outside the box with Stiles, height should not be that big an influencer. It'll mostly be the physicality of the battle and there I expect Stiles to hold his own.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Both great teams/players and very tough decision..... good selections.

On the one hand, we've got a great front five including Cruyff.... my favourite ever non United player.

On the other hand, brilliance of Van Basten and a few players like Breitner (scored in 2 WC Finals), Rijkaard and Krol who were the epitome of players who were comfortable in multiple positions.

I think it's that flexibility that does it for me.

Good luck.

 

[Gio]

I should explain my tactic choice more. A makelele tyoe destroyer would have been a very poor choice. My inspiration and skeleton was obviously Holland 88. One thing was clear about Rijkaard. He was an extremely active stopper who well covered the zone a destroyer would cover. Makelele would be superfluous in this tactic and unneeded.

It became clear the best midfield to complemwnt Rijkaard and Gullit would consist of a DLP defensively solid box to box. Van Hanegem and Vieira perfectly suit these roles.

I like the Vieira and Van Hanegem duo. In this company they're both sound all-rounders but with the complementarity of one more athletic and the other more technical. Then you throw in Gullit and Rijkaard on either side of them and there's basically no function in that midfield that cannot be easily picked up by that team.

Just a side remark, really but when @oneniltothearsenal mentions England's tough defence above, the Adams-Wright combo they sported in the middle looks better on paper than it was in reality. They were inexperienced and England suffered greatly from the absence of Butcher, who would have been a top partner for either youngster in that tournament.

Still, if the point is that Holland defeated a very good England, I'd say that's a fair assessment. England's results in '88 were horrible, but the team wasn't bad at all. They misfired and predictably fecked up against Ireland in a match that was always going to be very difficult - and then played well enough against Holland, but were up against Van Basten in all his glory. And then it was essentially over - the last defeat against USSR was just what you'd expect, a frustrated, pissed-off team that had thrown in the towel.

They were a wee bit unlucky all in all. Those old 8-team Euros groups were brutal and that Soviet team was probably the strongest and certainly the most cohesive in Europe in the lead up to the competition, having comfortably turned over Argentina 4-2 a couple of months beforehand. And then you had an emerging into brilliant Holland and the inevitably sticky Irish.

 

[Gio]

So was Stiles in 1966. In fact if there was a list of DM suitable for the physicality of Gullit, I'd put Stiles on/near top of the list. He matches, Gullit's energy and can follow him around all match. Plus there's always Masopust and Schuster to provide coverage.

I've got some sympathy with this. You've got a strong trio there collectively.

As a sidenote on the famed Stiles job on Eusebio, watched that back today and Eusebio effectively operates as a roaming playmaker, and whenever he gets past Stiles, a couple of Englishmen are quickly on his tail. While Stiles does a decent enough job of persistently jockeying him, rarely does he dispossess him or force him into mistakes. Again the main challenge for Eusebio wasn't what he was up against, but the relative lack of quality amongst his team-mates, forcing him every deeper and away from goal.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

I like the Vieira and Van Hanegem duo. In this company they're both sound all-rounders but with the complementarity of one more athletic and the other more technical. Then you throw in Gullit and Rijkaard on either side of them and there's basically no function in that midfield that cannot be easily picked up by that team.

Vieira was influential for WC '06 partly because he had Makelele next to him. van Hanegem was influential in WC'74 because he had Jansen behind him. It was Makelele and Jansen who provided the balance for these two to move up and control the match. Here you have just these 2 with part-time help from Rijkaard (who also somehow manages to keep Cruyff in line all game) and somehow they are better than my front 3? I love Rijkaard, but we are talking about Johan Cruyff here!


.

- Gullit is somehow made out to be a superman here. I have 1 destroyer DM, 1 old school half back and defensively sound Schuster and somehow he still manages to overcome all 3 and influence the game from the middle.
- Briegel and Cafu are more than good enough to hold their own against his wingers + you have Masopust and Schuster to lend a hand if he moves the ball out wide.

