Gio/Theon vs Moby - NT Peak draft

[Moby]

No worries lads, I voted for Gio in the last game for the same reasons and they obviously still hold strong - Getting Zidane that late was madness and something that would probably end up as a draft winning pick. And let's face it, while all 22 players on the pitch have excellent credentials, big names do matter and I was behind on that front in a public poll, which I knew before the game began.

I don't think there was much to add to my team going forward either, really loved writing about this bunch, some real favourites and I was fortunate to have players land till my pick who suited each others so ridiculously well. Love that backline in particular. I could have instructed them to play like Spain 2010 and in that tactic that would be a nightmare to beat, not one player in their that would be out of place in keeping possession and using that as a defensive tactic which in reality as we all know, works more or less everytime even if it painful to watch. But that wasn't really my vision while I was drafting and the teams I had in mind, as I wrote were the ones who left their mark with some of the most beautiful and entertaining football with fans wanting for more.

As for Monti, really, it is a can of worms best not opened if we aim to do all time drafts. No doubt the likes of him and Gentile are known to get away with defensive tactics that would have no place in the current game along with tens of other circumstances during those times but save for the likes of Scirea, Beckenbauer, etc who were well known for their discipline and elegance, pretty much every defender defended in a way that wouldn't come remotely close to what we see now as that was simply how the game was then. I also did not bring up the Sindelar marking intentionally as I wasn't going to portray that Luis Monti here but the one that - from all accounts - was a fantastic midfielder regardless and not solely a thug let loose on a football pitch.

But in the end, it isn't one or two players but entire eras that would have to be removed from a draft if we want the styles of play that would be allowed in present day, or even come remotely close so it is obviously rather annoying when a couple of names get singled out as if what they did wasn't the norm during their respective days. Same goes for off the pitch conditions and if those were going to be arguments during the games - which I completely agree that affected the results back then - then why allow pre war WCs or the 1978 one for example as anyone who picked those players would be wrongly marked down. It's the same discussion that happens in every all time draft with the same outcome except those who happen to be in the midst of that period end up getting punished so it would be great if this can be settled in a formal way especially as this isn't the last all time draft.

As far as my 2p are concerned - you cannot objectively argue these points while wanting an all time timeline, that's simply a big no. Sure if you really think all these factors are important during debates then abolish the entire eras, otherwise they are best ignored for the mere purpose of simplifying the entire process.

 

[Theon]

Just come back from work - Good game @Moby

I actually drafted this post yesterday evening but decided not to post it, as I didn't want it to come across as agenda bashing of Monti during the game.

The Zidane-Monti duel is key to this match imo. 3v3 situations in Moby's defence are likely. How Monti deals with Zidane will be key to killing attacks.

Without playing down Monti who was a fine player and an absolute certainty for the latter stages of this draft, I think it's a real stretch to have him winning a battle against Zidane in Euro 2000 form.

Whilst I appreciate the achievements of older players there can be no doubt that the game changed significantly post-WWII and it was only towards the mid-50's that modern football as we recognise it now began to emerge - and even then this was a process that continued right up towards the turn of the century.

In terms of Monti the most significant development is clearly in the type of defending that was allowed and the general dirtiness and brutality of the game in that era. You mentioned the man-marking job that Monti carried out on Sindelaar, but in reality that was a hatchet-job that wouldn't wash against Zidane in the modern game with a competent referee.

Even ignoring the changes to the rules on what is and what's not acceptable, in terms of pure quality it's surely a real stretch to have Monti marking a peak Zidane out of the game.

There is very little footage to attest to Monti's credentials at this level (in fact the footage that is available from that world cup suggests that the standard was quite poor) whereas with Zidane we all saw him excel on the international stage across multiple tournaments - my point here is that IMO there needs to be something quite compelling that support the idea that Monti matches up to Zidane, given the over-whelming evidence showcasing the latters brilliance.

In terms of actual play styles Zidane looks well placed to match up to Monti, given that he's not only a quicker and more agile footballer but also well placed to go toe-to-toe physically - Zidane was always an aggressive player and at over 6 ft tall he's the bigger man by a significant margin (which is important given Monti's style).

But of course the real point here is that Zidane was exceptional and not that Monti was poor (because he wasn't) - As a player Zidane excelled across a number of tournaments and Euro 2000 was the best of the bunch, filled with individual moments of brilliance and a genuine technical showcase against Portugal and Spain in particular.

