Ah so you're using Mazzola more as a second-striker than the designated playmaker that was Rivera. Makes sense.
P-nut/Enigma vs Skizzo - Tactical Draft Final
- Thread starter Šjor Bepo
- Start date
Well we've picked Alonso more for his playmaking skills from deep and used him as such mainly with the added bonus of being defensively solid(hence the opening option for us was Veron).
In this formation we've subbed out Puyol and brought in Coluna, which changes few things.
First the approach is more balanced compared to the sitting deep and inviting pressure. We still have direct approach and Alonso still is option from deep to get the ball to the wing or even Rivera up field, but his role is also more of a bit anchor one - one he's also much familiar with. Basically he offers protection to the back four and the CB's but also is a deep playmaker to start attacks.
I agree that it's not about playing against each other but still with the width predominantly coming from the flanks and Gerets and Lizarazu offering a lot going forward we need protection at the back, regardless of the opposition.
Basically he's the one dropping in between the CB's to take the ball and bring it forward while our main playmaker is Rivera in advanced position. With Vasovic not in a libero role but as a CB in a back four Alonso is the main man here moving the ball forward, but again not taking the playmaking mantle off Rivera - on the contrary just facilitating the transition from deep.
Think with a back four his role as facilitator from deep and moving the ball forward is just as important as his role before, with the notion that of course Rivera is the classic #10.
A bit like the Spain vs Italy video that I've posted he'll have similar role, yet not cross paths with Rivera in any shape or form.
Coluna and Robbo set the stage for him to shine.
Alonso is an insurance policy in this side really. He allows the B2B midfielders license to get forward. Sure I'm not going to deny I'd prefer an out and out Makelele type there but out of the pool available and without knowing this switch was coming I'm more than happy to have him sat in there.
He'll retain possession well and cover for the 2 midfielders when they push up field. It's a simple role but one he's more than equipped to carry out.
He'll retain possession well and cover for the 2 midfielders when they push up field. It's a simple role but one he's more than equipped to carry out.
Yes - I get the idea.
And it might work.
One important factor here - as a voter - would be how highly one rates Voronin. Clodoaldo too, I suppose, though he'll be more familiar to many due to his presence in the '70 side.
See, what you might need to sell here is that your players are sufficiently suited to share that playmaking responsibility.
I'm a general advocate of formations without an obvious, grand playmaker - so you wouldn't normally get any undue criticism from me on that. And I suppose you shouldn't get any here either - there's enough creativity in that team. Clodoaldo is perhaps considered by some as a pure sidekick to Gerson (not to mention that the '70 team most will associate him with was loaded with creative players) - but he wasn't a limited DM type by any means.
And Voronin - well, he was a great player. Ask some people and they'll say he was immense - and complete. More than capable of doing a bit of string pulling even though he wasn't a specialist.
One has to mention again, though, since this is about Mazzola, that his best incarnation was as more of a second striker type (or a free role, or whatever) in a setup that included not one but two orchestrators (and specialist passers) in the shape of Corso and Suarez. But I would perhaps say that this orchestrating and specialist passing business is more interesting/important for Inter as such than it is for Mazzola, in particular: You can't say that his game, such as it was, absolutely depended on a particular kind of service from a typical playmaker - he wasn't one himself, but you obviously can't conclude reasonably from this that he wouldn't work in a setup that doesn't have one: There are several examples of great configurations whose main man was a second striker/free role type who did not have a grand playmaker to support him.
But the historical Mazzola undoubtedly did his best work with string pullers - that's pretty much undeniable.
No worries mate, was nice to keep up the discussion and see different views. As I've mentioned before, Coluna/Robbo pairing when they are both on the pitch offer a lot more to facilitate Rivera run the game for us rather than Mazzola who at his best is a second striker.Alright! Didn't know that. And yes, I'm giving @Enigma_87 trouble for not liking for the Robbo-Alonso pairing, but I can see it really working with Rivera.
Maybe that's my problem: I have really come to love Rivera
And as I write, here are the second half teams. Suddenly, Alonso looks oh so fine!