I have strength in numbers in the middle and still somehow seem to get underrated. I frankly struggle to see how I'm defensively suspect here The whole point of a 4-3-2-1 is strength through the middle and somehow I seem to have missed that bus! Gullit taking on 3 players, Rijkaard handling Cruyff and still influencing the midfield. I have a 5 vs 3 advantage through the middle and still it's not enough? Unbelievable!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

In 2016 Argentina beat Chile WITHOUT Messi but then lost to Chile WITH Messi, including Messi missing one of the most iconic PK. In normal draft I would say that doesnt matter but with specific criteria and so few matches this has ro be taken account.

His stats came against really weak sides like Bolivia and Panama while his worst match was his only decent opposition. That is not Messi the Barca game changer so I hope voters take stated criteria into account.

Well, stats aside (they're pointless enough as such), if we look at the k-o stage, he was the best/most influential player for Argentina in the q-f and s-f against relatively underwhelming opposition - and then disappointing in the final, against the best side in the competition.

It's hard to assess in a way that is meaningful here (regarding him as a very particular incarnation), but I suppose most would say he looked like himself against USA, which are a decent team, if not overly impressive, and then failed to step up properly and win it against Chile (including that penalty miss).

I find it difficult to imagine precisely how a sub-par Messi would perform in a fantasy match, to be honest. You can take it in different directions. He might benefit from having top class team mates and just be somewhat anonymous, but still useful in flashes - or he could be regarded as largely pointless, since the point of him normally is that you have a GOAT in your team who plays like a GOAT and puts a proper stamp on the match.

 

[Enigma_87]

I've got some sympathy with this. You've got a strong trio there collectively.

As a sidenote on the famed Stiles job on Eusebio, watched that back today and Eusebio effectively operates as a roaming playmaker, and whenever he gets past Stiles, a couple of Englishmen are quickly on his tail. While Stiles does a decent enough job of persistently jockeying him, rarely does he dispossess him or force him into mistakes. Again the main challenge for Eusebio wasn't what he was up against, but the relative lack of quality amongst his team-mates, forcing him every deeper and away from goal.

Yes I think you are right here. I've watched most of the game couple of months again and Jack Charlton with his aggressive style and Moore reading of the game and sweeping behind was crucial in containing him(and of course the lack of creativity in the Portuguese side in midfield).

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

but the relative lack of quality amongst his team-mates, forcing him every deeper and away from goal.

(and of course the lack of creativity in the Portuguese side in midfield).

Do you say the same of Maradona in '86? Weak cast notwithstanding, it was him at his peak. Same here. It was one of the strongest Portuguese NTs ever and Eusebio was the top scorer of that WC iirc. Should be no question about peak Eusebio.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Well, stats aside (they're pointless enough as such), if we look at the k-o stage, he was the best/most influential player for Argentina in the q-f and s-f against relatively underwhelming opposition - and then disappointing in the final, against the best side in the competition.

It's hard to assess in a way that is meaningful here (regarding him as a very particular incarnation), but I suppose most would say he looked like himself against USA, which are a decent team, if not overly impressive, and then failed to step up properly and win it against Chile (including that penalty miss).

I find it difficult to imagine precisely how a sub-par Messi would perform in a fantasy match, to be honest. You can take it in different directions. He might benefit from having top class team mates and just be somewhat anonymous, but still useful in flashes - or he could be regarded as largely pointless, since the point of him normally is that you have a GOAT in your team who plays like a GOAT and puts a proper stamp on the match.

The whole "tournament peak" aspect has certainly led to more tricky ratings than it first seemed. For me, the criteria for rating the players this draft was very clear cut (although apparently not to everyone) so in addition to the actual games played factor what stands out for rating on a single tournament is the quality of opposition.

This is why as opposed to Antohan, I don't see EAP's front four very dangerous at all. People can debate how much someone should be discounted for only playing two matches out of five. I clearly weighed that criteria heavier than some managers as I crossed out Letchkov and Faas Wilkes based solely on that criteria.

