Cruyff doesn't get into an all-time XI either. It's a separate discussion though best saved for another thread.
Billy No Mates Draft: R1 - Enigma_87/MJJ vs Gio
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
Have to disagree with you there.
Cruyff is the best European player and the only 3 others that I can think of that can be on the same level are Messi, Maradona and Pele, possibly Di Stefano. The order between them is down to preference.
But if I have to build a team around a single player, I'd always take Cruyff, just for the ability to elevate the team to another level.
Basically you've slung a lot of shit in Souness' direction (on par with Effenberg / similar type of player as Effenberg / doesn't fit with Bozsik / doesn't fit with Iniesta / won't be comfortable in a three because he played in a two) and hoped some of it would stick. He'd be the best player on the park to do some sort of job on Cruyff. Of course Cruyff is the greater player and of course his influence will never be negated, but trying to give due credit or accurate appraisal of any of that Liverpool team that won all of those European Cups (while Keane gets lionised for a legendary semi-final performance) is sacrilegious on here. Understandably so, it's not RAWK after all.
Also this Gio, these adjectives seem to be used for every legendary box to box central midfielder people talk about, and you won't run out of sources citing precisely the same attributes for Effenberg, who you yourself don't seem to rate very highly. It's as if every player who ran up and down the pitch automatically had 'desire and commitment', but for me that is one of the qualities that separates men from boys. I'm sure Souness has had numerous domestic and continental campaigns where he was at the heart of that Liverpool team, dominating the game, tirelessly winning the ball and then bringing it forward, but that for me simply doesn't automatically translate into 'desire to win'. That quality runs through someone not only on the pitch, but also in their personality. What I'm looking for here is that 'ego' where someone simply refuses to take a defeat no matter what, and turns that scenario in his favour through sheer will and determination. And once you combine that with the required technical footballing aspects, which Souness has in abundance, no doubt, you get yourself a match winner. I'm sure when Souness combined such qualities in both phases of the game, it certainly made a bunch of scousers go 'oh my god!' and what made him so invaluable for that Liverpool team, but you can be sure that with Bozsik, Iniesta and Zico in the same midfield, he sure won't be making the highlights reel for anything he can do on the ball, let alone getting a chance to do anything, with those players waiting for it themselves, which takes a bit out of what made him so legendary. It's not a lot different from playing Matthaus as a dedicated DM against the opponent's major threat but a) that's a waste of Lothar as well and b) Lothar has that ego, that perception that no man alive can be better than him and of course the talent to go with it that drove him forward against anything you could throw at him. At one point these players stop caring about who is against them, they are on a mission to win, end of discussion. I'll be more than happy to corrected if you can show me examples where Souness in a crucial game where he was up against the current and also performing a role that required a different skillset than what he was famous for, got the result through sheer grit and desire. Of course it is not fair to ask for example concerning similar players he's up against now, but I'll be happy to be educated about and reform my opinion on him because as things stand, I don't buy him in the job you've presented to him.
Souness was a box to box midfielder, the british 4-4-2 didnt have room for a dedicated DM position, which you are playing him as. The role you have asked him to play is more suited to a desailly or a rijkaard. Its not even half a decent match up, cruyff is going to destroy him with his passing,vision and dribbling. Given that souness is only patrolling his area and not man marking cruyff, him going wide right or left is going to cause a lot of trouble for you as well.Ah Zebec-gate. That was not fun.
Let's boil it down to the impact made by the two stars, Zico and Cruyff. It's a fairish assumption to make that mostly across the park players will cancel one another out. But these two have the greatest chance of overcoming their opposite number.
We deal with Cruyff positionally by placing Souness directly onto his position. As probably the greatest British central midfielder of all time, Souness has the calibre. He led his team to 3 European Cups (obviously they don't count as much as Johan's) as their standout midfielder and overcame some giants of the era in Breitner and Falcao. He relished a battle and had the strength and will to impose himself physically. He anchored a 4-4-2 as the most defensive minded midfielder and had the cunning and know-how to shut out top players. He was also class on the ball and could dictate the game. Cruyff's standing in the game is superior than Souness', but it's a decent and natural match-up both positionally, mentally, physically and in terms of their respective positions.
Enigma/MJJ deal with Zico by asking Ruggeri to track him. They have no designated defensive midfielder so it's a bad match-up positionally from the off. It's also a bad match-up in terms of their respective qualities - Ruggeri an aerial machine, strong, robust, would relish coming up against a traditional target-man. But Zico is nothing of the type: he's diminutive, nimble, spins on a sixpence, shimmies past big centre-halves like they're not there.
And whether you rate Cruyff higher than Zico, or Zico higher than Cruyff (like I do), it's really a side issue. What matters is who they are up against and how their opposite number - if they've got one - can handle them. It seems glaringly obvious to me that Zico has a better chance of deciding the game.
You are forgetting the best defender on the pitch, baresi. Zico might shimmy past ruggeri but he still has to go past baresi which wont be an easy task at all.