Quite seriously in that form there isn't a defender in the draft who you can say would 'mark Zidane out of the game' - particularly when the supporting cast is as talented as this one and Ronaldo of all people leads the line and creates space up top.

 

[Raees]

No worries lads, I voted for Gio in the last game for the same reasons and they obviously still hold strong - Getting Zidane that late was madness and something that would probably end up as a draft winning pick. And let's face it, while all 22 players on the pitch have excellent credentials, big names do matter and I was behind on that front in a public poll, which I knew before the game began.

I don't think there was much to add to my team going forward either, really loved writing about this bunch, some real favourites and I was fortunate to have players land till my pick who suited each others so ridiculously well. Love that backline in particular. I could have instructed them to play like Spain 2010 and in that tactic that would be a nightmare to beat, not one player in their that would be out of place in keeping possession and using that as a defensive tactic which in reality as we all know, works more or less everytime even if it painful to watch. But that wasn't really my vision while I was drafting and the teams I had in mind, as I wrote were the ones who left their mark with some of the most beautiful and entertaining football with fans wanting for more.

As for Monti, really, it is a can of worms best not opened if we aim to do all time drafts. No doubt the likes of him and Gentile are known to get away with defensive tactics that would have no place in the current game along with tens of other circumstances during those times but save for the likes of Scirea, Beckenbauer, etc who were well known for their discipline and elegance, pretty much every defender defended in a way that wouldn't come remotely close to what we see now as that was simply how the game was then. I also did not bring up the Sindelar marking intentionally as I wasn't going to portray that Luis Monti here but the one that - from all accounts - was a fantastic midfielder regardless and not solely a thug let loose on a football pitch.

But in the end, it isn't one or two players but entire eras that would have to be removed from a draft if we want the styles of play that would be allowed in present day, or even come remotely close so it is obviously rather annoying when a couple of names get singled out as if what they did wasn't the norm during their respective days. Same goes for off the pitch conditions and if those were going to be arguments during the games - which I completely agree that affected the results back then - then why allow pre war WCs or the 1978 one for example as anyone who picked those players would be wrongly marked down. It's the same discussion that happens in every all time draft with the same outcome except those who happen to be in the midst of that period end up getting punished so it would be great if this can be settled in a formal way especially as this isn't the last all time draft.

As far as my 2p are concerned - you cannot objectively argue these points while wanting an all time timeline, that's simply a big no. Sure if you really think all these factors are important during debates then abolish the entire eras, otherwise they are best ignored for the mere purpose of simplifying the entire process.

Well said. Tbh I brought the Monti can handle Zidane angle.. so I thought that was an even duel.

End of the day Zidane for all his strengths, relied more on his intelligence and technique, strength rather than pure athleticism and therefore I could see an old school DM standing a chance against him as I don't think the fitness stuff which Theon alluded to would come into play.

From what I've read, Sindelar was a more dynamic and elusive runner with the ball than a Zidane, so if he could keep him quiet (yes we get the fact there was a gun to the guys head etc) but if he can keep up with a player who was his generation's Cruyff.. I'd back him to put up a decent fight against Zidane.

Personally if it was up to me, I'd ban discussions of how one era was inferior to another based on fitness related conjecture.. shouldn't have any place in drafts, otherwise if taken to an extreme.. you might as well not pick any players pre 80's in any draft ever.

 

[Moby]

@Theon - agreed. And for whatever it's worth, I did not once mention anything along the lines of Monti completely marking Zidane out of the game, despite it being an argument that you might have expected. My game plan was not based on destructing certain individual elements from the opposition.

As for the rest, like I said above, it isn't just Monti who falls under most of that, forget 1934, the game has massively changed from 1990 till now when the likes of Matthaus and Buchwald gave those performances including actual changes in rules, so again, I'm not sure why an all time draft is organised in the first place when everytime one faces an older name they are quick to play the 'the game has changed' card.

 

[Moby]

Personally if it was up to me, I'd ban discussions of how one era was inferior to another based on fitness related conjecture.. shouldn't have any place in drafts, otherwise if taken to an extreme.. you might as well not pick any players pre 80's in any draft ever

Yep.

Forget different eras, people vehemently argue that certain things that are allowed in Spain would not be allowed in the Premier League, currently, while discussing certain players moving across, which is again obviously true. We have seen players like Veron for example dominate one league and get found out in another with a different style of play, culture, what a ref allows, etc.