If I differentiate them Rivera has the more nonchalant style - Italy's golden boy, he will run the game gracefully, ping short and long passes, look for through balls (something he was very much known for) and in that sense having Vieri/Signori in front of him would suit his style pretty well providing options to pass and also drag defenders while creating space for him.
So while Robbo/Coluna was a case of either or in a side that matches Mazzola's strengths it's a pretty important pairing to create the solid core behind Rivera to let him boss the game.
Well...that's partly where it's at: With that Robbo-Coluna combo in front of a trio at the back, you really have plenty of protection. It's not entirely unreasonable to regard Alonso as somewhat superfluous there if we're talking sheer protection.
What you need, as a minimum, in a wingback formation is a trio at the back (obviously) and at least one central midfielder who can drop down to cover. Here you actually have two – Coluna was disciplined and defensively secure (enough). Robbo was a tenacious bastard who always chased down the opponent and tried to interfere. I don't think you need more than that – against a non-specific, abstract (as it were) opponent.
I can understand your reasoning behind it, of course, but there's also Coluna/Robson pulled wide to protect the full back or cover for him in case he ventures forward. What Alonso can do in a case like this is stay central and let the midfield keep shape, as Rivera is not the hardworking pressing type of #10.
We require couple of versatile players, who are also great in transition, especially the full backs. Both Coluna and Robbo have a lot to offer going forward and it's not like we don't trust them to do the job in a double pivot, but in a more flexible formation as the one above with a lot of transition and covering going on, having Alonso at the base gives balance to that midfield, whilst relieving Rivera of any defensive duties and let him play his natural game.
Essentially when in possession we have Alonso and our two CB's in deeper position, while one of our CM's covers the full back from his side when he ventures forward while the other one either surges forward or keeps the shape centrally.
When in defensive phase we have a flat back four one of our CM's covering wide and Alonso/the other CM keeping shape centrally.
Aye, I do agree with your suggestions despite our own transgressions. Now that the scores are hidden though it's hard to insist that AMs refrain from voting, as it's a ball-ache participating without knowing the score.
Yes, there's that.
And I'm a fan of the non-visible thing, so I wouldn't change that.
I suppose the alternative is to insist that the AMs get in touch with their gaffer to be informed of the score – but I realize this may not be practical due to time zones and whatnot.
I don't know – my point has always been that it's a bit...anticlimactic somehow that the score on display isn't the real score, not least when you end up with scores that don't even reflect which team has won the match (doesn't happen often, but still).
It's happened here.
Last edited:
Scores my man, scores.
Isn't 1st half voting finished now?
From a certain viewpoint (and not an unreasonable one) you have three CBs, two wingbacks (who won't bomb all the way up at the same time and who are both excellent at reading the game/defensively sound for wingbacks) and two central midfielders who are both adept at both hounding/pressing and covering.
Do you really need Alonso for extra protection in that setup? Against a particular opponent - sure, that might be. But you're not up against one here.
Alonso:
* Adds some protection (but he isn't someone you'd pick for a pure shielding part as such if you actually needed such a part, is he?).
* Adds plenty in the passing/playmaking department (but you don't really need him there, do you?).
So, does the combination of what he offers (a bit of shielding and a bit of playmaking you don't really need) justify his inclusion? Don't know about that.
I'm putting it in extreme terms, of course - but one has to buy his role here, and I'm not sure it makes perfect sense.
People can still vote for what they preferred in the first half if they haven't yet.
No, people can vote for both halves until the poll closes.
Nah, it's opened till the end. It was reversed when the 2nd half teams were introduced btw.
On Alonso - it's combination of both. He offers protection to the midfield and defence occupying that zone but also helps the ball moving from deep.
Here we have Vasovic/Forster as a CB duo, playing as CB's so Xabi will naturally move the ball forward and he also provide the anchor role in defence.
Coluna/Robbo are both going to provide in the attacking phase so essentially Xabi will not be the spare CB in the pure sense like you've described but will also move to cover.