And for strength of competition, Messi's Copa'16 ranks very low in my mind. In fact that's not even his best international tournament for me. '15 was better. So that front four of EAP is simply not nearly as dangerous based on the actual criteria of the draft as it looks at first glance. How much weaker? You are right people will be subjective about it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Since van Basten is getting a bit underrated and ignored here its important that he put on one of the most legendary Euros performances of all time against some of the strongest competition in any tournament. He scored decisive goals against against England, West Germany and the Soviet Union. Those were two of the top ranked teams in the world at that time as well.

Whichever of Ruggeri / Collovati is on van Basten they are over matched and will need help. In fact van Basten was frequently working against two even three defenders in the box and still came out on top. Many fans rate van Basten's Euro performance as comparable even to Platini in influence and taking into account the strength of the competition.

I will link some gifs later when home but lets look at one of the best goals ever scored in a Euro:


This is the level van Basten was playing at in the Euros and unlike most picks in this draft that Euro88 is peak van Basten. He is more than a match for either center defender and combined with Gullit and Laudrup is going to do a whole lot more damage against this defense.

“He’s the quickest 6ft 3in centre-forward I’ve ever seen! Just awesome. He was as quick as Ian Wright, as good in the air as Joe Jordan and he held the ball up better than Alan Smith. [ . . . ] Van Basten could head, volley – he had power and strength.” — Tony Adams

“Strong in the air and could create goals for himself. Even though he was tall, he was flexible and could turn and do pretty much everything. Headers, bicycle kicks, volleys, everything. He was also a vicious player. If defenders tried to kick him, he would kick them back. He knew how to look after himself on the pitch.” — Ruud Gullit

“He’s the greatest centre-forward I’ve ever played with or against. Quite simply, he had everything. He could dribble, was good in the air, good awareness, great touch. For such a big man – he’s 6ft 2in – to be so delicate was amazing. He played off the shoulder and his finishing was as good as any striker that has ever lived.” — John Barnes

“So elegant, he never seemed to sweat, but concrete too and with both feet and his head. His footsteps are evident in football history: who doesn’t know his goal in the Euro 1988 final?” — Franco Baresi

Edgar talks about about Ruggeri handling Gullit in the box. Really? Then van Basten is going to have an England quality game here. Edgar simply needs far more of his players to stop this attack.

Van Basten is capable of winning this entire match on his own based on his Euro form and yet he is been ignored mostly with a pair of decent centre-backs but neither of Edgar's defenders was even the best centre-defender on their own team these years!

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

and finally for now, another who is being underrated in the "midfield battle".


Van Hanegem

The Crooked

Superb technique and close control. Huge range of passing and versatility in passes. Great at reading the game and not afraid of the physical midfield battle. Van Hanegem was a key component of the epic ‘74 Dutch engine with Neeskens. Here he reprises this ‘74 role with Vieira playing the box to box role. Van Hanegem’s interpretation of the position resembles the Brazilian naming tradition of steering wheel for this role.


World Cup 1974

Vs. Uruguay - Van Hanegem calmly dictated the tempo this game while helping the Dutch maintain dominance pinning Uruguay back. His free kick almost beat Mazurkiewicz barely missing the post. Van Hanegem’s control and passing contributed to Rep’s second goal and his reading of this match was superb.


Vs. Sweden - Van Hanegem had a very solid game despite missing a number of chances. He missed a shot, free kick and header but his tactical awareness was still outstanding and his passing on point. He influenced the match positively for Holland both offensively and defensively this match.


Vs. Bulgaria - Not a tough match for the Dutch with van Hanegem only playing a half going off at 2-0 presumably to save him for the next phase.


Vs. Argentina - Remembered for an excellent lob to Cruyff this match that created a worldie goal. His blocked shot in the second half created another goal for Cruyff to finish. His finishing was not clinical but he was a deep holding playmaker whose shots were more about breaking down defenses than scoring himself.