 

[Enigma_87]

@Theon - agreed. And for whatever it's worth, I did not once mention anything along the lines of Monti completely marking Zidane out of the game, despite it being an argument that you might have expected. My game plan was not based on destructing certain individual elements from the opposition.

As for the rest, like I said above, it isn't just Monti who falls under most of that, forget 1934, the game has massively changed from 1990 till now when the likes of Matthaus and Buchwald gave those performances including actual changes in rules, so again, I'm not sure why an all time draft is organised in the first place when everytime one faces an older name they are quick to play the 'the game has changed' card.

I agree with you and probably this goes for the pre war world cups in question. From the 50's on when you look at most of the stars of those world cups and their qualities I don't think they would look out of sorts even today.

The big issue is probably some of the defensive performances as nowadays forwards are protected a lot more compared to 50 years ago. I don't think the attacking or even midfield players would suffer too much in terms of status/abilities.

 

[Theon]

@Theon - agreed. And for whatever it's worth, I did not once mention anything along the lines of Monti completely marking Zidane out of the game, despite it being an argument that you might have expected. My game plan was not based on destructing certain individual elements from the opposition.

As for the rest, like I said above, it isn't just Monti who falls under most of that, forget 1934, the game has massively changed from 1990 till now when the likes of Matthaus and Buchwald gave those performances including actual changes in rules, so again, I'm not sure why an all time draft is organised in the first place when everytime one faces an older name they are quick to play the 'the game has changed' card.

Everyone has there own take on it - from my perspective I just hit a wall where effectively I say, "Okay, I can't buy this particular aspect of the argument anymore".

That's probably a very poor description, so if we take Monti as an example - my view was that I could buy him as a great midfield option (particularly in this draft) based on the various blogs or quotes you can find on the internet. But when it comes to marking Zidane out of the game (not that you suggested that) then for me personally it doesn't wash, I would need more evidence to support that being true due to the scale of the task and the mountain of evidence that demonstrates Zidane's credentials.

It's similar to Leonidas who we picked, his World Cup credentials are fantastic but he wouldn't was in the final of an all-time world cup draft (for me at least).

 

[Raees]

Yep.

Forget different eras, people vehemently argue that certain things that are allowed in Spain would not be allowed in the Premier League, currently, while discussing certain players moving across, which is again obviously true. We have seen players like Veron for example dominate one league and get found out in another with a different style of play, culture, what a ref allows, etc.

If it is a discussion in a normal footballing thread i.e. football was crap before 1990.. fair enough but I expect more respect shown in the drafting community. If we can't be trusted to value previous generations of footballers.. than who the hell will?

Criticisms should be focused on aspects of the players style for that era, his physical attributes in the context of his era.

If someone says Monti was a thug, and that he'd be unable to keep up with Zidanes tricks because he lacks the brain to handle a player like that.. thats fine, but when someone says, in the 30's he'd never have faced a guy like Zidane.. I don't buy it because Sindelar was quick, agile and a better ball carrier at speed than Zidane for his era, and Monti was known as the guy who could cover ground, so his fitness levels were highly rated for his era.. so on paper, a good match up for Zidane. Doesn't mean he'd win the battle mind, because Zidane is an all time great and > player than Sindelar but the era thing shouldn't come into it.

 

[Theon]

1. Tbh I brought the Monti can handle Zidane angle.. so I thought that was an even duel.

2. I don't think the fitness stuff which Theon alluded to would come into play.

3. Sindelar was a more dynamic and elusive runner with the ball than a Zidane, so if he could keep him quiet (yes we get the fact there was a gun to the guys head etc) but if he can keep up with a player who was his generation's Cruyff.. I'd back him to put up a decent fight against Zidane.

4. Personally if it was up to me, I'd ban discussions of how one era was inferior to another based on fitness related conjecture.. shouldn't have any place in drafts, otherwise if taken to an extreme.. you might as well not pick any players pre 80's in any draft ever.

1 - That is astonishing to me. Based on what?

2 & 4 - Not sure if you have willfully misunderstood my post but what I said is that Zidane was "a quicker and more agile footballer but also well placed to go toe-to-toe physically - Zidane was always an aggressive player and at over 6 ft tall he's the bigger man by a significant margin (which is important given Monti's style).

