Il Fenomeno Draft - QF - Raees vs Beam Nut

[Fortitude]

I'd say that Veron in terms of his interpretation of the role was quite close to Falcão at Roma — both weren't number 10s, but both were constantly compared to the likes of Zidane & Platini because they've played as the most advanced midfielder with a full license to go forward. The same way you'd want Pogba on the left of a midfield three but not as a number 10 in 4-2-3-1 — their playing style and attributes were better highlighted in a slightly deeper role.

Not sure why those Scholes quotes are even brought up though. I mean, you can use that quote about 4-4-2 to prove that our 2006-2008 set up with him at the very center of it simply wouldn't work.


What kind of a fool put him in a midfield 3, ffs?

Don't quite get the point being made here, harms. A midfield 3 with Scholes isn't an issue, rather, who and who dictates and orchestrates from there, is. Scholes was utterly dominant in our side - all deferred to him and completely depended on his retention to get their own games underway. Carrick was supplemental - in total reverence to his superior and there to sweep up/ cover. Scholes had zero opposition in his own side: the midfield was his to do as he pleased with, same as we say with Xavi or Pirlo, even though for the latter, it's a bit different.

In the earlier stages of Scholes career, the midfield was Keane's and anyone who got in the way of that would be in trouble (Veron), Scholes did his bits when in a two, but he deferred to Keane, or probably better to say, Keane was OK with Scholes doing his thing. If the 'OK' bit doesn't happen, there needs to be some kind of agreement between midfielders to share the load, or accept their role is to go after the orchestrator, like Iniesta did or Pogba at Juve etc. the conceptualisation of Falcao waiting for 'his turn' via Scholes is a testy one, but I think it's negated by Raees having a team that is instructed to sit and hold position as Falcao isn't going to be contested then when coming toward the ball.

 

[Synco]

Don't quite get the point being made here, harms. A midfield 3 with Scholes isn't an issue, rather, who and who dictates and orchestrates from there, is. Scholes was utterly dominant in our side - all deferred to him and completely depended on his retention to get their own games underway. Carrick was supplemental - in total reverence to his superior and there to sweep up/ cover. Scholes had zero opposition in his own side: the midfield was his to do as he pleased with, same as we say with Xavi or Pirlo, even though for the latter, it's a bit different.

In the earlier stages of Scholes career, the midfield was Keane's and anyone who got in the way of that would be in trouble (Veron), Scholes did his bits when in a two, but he deferred to Keane, or probably better to say, Keane was OK with Scholes doing his thing. If the 'OK' bit doesn't happen, there needs to be some kind of agreement between midfielders to share the load, or accept their role is to go after the orchestrator, like Iniesta did or Pogba at Juve etc. the conceptualisation of Falcao waiting for 'his turn' via Scholes is a testy one, but I think it's negated by Raees having a team that is instructed to sit and hold position as Falcao isn't going to be contested then when coming toward the ball.

Not sure I can get on board with this. For example, whose midfield was it for 2015-18 Real - Kroos' or Modric's?

Does the ability to boss a midfield on one's own translate to an inability to share duties with another playmaker? Especially when both guys don't have the exact same characteristics?

 

[Raees]

Not sure I can get on board with this. For example, whose midfield was it for 2015-18 Real - Kroos' or Modric's?

Does the ability to boss a midfield on one's own translate to an inability to share duties with another playmaker? Especially when both guys don't have the exact same characteristics?

It comes down to individual personalities. You can’t say as a blanket rule, any team with two playmakers isn’t going to work. Have to look at their body of work and their personalities - it isn’t just a tactical or technical analysis that needs to be undertaken.

Anyway moving on from the topic..

Looking forward to seeing these guys carry the ball on the counter...

 

[Fortitude]

Not sure I can get on board with this. For example, whose midfield was it for 2015-18 Real - Kroos' or Modric's?

Does the ability to boss a midfield on one's own translate to an inability to share duties with another playmaker? Especially when both guys don't have the exact same characteristics?