I'd say there is a top tier of Pele, Maradona and Messi, and a larger second tier comparising the likes of Beckenbauer, Platini, Cruyff, Zico, Di Stefano and a few others. Again, probably best saved for another thread.
I had him in a previous draft, and the easiest way to describe his role for me is a more defensive minded keane. But he was still a box to box mid, and not just a DM.
Like keane he can do a very good job there but a) that would limit his game and b) a very good job wont cut it against the class of someone like cruyff.
Out on the left wing where you positioned himAnd where is Greaves during all of this? In the studio presenting Saint and Greavsie?
As I said to mazhar in the morning, with no dedicated left winger, amoros will come inside and help defensively as well.
I don't undermine Souness the way you are trying to with Effenberg. Souness was similar to Effenberg in his role. He was box to box. Let's not pretend that he always played as a DM in a midfield 3 or an anchor. Please....
Have a look into Souness. The man had serious ego. "The magnificent bastard" is what we call him up here in Scotland. He was ruthless and uncompromising. It's an odd take to have on the player I have to admit.
Not related to this thread but I would put beckenbauer, cruyff and di stefano with the first group and messi after all five.
I don't think he is either. But I don't read Gio's comments as indicating that he believes this will happen. If he had claimed that Souness will completely stifle Cruyff by shadowing his arse all over the pitch, he'd come across as unrealistic. But he doesn't claim that.
I almost get the impression that not being able to completely shut up Cruyff, means Cruyff will do as he pleases.
As mentioned before: The question is whether the Souness role (including his special brief to keep close tabs on Cruyff) is a tactical mistake in the sense that you will positively capitalize on it in one way or another. I don't see that as being the case.
I can understand why it's an odd take on him for you, you are way more informed and likely a lot more accurate about him than I can ever be, but I'll still take it with a pinch of salt like I do with anto's take on SAM players, for obvious reasons.
And trust me, I've had a look into him before, and I've been mightily impressed by the combination of talents he possessed. Put him alongside say Rijkaard (obvious example is obvious) in a midfield and I won't look past it, however, this is a very specific job, against a very very unique player that requires not only talent but mental rigour, and loads of it, which is why I have had to dwell into this more than I would have had it been a typical number 10 against him. You very well know what qualities I'm speaking of, you have that in other players in your team, like Facchetti. I want to see Souness take the battle against Cruyff like his life depended on it, and absolutely not an inch less. All I need is to see whether he has that sort of unending passion to prove to everyone that there is no job he cannot do, no man he cannot beat, etc. That is what is needed here. It doesn't have to be overly emphatic and as long as the player is aware he's up against it and needs to put all of what he's got into the game and knows that he can, and Souness has that talent where he can do that, it's fine. I'll give you another example of what I'm talking of - Lilian Thuram against Croatia in 1998. It was only later where he half time thoughts were released with him saying "No one can stop me from winning this game today", but it was easy to see that on the pitch. Can Souness go into THAT zone?
If Cruyff beats Souness in his zone he'll create advantage. And I can see that happening more often than not. Cruyff at speed I don't see Bozsik stopping him either so it will be up against Gio's central pair and will have wing option and also Henry up top. Having Figo/Giggs wide and Henry up top is a plethora of options for Cruyff, who can also finish the move himself.
Cruyff always engaged more than 1 player during the game and his surging runs always created advantage, I can't see a reason why he can't do that here.
Also we have Giggs/Figo/Cruyff/Henry on counter - that's deadly. We also have Effenberg and Gerson in the middle who are excellent passers and can find either of them with a surgical precision.
Gio needs both full backs to push up to create width, I'm fairly sure he'll capitalize on counter.
And if we score first especially I expect to kill it off on counter when we have the right players for it.
Not undermining Souness defensive acumen but if he's not tracking Cruyff all over the pitch ala Vogts he'll be facing him face to face when Cruyff drops to get the ball and turn. When they are one on one I really like Cruyff chances to create space.
For sure. That kind of leadership and influence is what made Souness so pivotal in 3 European Cup successes. It's why most scousers would have him ahead of Gerrard, even accounting for his faux pas with the Sun. He was very vengeful and that same ego and lack of tolerance is why he fell out with many modern-day pampered players. Keane-esque in many ways, on and off the park.I can understand why it's an odd take on him for you, you are way more informed and likely a lot more accurate about him than I can ever be, but I'll still take it with a pinch of salt like I do with anto's take on SAM players, for obvious reasons.