How on earth is that 'fitness stuff' or suggesting that an era is inferior based on fitness?

What I am saying is that Zidane was more agile than Monti (nothing to do with era, Zidane was just exceptionally well balanced and able to turn in different directions with ease) and that he was over 6 ft to Monti's 5 ft 4, which is relevant given Monti's reputation for putting himself about.

3 - Zidane was the definition of an elusive dribbler so that's a strange distinction to bring up. And the point on Sindelar is that Monti didn't keep him quiet legitimately so it's somewhat irrelevant outside that context with competent refereeing.

 

[Theon]

If it is a discussion in a normal footballing thread i.e. football was crap before 1990.. fair enough but I expect more respect shown in the drafting community. If we can't be trusted to value previous generations of footballers.. than who the hell will?

Criticisms should be focused on aspects of the players style for that era, his physical attributes in the context of his era.

If someone says Monti was a thug, and that he'd be unable to keep up with Zidanes tricks because he lacks the brain to handle a player like that.. thats fine, but when someone says, in the 30's he'd never have faced a guy like Zidane.. I don't buy it because Sindelar was quick, agile and a better ball carrier at speed than Zidane for his era, and Monti was known as the guy who could cover ground, so his fitness levels were highly rated for his era.. so on paper, a good match up for Zidane. Doesn't mean he'd win the battle mind, because Zidane is an all time great and > player than Sindelar but the era thing shouldn't come into it.

You've lost it with this - all that was said is that Zidane was more agile than Monti and that he was taller.. There was literally no mention of era. The only person who has tried to relate the physicality aspect of it to era is yourself.

 

[Moby]

Everyone has there own take on it - from my perspective I just hit a wall where effectively I say, "Okay, I can't buy this particular aspect of the argument anymore".

That's probably a very poor description, so if we take Monti as an example - my view was that I could buy him as a great midfield option (particularly in this draft) based on the various blogs or quotes you can find on the internet. But when it comes to marking Zidane out of the game (not that you suggested that) then for me personally it doesn't wash, I would need more evidence to support that being true due to the scale of the task and the mountain of evidence that demonstrates Zidane's credentials.

It's similar to Leonidas who we picked, his World Cup credentials are fantastic but he wouldn't was in the final of an all-time world cup draft (for me at least).

Like I said, I completely agree and the pre war players in particular are bound to struggle due to lack of any sort of familiarity outside books, quotes and articles, I was aware of that while picking Monti even in this draft. It's not that I am for one second trying to go in the direction of him being beyond any criticism in terms of quality in any way, of course that's pretty much the core of match discussions. But obviously in this thread, and many before, you have arguments revolving around what was allowed back then and wouldn't be now, or several other off the pitch factors which can basically be generalised as a comparison of different eras, which can't really be a part of an all time draft which is essentially a fantasy game. There are, and can be, threads outside of drafts to discuss all of that.

This isn't simply to put more light on this match which is over but more to point out that something like this is usually brought forward after a lot of such broader timeline drafts and yet repeated the minute another one is run. Hence it would be better if there was a formal ruling on this before another all time draft is held.

 

[Raees]

1 - That is astonishing to me. Based on what?

2 & 4 - Not sure if you have willfully misunderstood my post but what I said is that Zidane was "a quicker and more agile footballer but also well placed to go toe-to-toe physically - Zidane was always an aggressive player and at over 6 ft tall he's the bigger man by a significant margin (which is important given Monti's style).

How on earth is that 'fitness stuff' or suggesting that an era is inferior based on fitness?

What I am saying is that Zidane was more agile than Monti (nothing to do with era, Zidane was just exceptionally well balanced and able to turn in different directions with ease) and that he was over 6 ft to Monti's 5 ft 4, which is relevant given Monti's reputation for putting himself about.

3 - Zidane was the definition of an elusive dribbler so that's a strange distinction to bring up. And the point on Sindelar is that Monti didn't keep him quiet legitimately so it's somewhat irrelevant outside that context with competent refereeing.

1. Based on the fact his nickname was 'double-wide'. He could cover the entire pitch, was a ruthless man marker and had played in two world finals in different sides.. so clearly a DM of the highest calibre. Does that guarantee he'd win the duel? of course not, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move onto other areas of the pitch to see which side had an advantage (remember I voted for you, because I thought overall your side was better).