But that's not the same thing. They do match my point of shared responsibility from the outset, not one having dominance over the team as stated for those players I mentioned. Keane always had the most passes in our midfield because he was deferred to as the hub; his action would decide the next one(s) time and time again, the exact same way Scholes would be the player all behind him would look for, particularly when in trouble as they knew his control, speed of thought and execution was the safest bet, which it usually was, and then we'd get underway from there.

The di Bartolomei point is an interesting one, as it reminded me that he was the captain there. Scholes didn't have our armband, but the team was undoubtedly his. Xavi was captain, and so was Pirlo. It kind of goes part and parcel. For me personally, I have a hard time envisioning Falcao deferring to Scholes. Although a superior player to di Bartolomei, Falcao came into that team where di Bartolomei was the captain - I don''t think there was a juncture where leadership etc needed to be wrestled for between the two, and the understanding benefited Falcao in terms of goal-scoring. Not sure it optimised him, though as for me personally, Falcao is someone I want dead centre, involved in build-up with the pitch ahead of him and his famed ghosting then has the window to come to life in with him following in on play.

If Raees had a midfield that could/would get in the thick of it with Jim's, this would be more of an issue, as is, I think it's just an interesting talking point.

 

[Synco]

But that's not the same thing. They do match my point of shared responsibility from the outset, not one having dominance over the team as stated for those players I mentioned.

But without Schweinsteiger, Kroos has been dominating games for Germany in the exact same way you describe in your post. Yet, when Schweinsteiger or Modric entered the picture, he had no problem to cooperate and share. He can do one and the other, dependent on setup & teammates.

Same for Beckenbauer/Overath (66-70), or Rijkaard/Koeman or Rijkaard/Baresi at CB. I'm not sure draft convention would have let these ones pass, yet they were brilliant in real life.

It comes down to individual personalities. You can’t say as a blanket rule, any team with two playmakers isn’t going to work. Have to look at their body of work and their personalities - it isn’t just a tactical or technical analysis that needs to be undertaken.

That's where I'm coming from as well. I'm just not too convinced yet by the "undisputed leadership" argument for Scholes 06-09 and Falcao 81-84 being inable to sufficiently cooperate in a possession setup.

I'd give the same credit to Moore/Baresi btw, unless someone can convince me why these specific two players would get in each other's way.

 

[Jim Beam]

You can’t say as a blanket rule, any team with two playmakers isn’t going to work.

this is going better and better.

 

[harms]

@Fortitude let’s put it like that, I’m actually not sure if I can remember a game, where Falcão had played without at least one (usually more) additional playmakers next to him. Falcão was also the main man in that Roma side, captain or not; same as Platini was the man in that Juve side, even though Scirea was their captain.

As for Scholes — that’s why I don’t pick him, I guess. I love him too much to even try to objectively judge him. For example, take the set up from that Roma game — Carrick is another DLP, albeit a one that’s happy to play the second fiddle; and Anderson (try not to laugh) is actually a very, very inferior Falcão-esque player, who had also combined playmaking, dribbling and driving runs forward. I don’t think that I’d put Scholes next to Pirlo as a player who needs to be the only one who moves the ball forward (not the best wording, but you know what I mean). The notion of Scholes as this whiny boy who refused to play next to Veron and quit the national team because he wasn’t given free reign there (there’s some distance between being shunned on the wing and not being made the central figure of everything) is also not something that I can get behind — but then I’m quite biased.

 

[Jim Beam]

It is not a science fiction. You have holder (the most brilliant one), regista or a playmaker and a penetrating b2b who can hurt you which are my favorite combinations.

DM - De Bruyne - Charlton

DM - Xavi - Schuster

DM - Kroos - Modric

DM - Xavi - Iniesta

Rijkaard - Scholes - Falcao

They all look good, don't they?

It is even beyond comprehension we are having this debate. Scholes never was a dominating player or one who would demand the central role. Falcao played with a bunch of playmakers in that Brazil side and it didn't make a damn difference, he thrived in it. I see Scholes allowing Falcao to lift his game and being complementary. Why we don't talk a bit about Pluskal - Van Hanegem magical combo. Oh wait, they will seat back, so not a big deal. No one will go in each other way or demand the ball as they will mostly run around not seeing it.