If we're looking at Xabi's version is closer to his Spanish incarnation when he was paired with Iniesta/Xavi(pre Busquets)/Silva - 2010 - of course different mechanics and formation, but I wouldn't call him redundant or useless in that role(not that you have mind).
@Enigma_87 I ended up drinking those beers, for better or worse – and the “worse” part is that I somehow managed to imagine your original defence being in place.
It obviously becomes a different matter with what is – essentially – a more standard CB combo and offensive fullbacks.
I would still argue that Robbo/Coluna offers plenty of protection here – and both of them used their defensive qualities very effectively in setups that didn't have a dedicated shielder/holder (of the sort we're talking about here) to protect the defence.
But, yeah – it becomes a different picture obviously. And the possible criticism would have to be different:
Alonso: You don't really need him as a playmaker – and he could have been replaced with a more effective “pure” DM, who drops down and covers. That is, if you need an extra body in midfield at all - which is still debatable.
That is an entirely different criticism, though – as he makes far more sense, in general, in the setup you're actually presenting (than the one I invented).
So, sorry about that – blame the beer.
It obviously becomes a different matter with what is – essentially – a more standard CB combo and offensive fullbacks.
I would still argue that Robbo/Coluna offers plenty of protection here – and both of them used their defensive qualities very effectively in setups that didn't have a dedicated shielder/holder (of the sort we're talking about here) to protect the defence.
But, yeah – it becomes a different picture obviously. And the possible criticism would have to be different:
Alonso: You don't really need him as a playmaker – and he could have been replaced with a more effective “pure” DM, who drops down and covers. That is, if you need an extra body in midfield at all - which is still debatable.
That is an entirely different criticism, though – as he makes far more sense, in general, in the setup you're actually presenting (than the one I invented).
So, sorry about that – blame the beer.
Good to see a living game.
Will make my contribution tomorrow morning
Will make my contribution tomorrow morning
Better tonight, worse tomorrow, I guess, as always
No worries, mate. Yeah, I mentioned that in the second half we're looking at him at more of his anchor role rather than the deep playmaker. Still we would "need" him and those qualities so he can move the ball from deep in possession, hence the nominal DLP, rather than destroyer label which would do him no good.
Of course there are options to put a pure destroyer there or a Maka type and that's of course a valid point, but (and probably you can sense a theme in these drafts) I'd rather have Alonso or even Tigana type of holder. Someone who can also pick a pass and start the attack, especially playing on counter or in a direct set up(and in possession is even necessary).
Alonso himself in the defensive phase is quite solid and coupled with his positional play and reading of the game makes him very good option in that position with the added bonus of picking up a pass. There's also him often being in a side that has not one, not two but even 3 playmakers on the pitch besides him at a time (Silva, Xavi, Iniesta) and still working pretty well, so he will blend in fine with another advanced(and as noted main one) flanked with two great box to box all rounders in Coluna and Robbo.
Yes – a fair enough point, that.
He's capable of playing a fairly subdued game (and play it well), to put it like that – I don't think he'd be getting in Rivera's way and step on his playmaking toes – it's more a question of whether you actually need his skills in that department. And, not least, whether those skills of his would be beneficial to Rivera: I don't think you can say that – but then again his style certainly isn't incompatible with Rivera's either.
The question would be whether you might have – using your available personnel – made a different sub, benching Alonso, going with Robbo/Coluna and added a presence somewhere else on the pitch that might have been more directly beneficial for Rivera.
I have to think about that – but not tonight.
ETA The answer to the bold part seems to be - not really, given who you have at your disposal.
And I don't think you could have done anything radically different/better for the primary task (Mazzola) - so there it is.
I think you've done marginally better than @Skizzo on the whole here, so I'll just vote and get it over with, since I'll be largely occupied tomorrow.
I'll check in, though, and see if anyone has made any brilliant points before the poll closes.
Last edited:
Not really a fan of the players swap idea tbh. Goes against the spirit of the draft imo.