2 & 4 - Bigger players don't necessarily mean they'll win the battle against a smaller DM... Nobby Stiles, Makelele, Bremner, Mascherano.. heck even if we referred to Baresi. A guy with Monti's reputation, I wouldn't back him to lose a battle based on height difference, he's too tenacious to let something like that get in the way. But fair enough, if that is the argument you were putting forward and agreed that isn't referring to era related stuff - apologies if I made out you were.

3. Yes but why are we assuming referees are competent, in any given game even in the modern era we get some really shitty refereeing. I get they protect players more now, but are we saying a guy of Monti's class wouldn't adapt.. he was known as being quite an astute footballing brain and not just a thug.

 

[Raees]

You've lost it with this - all that was said is that Zidane was more agile than Monti and that he was taller.. There was literally no mention of era. The only person who has tried to relate the physicality aspect of it to era is yourself.

Theon - I wasn't saying you said that.. I was just talking to Moby of how an argument should be contructed for future drafts and how it shouldn't. I was using an example, a strawman if you like. I already apologized for confusing aspects of your post earlier.

PS post directly above this one isn't an attack on you either but merely explaining why I chose to give Monti benefit of doubt in a battle with Zidane.

 

[Theon]

1. Based on the fact his nickname was 'double-wide'. He could cover the entire pitch, was a ruthless man marker and had played in two world finals in different sides.. so clearly a DM of the highest calibre. Does that guarantee he'd win the duel? of course not, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move onto other areas of the pitch to see which side had an advantage (remember I voted for you, because I thought overall your side was better).

2 & 4 - Bigger players don't necessarily mean they'll win the battle against a smaller DM... Nobby Stiles, Makelele, Bremner, Mascherano.. heck even if we referred to Baresi. A guy with Monti's reputation, I wouldn't back him to lose a battle based on height difference, he's too tenacious to let something like that get in the way. But fair enough, if that is the argument you were putting forward and agreed that isn't referring to era related stuff - apologies if I made out you were.

1. If you consider a nickname to be good enough evidence for someone marking a peak Zidane out of the game then that's fine - but it really gets to the aspect of this I disagree with. Ultimately what you've based the above on are a few quotes, some blogs and a nickname. The fact that he could 'cover an entire pitch' and was 'clearly a DM of the highest marker' is information you've picked up from secondary sources.

We've already seen how those sources can be called into question, with the general shroud of controversy hanging over the World Cup 1934 win and the fact that the 'great man marking job' on Sindelaar is often viewed as being in reality simply Monti kicking him up and down the park. It goes without saying that I don't know which of those is true and it doesn't need to be the latter - the point is just that these aren't great sources that we're relying on.

Which goes back to what I mentioned to Aldo - you can buy him as a very good/great player, but IMO there needs to be a limit where you need to bring real evidence to the table if you want to start suggesting he'll mark out Zidane in Euro 2000 form.

2 & 4 - I agree that being a bigger does not necessarily mean you will win the battle. I still think it's a relevant statistic though when one player is that much bigger than the other, particularly when the defender was know for relying on his physicality and aggression.

But yeah, it wasn't meant to be a big point and you don't need to agree with it or find it persuasive. It was a legitimate thing to bring up though so I found it strange that it was questioned.

 

[Gio]

Was glad to see the largely underappreciated Ferri in for Stam who was a bag of errors in 1998.

@Theon - agreed. And for whatever it's worth, I did not once mention anything along the lines of Monti completely marking Zidane out of the game, despite it being an argument that you might have expected. My game plan was not based on destructing certain individual elements from the opposition.

As for the rest, like I said above, it isn't just Monti who falls under most of that, forget 1934, the game has massively changed from 1990 till now when the likes of Matthaus and Buchwald gave those performances including actual changes in rules, so again, I'm not sure why an all time draft is organised in the first place when everytime one faces an older name they are quick to play the 'the game has changed' card.