Go on and vote for Baresi - Moore being on their absolute best holding the last line, I really don't mind it.... Muller scoring as he always does, but stop this nonsense. Scholes, Veron, kung foo Cantona and Scholes wanting to leave United as he didn't get the central stage??
And am being disengagious. Yeah, it happens when there is a lot of bullshit and you actually avoid a debate.

 

[Fortitude]

@Fortitude let’s put it like that, I’m actually not sure if I can remember a game, where Falcão had played without at least one (usually more) additional playmakers next to him. Falcão was also the main man in that Roma side, captain or not; same as Platini was the man in that Juve side, even though Scirea was their captain.

As for Scholes — that’s why I don’t pick him, I guess. I love him too much to even try to objectively judge him. For example, take the set up from that Roma game — Carrick is another DLP, albeit a one that’s happy to play the second fiddle; and Anderson (try not to laugh) is actually a very, very inferior Falcão-esque player, who had also combined playmaking, dribbling and driving runs forward. I don’t think that I’d put Scholes next to Pirlo as a player who needs to be the only one who moves the ball forward (not the best wording, but you know what I mean). The notion of Scholes as this whiny boy who refused to play next to Veron and quit the national team because he wasn’t given free reign there (there’s some distance between being shunned on the wing and not being made the central figure of everything) is also not something that I can get behind — but then I’m quite biased.

I think Falcao basically governed the team beyond the halfway line with players around him skipping to his beat. That could equate to being the main man; I wouldn't dispute that, but there are clear and defined roles in that side and 'go times' for each player to come to life. I tell you what would be interesting, although impossible to acquire: a pass (and receipt) tally for that midfield - who made the most passes, had the most initial touches of the ball and so on. There you find the initial deference point.

Funny, too, with Scholes, that if you ask in the main forum, I doubt it'd be consensus it was 'his' team, as the conflation becomes 'best' player being the most important rather than acknowledgement that he was the integral focal point that set everything else in motion.

Oh, I'm not riding the whiny notion - I think circumstance in our side brought forth the Scholes we saw. He was our retainer, by far the most dependable player to work the opposition into a frenzy of chasing shadows before tiring and then allowing United as a whole to play, as more often than not, dominance in midfield had been asserted (by Scholes, and Carrick to a lesser extent). Xavi's role being the same at Barca, the overlap for comparison could be easily understood. Scholes playing with someone else who could play combinations, one and two touch as effortlessly would have been a dream - from that perspective, they could be a dream duo. I guess it's down to whether you think it'd work with Scholes playing further up the pitch where legwork and stamina become prominent factors as opposed to at the base of midfield where he'd get more breathers and be less in the thick of a high octane midfield battle (not in this game).

 

[Raees]

this is going better and better.

Do you actually know how to put forward arguments without coming across like a total dick? Not going to bother participating in this match as it’s like taking part in a debate with a toddler.

 

[harms]

I think Falcao basically governed the team beyond the halfway line with players around him skipping to his beat. That could equate to being the main man; I wouldn't dispute that, but there are clear and defined roles in that side and 'go times' for each player to come to life.

I don't know, from what I've seen of that Roma side, I just don't see it that way, I guess. Especially after they've signed Cerezo. The whole argument seems outlandish to me, so this is going to be my last post on the matter — we seem to be flogging a dead horse here. Falcão is literally the most adjustable GOAT playmaker of all-time, who has proven that he can play (and perform at his best) alongside any kind of a partner or partners. That Brazil side had 5 playmakers in the team (including Junior), Roma had 2 or 3 dominant playmakers, depending on a season, in Falcão, Di Bartolomei and Cerezo, and Falcão had performed at a level that was arguably even more impressive than his performances for seleção — like any runner up he eventually got forgotten, but it was a 2-horse (what's up with me and horses today) race between him and Platini for a couple of seasons for a title of the best player in Serie A (which pretty much equalled the world). Scholes was not a Garrincha that would take a ball and never give it back, he was an extremely selfless player, which had so often worked against him in terms the individual recognition, who also had experience of playing alongside different partners, including those who had liked to get a lot of time on the ball.