Vs. East Germany - One of those rainy matches that just drenches the pitch. Ball doesn’t even move properly just stopping dead. Tough to rate match like this.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Do you say the same of Maradona in '86? Weak cast notwithstanding, it was him at his peak. Same here. It was one of the strongest Portuguese NTs ever and Eusebio was the top scorer of that WC iirc. Should be no question about peak Eusebio.

I don't think those comments were suggesting Eusebio wasn't a great player or that 66 wasn't a great tournament for him..... think they were more about how his teammates may have affected his field position and/or that Stiles (in himself) wasn't the only reason Eusebio didn't have a major impact.

 

[antohan]

The whole "tournament peak" aspect has certainly led to more tricky ratings than it first seemed. For me, the criteria for rating the players this draft was very clear cut (although apparently not to everyone) so in addition to the actual games played factor what stands out for rating on a single tournament is the quality of opposition.

This is why as opposed to Antohan, I don't see EAP's front four very dangerous at all. People can debate how much someone should be discounted for only playing two matches out of five. I clearly weighed that criteria heavier than some managers as I crossed out Letchkov and Faas Wilkes based solely on that criteria.

And for strength of competition, Messi's Copa'16 ranks very low in my mind. In fact that's not even his best international tournament for me. '15 was better. So that front four of EAP is simply not nearly as dangerous based on the actual criteria of the draft as it looks at first glance. How much weaker? You are right people will be subjective about it.

Seeler, Cruyff, Masopust and (IMO as a passing by voter) Schuster are at their very best.

I agree on Messi, it's a rather meh Messi which won't prove a matchwinner or dominant performer here. He won't be poor or a hindrance though.

That frontline will click IMO, maybe even more so with Messi not being the fulcrum. A bit like how Barca's Neymar is different from Brazil's, yet is the required version for both.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Seeler, Cruyff, Masopust and (IMO as a passing by voter) Schuster are at their very best.

I agree on Messi, it's a rather meh Messi which won't prove a matchwinner or dominant performer here. He won't be poor or a hindrance though.

That frontline will click IMO, maybe even more so with Messi not being the fulcrum. A bit like how Barca's Neymar is different from Brazil's, and symultaneously is the required version for both.

Schuster is only at his best if you conveniently ignore the very first criteria for this draft. Which is fine if you do but I am still rating based on the rules of the draft so schuster cant be rated at his full 2 match level when he was absent for 3 out of 5.

Kinda of renders Annahs entire rules pointless to just rate Schuster on 2 matches but whatever

 

[Chesterlestreet]

This is why as opposed to Antohan, I don't see EAP's front four very dangerous at all.

Hm. Well, I'd call that harsh. Messi stands out there as simply not being very impressive in terms of how he performed in the relevant tournament.

The others were in or close to top form in their respective tournaments, and as we've now established, there is no actual rule which makes it necessary to question their level.

Out of interest, what would count against Cruyff and Seeler?

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Hm. Well, I'd call that harsh. Messi stands out there as simply not being very impressive in terms of how he performed in the relevant tournament.

The others were in or close to top form in their respective tournaments, and as we've now established, there is no actual rule which makes it necessary to question their level.

Out of interest, what would count against Cruyff and Seeler?

Cruyff and Seeler are mostly just in a very different tactical system than what they actually played in. Not a big deal for those two in a normal draft at all but when I put that together with 2/5 Schuster and subpar Messi, it just performs as unit much less than the sum of the names on paper for me. Some rate things different though for this draft criteria.

And to me it negates a bit of what I was excited most about my '88 Dutch trio being rated on. I thought with a criteria of full tournament match consistency + quality of opponents being heavily weighted would boost the 1988 achievements. I agree its harder to visualize these types of discounting perhaps although its easy for me as I am used to it in other areas. I might have been happier with Faas Wilkes on the left than Overmars because Faas had 3 goals in two Olympic matches in 1948.