The discussion on Monti evolved to the point where SirMatt referenced the job on Sindelar as something that could be replicated on Zidane. That's when I came in to put some context around that particular man-marking job. It wasn't a point that he wouldn't be able to man-mark Zidane because he played in the 1930s, it was because the exceptional and very unique circumstances around that game would not likely be replicated today. It's the same caveat you could place on some of Argentina's performances in 1978. And I've used the same line of argument when people have been wanking over Gentile's 'man-marking' of Zico in 1982. Again nothing to do with "olden days players are shit", just about properly assessing each player's achievements and the context around them. And Monti's double-World-Cup winning achievements make him a top pick irrespective of all that.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

This is not relevant to the match here, as it was not used as an argument at all - but the «he neutralized X» line is what has to go in these drafts. Most of us do respect old school players, and have little difficulty seeing them blend with modern ones (based on what we know about their traits), etc. You rarely see the «too old to cut it» card played by either managers or neutrals - could be a factor for voters who don't comment, of course, but we can't know that.

But the marking business is different. It is a) a discrepancy between eras which is so dramatic that in some cases you can almost compare it (as I've done before) to using examples that predate the offside rule change to back up a point about movement in the box - and b) frequently very central to the manager's strategy, i.e. having X mark Y tightly is a key tactical element, which means that the manager very often plays precisely the Monti/Sindelar or Stiles/Eusebio card actively, making it all the more problematic.

In general I agree completely with Aldo: You can't discredit players (who have been legitimately drafted) based on nothing but era specific limitations - that's unfair, simply put.

 

[Enigma_87]

@Theon Monti in the early 30's put some beef on. Despite his small frame he was very physical at the time and close to the same weight as Zidane for example being around 75-80kg based on various reports.

I don't think he is inferior in terms of strength/size on the deck and in midfield where most of the action and the actual 1 on 1 will come into play.

As for Zidane being more agile that IMO is absolutely true, especially with Monti in this incarnation, however getting physical could trouble Zidane and probably get him out his comfort zone as the game against Italy and against Materazzi where he got sent off.

Still I think Zidane would win that battle and probably one of the reasons I've gone with you guys.

 

[Raees]

1. If you consider a nickname to be good enough evidence for someone marking a peak Zidane out of the game then that's fine - but it really gets to the aspect of this I disagree with. Ultimately what you've based the above on are a few quotes, some blogs and a nickname. The fact that he could 'cover an entire pitch' and was 'clearly a DM of the highest marker' is information you've picked up from secondary sources.

We've already seen how those sources can be called into question, with the general shroud of controversy hanging over the World Cup 1934 win and the fact that the 'great man marking job' on Sindelaar is often viewed as being in reality simply Monti kicking him up and down the park. It goes without saying that I don't know which of those is true and it doesn't need to be the latter - the point is just that these aren't great sources that we're relying on.

Which goes back to what I mentioned to Aldo - you can buy him as a very good/great player, but IMO there needs to be a limit where you need to bring real evidence to the table if you want to start suggesting he'll mark out Zidane in Euro 2000 form.

2 & 4 - I agree that being a bigger does not necessarily mean you will win the battle. I still think it's a relevant statistic though when one player is that much bigger than the other, particularly when the defender was know for relying on his physicality and aggression.

But yeah, it wasn't meant to be a big point and you don't need to agree with it or find it persuasive. It was a legitimate thing to bring up though so I found it strange that it was questioned.

Firstly no it wasn't based on just the nickname but yes it was based on literature.. otherwise of course it is exceptionally difficult to judge how good these players really were. Did I have to use my imagination to an extent - yes, but neither did I say he would definitely mark Zidane out of a game. I said it would be an even duel, based on my interpretation of what I've read about him and from what I seen of Zidane.. basically I didn't consider myself to be of a forthright opinion as to who would definitively win that duel - so i decided to put it to the side and focus on other aspects of your match-up (i.e. I preferred your teams set up and thought you'd win the midfield battle, your team just came across as more aggressive - better winning mentality).

For me Monti's 4 back to back Serie A titles, his back to back world cup finals - I mean clearly he was one of the most influential DM's of all time. You can't overlook that.. so I feel like it wasn't the most blatant mismatch on the pitch.

Anyway enough's been said - didn't mean to annoy you pal.. I do get a tad touchy about the old players because I'd hate to see a draft where we avoid older players.

 

[Ecstatic]

I wasn't in the mood to follow the game.

I'm no surprised by the result: players like Matthaus, Zidane, Ronaldo will always attract more votes than old-school players (like Monti or Luis Suarez Miramontes) or current players (2010s Lahm, Neymar...). With JL Andrade (20s) and 5 players of the 50s, I wasn't surprised to lose 18-10 against Enigma even if he had a great team.