Kroos' example is also a great one — personally, I always felt that he was someone who would grow up to become a dominant (not always in a good way) midfield playmaker, but even he easily adjusted to, say, Modrić, or Schweinsteiger. It's not even like Scholes or Falcão's duties critically overlap — Scholes will focus on spreading the ball around (which was very much a Di Bartolomei's forte) and on keeping possession with smart short/middle distance passing and Falcão will focus more on making forward runs, dribbling past his markers and, well, also spreading the ball around (with more attention to passes in the final third) — and shooting, of course.

By the way, what's your take on the matter @oneniltothearsenal? I'd imagine that you've seen more of Falcão than anyone of us and you don't have your red-tinted glasses on (well, you do, but with a slightly different tint).

 

[Jim Beam]

Do you actually know how to put forward arguments without coming across like a total dick? Not going to bother participating in this match as it’s like taking part in a debate with a toddler.

I don't know what to say to you. Have some sleep and look through some of the arguments you put today. Also, I really don't give much importance whether you will bother or not. Don't care if I will win or not too.

As I said, don't have problems people going for you based on the defence and Muller striking genius (I also love Albert as a player), but when I see a nonsense I will call it out.

It is like playing with a toddler... And I won't play with you anymore!!!

 

[Joga Bonito]

Good discussion @harms @Fortitude

Don't necessarily agree with your point on this matter but it's always great to see a fresh perspective on here.

@Jim Beam @Raees calm down guys

 

[Jim Beam]

@Jim Beam @Raees calm down guys

Perfectly calm.

 

[Synco]

More than enough written about Beam Nut's midfield, imo. Also Beam, I think Raees is right about the tone - is there really a need for that?

To move on, some stuff about other parts of the game:

Rijkaard in that vertical role is great imo, and he has the legs to have a real impact on both ends. He can provide both a vital box-to-box element in possession and a world class presence at the back that completes an already very good defense. There may be moments in defensive transition when he's caught up top, but he usually was very quick to get back, and I have Förster & Ferrara down as an extremely mobile and combative duo that can give great cover in a high line.

These two are also a good match for Müller imo, although that doesn't mean he can't get one through anyway. I think both offenses are well designed & can always do damage, but both defenses are also really tough nuts to crack.

Müller should feel comfortable inside that front four, and in general I suspect good synergy between these players. Müller & Boniek fit a full-on counter setup well imo, maybe others can give their thoughts on Figo & Albert in that regard. Counter initiation from CB should be great with inch-perfect long passing and ball carrying abilities. As I said, if someone thinks Baresi & Moore are a suboptimal match, I'd need to hear the reasons.

I've said my bit on the issue I see with the FBs in possession. But I can imagine Marzolini being a good fit for defending Eusebio, although the Portuguese will probably attack from multiple positions & angles. How do people see the Djalma/Stoichkov matchup stylistically?

Finally, at least 3 of Raees attackers are also top notch defensively, so that deep defense should be very tight overall. Albert is again the one I can't judge there.

Not decided yet.

 

[Fortitude]

I don't know, from what I've seen of that Roma side, I just don't see it that way, I guess. Especially after they've signed Cerezo. The whole argument seems outlandish to me, so this is going to be my last post on the matter — we seem to be flogging a dead horse here. Falcão is literally the most adjustable GOAT playmaker of all-time, who has proven that he can play (and perform at his best) alongside any kind of a partner or partners. That Brazil side had 5 playmakers in the team (including Junior), Roma had 2 or 3 dominant playmakers, depending on a season, in Falcão, Di Bartolomei and Cerezo, and Falcão had performed at a level that was arguably even more impressive than his performances for seleção — like any runner up he eventually got forgotten, but it was a 2-horse (what's up with me and horses today) race between him and Platini for a couple of seasons for a title of the best player in Serie A (which pretty much equalled the world). Scholes was not a Garrincha that would take a ball and never give it back, he was an extremely selfless player, which had so often worked against him in terms the individual recognition, who also had experience of playing alongside different partners, including those who had liked to get a lot of time on the ball.