Bedtime for me! Good luck for the rest of the match @P-Nut0712 @Enigma_87
I think a variation of this idea might have been good. The draft got tedious towards the end as all teams were set up well. All voters can do is nitpick at that point, which is what I personally was doing here with two perfectly fine teams.
So what I suggest is, after the first round (where managers get to use their own central player), we create a pool of central players and randomly allocate them to managers. Now, with the other ten players being fixed, this will force managers to be innovative to bring the best out of the player allocated to them.
It will also create slightly imperfect teams but will give voters a chance to appreciate which manager did better with what he had. Granted, there is an element of luck but it can be minimized by picking a more complete team.
And for the final, the two managers get to pick their central player, apart from the one they originally picked. Overall, an interesting tournament.
Like that diamond.
It's a lovely notion for us hipsters, especially given the staffetta context, but it probably punishes Skizzo more than Pnut/Enigma who have a range of midfield options based on various game-by-game tweaks. Whereas Skizzo's team was nailed from day one and there was never any requirement to build something senza Rivera. Which has left him somewhat exposed here.
Yeah we realised straight away that we could move to a diamond given the midfield options we'd picked up. Worked out quite well for us really.
Yeah, this. While I usually love these type of shenanigans in a draft, it's doesn't fit this draft type.
I prefer team 1st half. Not so many players to exploit the passing skills of Rivera
I also prefer team 1st half because I have the feeling that Jansen is stronger defensively than Clodoaldo. I like the idea to see Mazzola as a #10
You just described there why Verón is a better choice than Xabi. If you need to work out why Coluna is a bad fit just look at Skizzo's remake: he is crying out for a DLP.
You also severely underrate Verón and seem to go on his PL experience, not his peak form. Gegenpressing is irrelevant by the way, you are building a side for Mazzola to shine, not to beat a bunch of Duracell bunnies.
Cheers mate, wasn't much around today and most likely will be off till the end, just came to get a glimpse of the discussion from the morning. Good luck to you as well!
To me there isn't much between them tbh. Both are appropriate for a setup around Mazzola and IMO the PL experience undermined his reputation. As a DLP there are not many better. In terms of passing range ditto - we went for Alonso on the basis that he's more solid defensively, which was the main issue from our first game. Both have pros and cons of course.
Think it was a nice change tbh. At least to get a discussion flowing and try different formations approaches for the star players. Think Skizzo's team suffered a lot by the lack of deep playmaker, moreso than us where we've lacked any other options in attack so we had to adjust accordingly.
Indeed, Alonso is a better fit here, but could/should have been subbed on for the 2H.Alright! Didn't know that. And yes, I'm giving @Enigma_87 trouble for not liking for the Robbo-Alonso pairing, but I can see it really working with Rivera.
Maybe that's my problem: I have really come to love Rivera
And as I write, here are the second half teams. Suddenly, Alonso looks oh so fine!
Re: Rivera, I love the guy, delighted to finally see him getting his dues and not just some nominal early exit #10
If anything, this shows the wisdom of using Mazzola 1H and Rivera 2H and not the other way around. Mazzola needs the team built around him more than Rivera does, which is a shame for Skizzo but also kudos to P-enignut
not sure that i agree with that, think this is just the case where p-nut/enigma had deeper roster as skizzo only upgraded his team with defenders so he lacked options around offensive players. Rivera probably played second half because the other team was already tired then so the lack of workrate and athleticism wasnt as big of an issue as it might be from the start.
The tiredness was obviously a factor. Also managing the game flow Italian-style (Mazzola catenaccio start, Rivera counterattacking once ahead).
What I was pointing at was how much more easily he slots in. You can bring on Rivera alone, while if you take Rivera away and bring Mazzola on you still have to make one other sub to avoid going stale creatively.
it goes both ways tbf, just depends what you have on the pitch at the time.
I don't really think so. I think he'll do well as a SS in any 2 striker formations. It would be better if Skizzo just dropped back his wingers and played a 4-4-2. Though he was a competent #10, it was not his peak.