I've picked Luis Monti in 2 different drafts and given the theme of the draft, he fully deserves to be here. The issue with players like JL Andrade or Monti isn't the era or competitive landscape but simply the lack of video footage.

Team Moby has very consistent strategy and a lovely philosophy: it would have been perfect with a ball-playing #6 IMO A team built to play brilliant football.

Team Gio/Theon has some beasts like Matthaus and Ronaldo. Like Xavi, Zidane never loses the ball. A team built to win.

@Theon - agreed. And for whatever it's worth, I did not once mention anything along the lines of Monti completely marking Zidane out of the game, despite it being an argument that you might have expected. My game plan was not based on destructing certain individual elements from the opposition.

As for the rest, like I said above, it isn't just Monti who falls under most of that, forget 1934, the game has massively changed from 1990 till now when the likes of Matthaus and Buchwald gave those performances including actual changes in rules, so again, I'm not sure why an all time draft is organised in the first place when everytime one faces an older name they are quick to play the 'the game has changed' card.

Agree.

 

[Joga Bonito]

1. Based on the fact his nickname was 'double-wide'. He could cover the entire pitch, was a ruthless man marker and had played in two world finals in different sides.. so clearly a DM of the highest calibre. Does that guarantee he'd win the duel? of course not, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move onto other areas of the pitch

Aye, it's a shame that only Monti's physical antics were under the spotlight here whilst his other all-round game and ability has severely gone under the radar.

It's almost as though man-marking Sindelaar out of that game in 1934 WC was the only thing he ever did. Not pointing fingers at anyone here but I do think he deserves more credit for his body of work.

Monti played a revolutionary centro mediano (halfway house) role which was absolutely critical for Pozzo's metodo (more info available in Inverting the pyramid where Jonathan Wilson delves deeper into the eccentric Pozzo's methodology and the origins etc)

Their 2-3-2-3 formation - forever immortalised on foosball tables around the globe - would perhaps be of the greatest benefit to Luis Monti. Playing as the centre half, he would also arguably become the game's first defensive midfielder, as Carcano asked him to defy the usual attacking forays of that role, to cover the pitch laterally and mark opposition strikers. Monti dropped back in an unprecedented manner, providing cover to his full-backs (centre-backs) and paving way for the mediano role. He was clearly a rugged player, one of that generations' most fearsome tacklers, but had technical skills to make him a stand-out who earned the nickname double ancho - double wide - due to the incredible way he covered the pitch.

Monti was a big, tough, ruthless centre half, not of the third back, stopper kind, dedicated merely to "blotting out," as they used to say, the opposing centre forward. No, he was one of the roving kind, a dominant force, not merely in defence, but also in midfield, ever ready to carry the ball into attack; and to deal hardly with the opposition.

Pozzo abhorred the W-M formation in which the centre-half became a stopper, an 'overcoat' for the opposing centre-forward. He did, though, recognise that in the new reality the centre-half had to take on some defensive responsibilities.

Pozzo found the perfect player for the role in Luisito Monti. Monti became a centro mediano (halfway house) – not quite Charlie Roberts (attacking centre-half) but not Herbie Roberts (defensive centre-half) either. He would drop when the other team had possession and mark the opposing centre-forward, but would advance and become an attacking fulcrum when his side had the ball. Although he was not a third back, he played deeper than a traditional centre-half and so the two inside-forwards retreated to support the wing-halves. Italy's shape became a 2-3-2-3, the W-W. At the time it seemed, as the journalist Mario Zappa put it in La Gazzetta della Sport, "a model of play that is the synthesis of the best elements of all the most admired systems", something borne out by Italy's success.

Here is a fantastic article by Jonathan Wilson on the comparison between Pep's Barca and Pozzo's metodo, where he even calls Busquets the modern-Monti in terms of what their roles dictated.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/oct/26/the-question-barcelona-reinventing-w-w

All centre-halves, he thought, should be like Roberts, capable of long, sweeping passes out to the wings. It was a belief he held fundamental and led to his decision, having been reappointed manager of the Italy national team in 1924, immediately to drop Fulvio Bernardini, an idol of the Roman crowds, because he was a 'carrier' rather than a 'dispatcher'.

As a result, Pozzo abhorred the W-M formation that his friend Herbert Chapman, the manager of Arsenal, developed after the change in the offside law in 1925, in which the centre-half – in Arsenal's case Herbie Roberts – became a stopper, an 'overcoat' for the opposing centre-forward. He did, though, recognise that in the new reality the centre-half had to take on some defensive responsibilities.