Falcao, we mostly agree on.

Kroos' example is also a great one — personally, I always felt that he was someone who would grow up to become a dominant (not always in a good way) midfield playmaker, but even he easily adjusted to, say, Modrić, or Schweinsteiger. It's not even like Scholes or Falcão's duties critically overlap — Scholes will focus on spreading the ball around (which was very much a Di Bartolomei's forte) and on keeping possession with smart short/middle distance passing and Falcão will focus more on making forward runs, dribbling past his markers and, well, also spreading the ball around (with more attention to passes in the final third) — and shooting, of course.

By the way, what's your take on the matter @oneniltothearsenal? I'd imagine that you've seen more of Falcão than anyone of us and you don't have your red-tinted glasses on (well, you do, but with a slightly different tint).

With regard to Scholes, I don't want to be misconstrued because I'm not saying he's some Riquelme-like tyrant that demands everything go through him, rather that that's how things were for him when he reinvented his game upon returning to the fold. I'm playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here also beings as this particular midfield has the potential for perfect synergy or things not working as they should. Better to discuss at another time because, as I said previously, in relation to this match, Raees conceded directly contesting the midfield making the point/concern of mine redundant in this particular game.

 

[Fortitude]

Good discussion @harms @Fortitude

Don't necessarily agree with your point on this matter but it's always great to see a fresh perspective on here.

@Jim Beam @Raees calm down guys

Yeah, I think it's an interesting discussion to have. Also interesting to take on the lens others view the midfield, and midfielders, through.

 

[Fortitude]

@Raees, I kind of feel you've missed a trick here if you knew/felt Scholes was going to be lining up against your side.

Conceding the midfield surely plays into his hands? I am aware you want to hold tight, close inlets and hit by bypassing Jim's midfield, but without pressuring it, how are turnovers going to be achieved against such a skilled and able ball retentive midfield? A problem I have here, your previous post accepted, is Scholes-Rijkaard-Falcao is a troubling triangulation in terms of working openings for shots from distance and without a concerted plan of disruption, Falcão is going to work the keeper repeatedly, which raises the issue of your backline being bypassed with no real need to be directly probed and interacted with.

For me personally, I would have worked the midfield battle out differently with your personnel. Not that it'd be the way to go, but in surely making Scholes work and putting Rijkaard on the backfoot. Falcão then has to be more mindful and contributory on the defensive end, which would give less chances deep in your defensive midfield area.

 

[Raees]

@Raees, I kind of feel you've missed a trick here if you knew/felt Scholes was going to be lining up against your side.

Conceding the midfield surely plays into his hands? I am aware you want to hold tight, close inlets and hit by bypassing Jim's midfield, but without pressuring it, how are turnovers going to be achieved against such a skilled and able ball retentive midfield? A problem I have here, your previous post accepted, is Scholes-Rijkaard-Falcao is a troubling triangulation in terms of working openings for shots from distance and without a concerted plan of disruption, Falcão is going to work the keeper repeatedly, which raises the issue of your backline being bypassed with no real need to be directly probed and interacted with.

For me personally, I would have worked the midfield battle out differently with your personnel. Not that it'd be the way to go, but in surely making Scholes work and putting Rijkaard on the backfoot. Falcão then has to be more mindful and contributory on the defensive end, which would give less chances deep in your defensive midfield area.

The era of Scholes used, yielded 12 goals from 114 games so in terms of working shots from distance.. my midfield is more likely to be concerned with Falcao's threat than Scholes. Falcao scored 26 from 112 and most of those goals involve him hitting one twos and slaloming his way into the box.. so restricting that space for him to ghost into by congesting the certain areas seems the best way to negate that threat and its not like my midfied will be totally alongside my CBs.. its just they are marking that central spot which is surely getting in front of that area where most long shots especially from Scholes and Falcao would be taken. They're not the type of shooters like a Seedorf, Gerrard.. Charlton who score from freakish angles and distances.