And trust me, I've had a look into him before, and I've been mightily impressed by the combination of talents he possessed. Put him alongside say Rijkaard (obvious example is obvious) in a midfield and I won't look past it, however, this is a very specific job, against a very very unique player that requires not only talent but mental rigour, and loads of it, which is why I have had to dwell into this more than I would have had it been a typical number 10 against him. You very well know what qualities I'm speaking of, you have that in other players in your team, like Facchetti. I want to see Souness take the battle against Cruyff like his life depended on it, and absolutely not an inch less. All I need is to see whether he has that sort of unending passion to prove to everyone that there is no job he cannot do, no man he cannot beat, etc. That is what is needed here. It doesn't have to be overly emphatic and as long as the player is aware he's up against it and needs to put all of what he's got into the game and knows that he can, and Souness has that talent where he can do that, it's fine. I'll give you another example of what I'm talking of - Lilian Thuram against Croatia in 1998. It was only later where he half time thoughts were released with him saying "No one can stop me from winning this game today", but it was easy to see that on the pitch. Can Souness go into THAT zone?
Anyway, the game is all but done, so well played boys and good luck in the remainder of the tournament.
Thanks, mate. All in all I think it is very good and interesting debate. It was bound to be a quality game this.
Just thought I'd point out on Andrade.. in one of my drafts I played him at right back and got criticised for it but I stand by my opinion that he'd thrive in such a role.
He was way ahead of his time in terms of physique, mixture of athleticism and technical quality.. great reader of the game. In the footage I saw, brilliant last ditch tackling but with a great measure of elegance attached to it and brilliant recovery speed. He was quick, very quick by defender standards.
So yeah, I am sure Anto can provide much more better testimony as to his abilities.. but all research and what little footage that exists suggests he was a little bit special.
He was way ahead of his time in terms of physique, mixture of athleticism and technical quality.. great reader of the game. In the footage I saw, brilliant last ditch tackling but with a great measure of elegance attached to it and brilliant recovery speed. He was quick, very quick by defender standards.
So yeah, I am sure Anto can provide much more better testimony as to his abilities.. but all research and what little footage that exists suggests he was a little bit special.
Yes, that's all well and good but I'm asking whether Gio's tactical decision to strengthen his defence by fielding Souness as a designated DM with instructions to keep tabs on Cruyff in the hole (see above, that is his actual brief) gives you any advantages compared to him NOT fielding Souness in this role. That's my question: You and MJJ seem almost to suggest that having a designated DM on the park somehow makes Gio more vulnerable to your basic modes of attacking - which seems absurd to me.
What he loses from this approach is Souness' offensive contributions, that is beyond doubt. That is the tactical choice he makes. From where I'm sitting, however, Souness' offensive contributions aren't crucially important to his success - not in this particular match, given how you set up.
Souness isn't the best imaginable designated DM in the world, nor the best imaginable man marker - but these facts doesn't mean Gio's tactics suddenly start working in your favour. Cruyff doesn't improve as a player from having a less than ideal marker on him, or from having a more crowded hole to operate in: Again, does Gio lose something specific and crucial from instructing Souness to play a conservative game here?
Nice match. Excellent from both managers!
Good objective well reasoned debate from both sides.
Well the game's more alive than I thought - 16-14?
If we assume Cruyff has the beating of Souness, and also assume that Zico has the beating of Ruggeri, then we get two different situations. Nesta comes across to pick up Cruyff, then we go man-for-man. By contrast, Zico is then in and both him and Greaves have a 2v1 against Baresi. Cruyff still has another defensive line to penetrate - whereas Zico is basically in and has the equivalent of a tap-in.
I'd also add that I'd rate Souness' chances of keeping Cruyff reasonably quiet in his zone as greater than Ruggeri's. But the critical thing is the back-up plan, we have clearer cover in place through Nesta.
Ultimately any advantage gained by either Zico or Cruyff is more likely to have an impact for the Brazilian.
If we assume Cruyff has the beating of Souness, and also assume that Zico has the beating of Ruggeri, then we get two different situations. Nesta comes across to pick up Cruyff, then we go man-for-man. By contrast, Zico is then in and both him and Greaves have a 2v1 against Baresi. Cruyff still has another defensive line to penetrate - whereas Zico is basically in and has the equivalent of a tap-in.
I'd also add that I'd rate Souness' chances of keeping Cruyff reasonably quiet in his zone as greater than Ruggeri's. But the critical thing is the back-up plan, we have clearer cover in place through Nesta.
Ultimately any advantage gained by either Zico or Cruyff is more likely to have an impact for the Brazilian.
It is the one thing I liked about this voting system, people would be busy adding up the tallies that it would eliminate the last minute shenanigans with what forcing a draw for penalties and the like.Ah found it. By Glanville who is a fairly renowned writer.
Glanville said:
Fair enough then.
Come back to see Gio making almost a remarkable comeback Well done to @Gio for the discussion I think it ended up as a quality game.
Well done to @Gio for the discussion I think it ended up as a quality game.Wow, this match became much closer than I expected. Well done to @Gio, @Enigma_87, and @MJJ for their good arguments.
Good game @Gio, your tactics were brilliant to compensate for the difference in quality(to me atleast) between both our sides. Thought it would have been an easy win for us if you had gone 4-2-3-1 like us.
Had switched my vote to Gio indeed for his excellent backing up of his tactical set up.
Was good of you to give the rest of them a chance this time Gio. Well done Enigma/MJJ