In hindsight, I realized halfway through the draft, I would have drafted different if I had the time anyway by including more "one tournament wonders". Maybe that would have worked against me because I would have been even more "all-in" on the whole one full tournament + quality of opposition angle. But the way I viewed the whole draft seems opposite of Edgar as I personally would never even have considered Messi or Schuster with Annah's written "guidelines".

 

[antohan]

Schuster is only at his best if you conveniently ignore the very first criteria for this draft. Which is fine if you do but I am still rating based on the rules of the draft so schuster cant be rated at his full 2 match level when he was absent for 3 out of 5.

Kinda of renders Annahs entire rules pointless to just rate Schuster on 2 matches but whatever

1. Annahs rule isn't as steadfast as you make it out to be

2. It was a four match tourno.

First game a Schuster-less Germany laboured its way to a win and looked ordinary.

Second game was against the Dutch and out of nowhere this youngster shows up and runs the entire game like a seasoned pro (while facing double WC finalists!).

Third game Germany only need a draw against fecking Greece. Schuster is on a yellow so gets preserved. Germany serve up shit on a stick again.

Final, Schuster back in the fold and Germany reignites itself to beat a great Belgium side.

3. I vividly remember the noticeable impact he had, the difference he made. Rummenigge was meant to be the best player in the world and yet it was Schuster making it all click.

4. You demand people consider Messi's quality of oppo, his absence from the won Chile game, his presence in the lost one... Here's the flipside: Schuster played the two hardest games out of four and transformed Germany in both.

Tangible impact, like a before and after inside the same tourno and squad form. I will rate him on that not on some idiotic 50% games = 50% performance basis.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

1. Annahs rule isn't as steadfast as you make it out to be

2. It was a four match tourno.

First game a Schuster-less Germany laboured its way to a win and looked ordinary.

Second game was against the Dutch and out of nowhere this youngster shows up and runs the entire game like a seasoned pro (while facing double WC finalists!).

Third game Germany only need a draw against fecking Greece. Schuster is on a yellow so gets preserved. Germany serve up shit on a stick again.

Final, Schuster back in the fold and Germany reignites itself to beat a great Belgium side.

3. I vividly remember the noticeable impact he had, the difference he made. Rummenigge was meant to be the best player in the world and yet it was Schuster making it all click.

4. You demand people consider Messi's quality of oppo, his absence from the won Chile game, his presence in the lost one... Here's the flipside: Schuster played the two hardest games out of four and transformed Germany in both.

Tangible impact, like a before and after inside the same tourno and squad form. I will rate him on that not on some idiotic 50% games = 50% performance basis.

Then Annah never should have made that "guideline" because if people are just ignoring its pointless to list it in the set of rules.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Then Annah never should have made that "guideline" because if people are just ignoring its pointless to list it in the set of rules.

I think the «spirit» of it has mainly to do with safeguarding against Salenko type picks. If you pick based on limited appearances, you have to prepare for scrutiny - and that's where both the player himself and the nature of the opposition comes into play.

The guideline doesn't say anything about automatic devaluation of any player with less than max no of appearances.

I don't know, but to me it seems that what you'd prefer here is a sort of rating which takes X factors into consideration, e.g. number of appearances, level of opposition, etc. In other words, the player to be considered isn't Messadona but rather Messadona as he appears after having been rated per the above system. But a) the system isn't agreed upon and b) it's too complicated. What most people will do - I think - is to a) look at the player, b) look at the tournament and c) decide whether the player in question is close to his prime or not.

And potentially d) whether the incarnation featured deviates from other incarnations of the player in terms of what position/role he played.

In short, people probably won't give you extra credit for what you mention - they're more likely to simply consider Gullit and MVB as prime versions, period, rather than factoring in the level of the opposition and whatnot as compared directly to the equivalent for Schuster et al.

 

[antohan]

Then Annah never should have made that "guideline" because if people are just ignoring its pointless to list it in the set of rules.

The guideline doesn't establish a steadfast rule for dilution, you just made up your own.