For me their biggest threat as a pair is their creativity and ball retention skills, why would I bother pressing them if they are two of the most press resistant footballers in this draft? it would be suicide. Look at which teams best combatted Xavi and Iniesta at their peak? it was teams like Interzionale and Chelsea, who took away their options for the pass and just made them pass around in circles making them look excessive in possession.. forcing them to play that more penetrative pass even when there wasn't anything really on and looking to kill them on the counter. If I engage higher up the pitch, then they are more likely to find Hidegkuti who in turn could play in Stoichkov and Eusebio and the game begins to open up for his midfield to dominate.

So in short, I disagree that tactically when up against a press resistant highly technical midfield that you should press them because IMO they will tend to pass around you and get through the lines of the press more often than not. The other key though is to make sure your team has an avenue of getting out from that deeper set position otherwise you can get trapped in your own half and I think in Boniek, Albert, Figo and with Van Hanegam's ability in transition, we are well equipped to go from 0-100 very quickly.

I don't see us as deep as the teams below (we have a lot more quality in our ranks), but the ferocity and pace with which how they counter and the way they congest central areas is a model which will seek to emulate.

 

[Jim Beam]

Chelsea and Inter are really bad examples. Both teams actually went with congested midfield in their matches with Inter for example playing 4-2-3-1, even 4-5-1 most of the times with Eto'o and Pandev going so deep they looked as fullbacks at times. Not true that they didn't put additional pressure on Barca's midfield. Sneijder was man marking Xavi most of the times making him harder to dictate the game.

Sneijder was also given a specific task; to mark Xavi in the center of the pitch. On multiple occasions, Sneijder moved away from the play to follow Xavi.

There is nothing in Raees team which indicates he can do that here. In fact he openly says he won't. He also can't as he doesn't have the numbers to do it.
He will not put additional marker on either Rijkaard or Scholes making them harder to dominate. And of course Barcelona had Ibrahimovic which wasn't mobile enough to shift that Inter defence while am having Hidegkuti who will pretty much offer:
- another passing option in the final third roaming all over the pitch dragging that defence and opening extra options

In short, going 4-4-2 against this team is just a tactical suicide. We did it also while the whole United fan base screamed wanting more bodies in the midfield and not allowing them to dominate the game.

Am also happy Raees is going Mourinho route here, especially since we saw many times how that tactics backfired against technically superior teams.

I hope I didn't offended anyone putting forwards some of the arguments here.

 

[Fortitude]

The era of Scholes used, yielded 12 goals from 114 games so in terms of working shots from distance.. my midfield is more likely to be concerned with Falcao's threat than Scholes. Falcao scored 26 from 112 and most of those goals involve him hitting one twos and slaloming his way into the box.. so restricting that space for him to ghost into by congesting the certain areas seems the best way to negate that threat and its not like my midfied will be totally alongside my CBs.. its just they are marking that central spot which is surely getting in front of that area where most long shots especially from Scholes and Falcao would be taken. They're not the type of shooters like a Seedorf, Gerrard.. Charlton who score from freakish angles and distances.

For me their biggest threat as a pair is their creativity and ball retention skills, why would I bother pressing them if they are two of the most press resistant footballers in this draft? it would be suicide. Look at which teams best combatted Xavi and Iniesta at their peak? it was teams like Interzionale and Chelsea, who took away their options for the pass and just made them pass around in circles making them look excessive in possession.. forcing them to play that more penetrative pass even when there wasn't anything really on and looking to kill them on the counter. If I engage higher up the pitch, then they are more likely to find Hidegkuti who in turn could play in Stoichkov and Eusebio and the game begins to open up for his midfield to dominate.

So in short, I disagree that tactically when up against a press resistant highly technical midfield that you should press them because IMO they will tend to pass around you and get through the lines of the press more often than not. The other key though is to make sure your team has an avenue of getting out from that deeper set position otherwise you can get trapped in your own half and I think in Boniek, Albert, Figo and with Van Hanegam's ability in transition, we are well equipped to go from 0-100 very quickly.

I don't see us as deep as the teams below (we have a lot more quality in our ranks), but the ferocity and pace with which how they counter and the way they congest central areas is a model which will seek to emulate.

Fair play - they're your tactics and strategy - I was trying to get a gist for why you did what you did at points A, B and C.

I wasn't suggesting pressing, far from it, but I feel as though you're doing your midfield a disservice when you have Van Hanegem, who is comfortably an athletic match for Scholes, and someone that could make him work much harder than he'd prefer, plus Scholes has very little chance of winning the ball back off Van Hanegem and would need assistance, which potentially opens up the field in your favor. On top of that, you have Albert, who by placing on Rijkaard, could split Jim's midfield and at least make it work backwards. Inviting all that pressure onto yourself has me thinking of a reliance on error from their end, which, with Falcao taking over the reins, which to me, is what should most be avoided as that concludes with really penetrative, runs, passes and shots on your goal more often than not.

I'll reiterate I get what you're trying to convey, particularly in terms of range of shot being closer to 20-25ish than 30+, but it is [very] risky, imo.

 

[Raees]

Fair play - they're your tactics and strategy - I was trying to get a gist for why you did what you did at points A, B and C.

I wasn't suggesting pressing, far from it, but I feel as though you're doing your midfield a disservice when you have Van Hanegem, who is comfortably an athletic match for Scholes, and someone that could make him work much harder than he'd prefer, plus Scholes has very little chance of winning the ball back off Van Hanegem and would need assistance, which potentially opens up the field in your favor. On top of that, you have Albert, who by placing on Rijkaard, could split Jim's midfield and at least make it work backwards. Inviting all that pressure onto yourself has me thinking of a reliance on error from their end, which, with Falcao taking over the reins, which to me, is what should most be avoided as that concludes with really penetrative, runs, passes and shots on your goal more often than not.

I'll reiterate I get what you're trying to convey, particularly in terms of range of shot being closer to 20-25ish than 30+, but it is [very] risky, imo.

Well Van Hanegam has licence to be more aggressive and press Scholes as he’s got the more box to box role. He will sit next to Pluskal mostly but will at times confront Scholes if need be.. even these Chelsea sides or Inter sides would pull off the occasional press in order to keep opposition guessing ala what Essien would do so yes what you’re asking of Van Hanegam makes sense.

Albert naturally would drift in the areas that Rijkaard finds himself in but I don’t see him following Rijkaard past halfway line as that would massively neuter our counter attacking threat and personally I think Rijkaard would need to follow Albert everywhere as he’s such a potent ball carrying and creative threat not to mention scored goals too so in theory that takes Rijkaard to some degree out of the game as a offensive threat.

 

[Jim Beam]

Also Beam, I think Raees is right about the tone - is there really a need for that?

I don't like pretentious people, that's all.

 

[Himannv]

Just watched Scholes play alongside Carrick and Anderson. I don’t feel he had a problem with the dynamics there, but I think that version of Scholes stands out more in a 4-4-2, which is what it was in that game at first (alongside forgotten man Hargreaves).

 

[Raees]

This half time team talk seemed to make all the difference...

Unlucky @P-Nut, beautiful side you had constructed there, more cohesive than mine in all honesty but let down by the tone of argument in the match thread.

 

[Jim Beam]

Unlucky @P-Nut, beautiful side you had constructed there, more cohesive than mine in all honesty but let down by the tone of argument in the match thread.

I will happily take this considering who voted on each side tbh.

Also, good luck going forward.

 

[harms]

Van Hanegam

Van Hanegam

Seriously though, I won't be able to live with another Makalele.

 

[Raees]

Seriously though, I won't be able to live with another Makalele.

So that is where I was going wrong..