Their peak will be rated solely on what they did in that specific tournament. There is no rules on exactly how many matches the player has to have played, but obviously the more the merrier and the primary goal is impact to the teams performance overall in the tournament.

You must include the tournament and year you chose both in the formation picture and the write up.

I.e Pele from '58 played just 3 games, which means in half of the games he had 0 impact. It doesn't mean you can't use that Pele if you want, but you at least then know that it will seriously affect his value here.

The bolded bit is crucial, particularly with Schuster. Without Schuster Germany wouldn't have won Euro 1980, simple as.

He actually said as much himself. Not to big himself up but out of the ongoing rift with Matthäus:

He came on the last 20 minutes and almost gifted the game back to them [i.e. the Dutch].

That was another reason it was important I played well. If I didn't Matthäus would have played more and he would have got us eliminated

Such a shame we never saw them together in midfield in 82/86/88/90

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Too much us being made of Messi. Not like he's a sheep or anything. He'll still be influential enough to nick a goal.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I think the «spirit» of it has mainly to do with safeguarding against Salenko type picks. If you pick based on limited appearances, you have to prepare for scrutiny - and that's where both the player himself and the nature of the opposition comes into play.

The guideline doesn't say anything about automatic devaluation of any player with less than max no of appearances.

Why is Salenko a pick to have rules made to be "safeguarded against" but Schuster's 2 matches is not to be safeguarded?

I don't see any consistency of this logic. And actually the guideline is specifically about devaluation with the Pele '58 example.

In hindsight the "International Peak" should have been defined different. It should have been something like '10 Consecutive International Matches' which would have been more clear and defined and without any "interpretation" differences. It also could have included players like Faas Wilkes who had just as good 2 match combos as Schustr is being rated for.

 

[Moby]

So was Stiles in 1966. In fact if there was a list of DM suitable for the physicality of Gullit, I'd put Stiles on/near top of the list. He matches, Gullit's energy and can follow him around all match. Plus there's always Masopust and Schuster to provide coverage.

And thoughts on Vieira/van Hanegem on right, duo? Think that's a match for Cruyff/Messi?

Going into individual matchups is definitely something I wouldn't really be keen on doing here, especially as neither team is inviting anything like that, however obviously you would threaten a lot going forward as well.

I simply prefer onenil's tactical approach more and the fact that he has recreated a setup that his players are absolutely at home in and it is very easy to imagine them work in that. He is spot on with his use of Rijkaard, for example and has the correct CM pair in there. I myself always say Vieira plays well with a DM but here you don't want a DM in that midfield, given the players they are surrounded with. It's very complimentary and has the Gullit - van Basten pair up front which for me is the biggest point. They aren't just proven together, but both of them had brilliant tournaments in 1988 and I rate them more than your attack. And like I said, I don't think Stiles is the right kind of man to face Gullit here, that for me is a bit glaring. You don't need a man marker against that man.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Why is Salenko a pick to have rules made to be "safeguarded against" but Schuster's 2 matches is not to be safeguarded?

I don't see any consistency of this logic. And actually the guideline is specifically about devaluation with the Pele '58 example.

In hindsight the "International Peak" should have been defined different. It should have been something like '10 Consecutive International Matches' which would have been more clear and defined and without any "interpretation" differences. It also could have included players like Faas Wilkes who had just as good 2 match combos as Schustr is being rated for.

I agree that if you take the Pelé example (in the OP) in isolation, it doesn't make sense not to devaluate Schuster. But Annah has clarified that the Pelé thing isn't a rule, and that people are free to interpret «impact» as they please.

The Pelé example isn't a good one, in my opinion. There's no doubt about his impact, just as there's no doubt about Schuster's. But bad example or not, it clearly doesn't mean what you thought it did - again, Annah has clarified this.

Anyway, trying to imagine how a generally sub-par player would work in a fantasy match is difficult enough. Trying to figure out how a 50% X would work with a 70% Y - and so forth - would be hopeless.