Pozzo found the perfect player for the role in Luisito Monti. He had played for Argentina in the 1930 World Cup but, after joining Juventus in 1931, became one of the oriundi – those South American players who, thanks to Italian heritage, qualified to play for their adopted country. Already 30 when he signed, Monti was overweight and, even after a month of solitary training, was not quick. He was, though, fit and became known as Doble ancho (Double wide) for his capacity to cover the ground.

So yeah, Monti just wasn't 'just' a DM (although he could play that more straightforward role to high distinction as well, like he did for Argentina), he was a truly revolutionary figure for that Italian vintage and absolutely critical to their WC and CEIC (Euros) wins. Whilst of course, there is always an element of exaggeration when it comes to a revolutionary aspect/playing style, there's no doubt that he played a pivotal role both on the ball and off it. Whilst his defensive work might be up for scrutiny, I think it's fair to say he was a top-notch inspirational presence on his day (the talisman for Argentina for example) and not just a 'limited thug' who just lashed out at opponents.

Even if you take away his 1934 WC (although of course that should be the focus here given the theme of the draft), Monti led Argentina to a Copa America triumph and a Olympics (considered as the precursor to the WC) and a WC final (a tournament in which he was the best player for Argentina in their run to the final - where he probably genuinely feared for his life and understandably gave a muted display*), in addition to being the backbone of the CEIC (EUROS) winning vintage.

*when you read about some of the things that went on before and after that heated final

 

[Moby]

Was glad to see the largely underappreciated Ferri in for Stam who was a bag of errors in 1998.


The discussion on Monti evolved to the point where SirMatt referenced the job on Sindelar as something that could be replicated on Zidane. That's when I came in to put some context around that particular man-marking job. It wasn't a point that he wouldn't be able to man-mark Zidane because he played in the 1930s, it was because the exceptional and very unique circumstances around that game would not likely be replicated today. It's the same caveat you could place on some of Argentina's performances in 1978. And I've used the same line of argument when people have been wanking over Gentile's 'man-marking' of Zico in 1982. Again nothing to do with "olden days players are shit", just about properly assessing each player's achievements and the context around them. And Monti's double-World-Cup winning achievements make him a top pick irrespective of all that.

They are absolutely spot on and relevant when discussing their legacy and standing in the history of the sport but also at the same time render an all time draft completely pointless. You obviously didn't miss out on the opportunity of getting that out of the way very soon based on pretty much non-footballing factors or the evolution of the game, which at least to me makes little sense when the draft OP has allowed all those tournaments to be considered equally on their merit. Heck, the draftmaster came out with an all 1940s-50s team to which pretty much the exact same arguments can be applied. I also would say that the names you took are treated harshly, mainly as their particular brute shows happened at the biggest stage when in reality pretty much every defender took the exact same measures and from their point of view they didn't necessarily go out of their way to achieve those results. What they are actually doing there is giving a fair representation of the style of play during the time they played, the style of play which used as a big argument when rating attacking players like Maradona to have overcome all of that and something that was obviously not limited to those names - so it being used as an argument time and again in an exercise where we are specifically asked to choose players from the entire history of the sport is obviously very contradicting.

The assessment works both ways as well, as far as the context goes. It is just as fair to say that a modern attacking player playing under more protection, better pitches, fitness regimes and the likes would not perform at the same level if he was put in front of endless crunching tackles, no yellow or red cards, heavier balls, having a dictator running the show from behind the scenes, what have you. It makes just as little sense in the end and is mainly nothing but conjecture.

Anyway, just think none of this context is needed in these games, as far as going forward with all time drafts is concerned.

 

[Joga Bonito]

It was actually because of the likes of Monti, Scirea, C.Alberto etc that I voted for Aldo's side as I thought they complemented his approach to the game brilliantly and I saw Suarez-Xavi working a treat with his side boasting too many strings to his bow for Gio/Theon's side (which was brilliant to say the least) to handle.

 

[Theon]

Anyway enough's been said - didn't mean to annoy you pal.. I do get a tad touchy about the old players because I'd hate to see a draft where we avoid older players.

You didn't annoy me at all (actually enjoyed this debate).

And I know you didn't just rely on a nickname - was deliberately focusing on that just to emphasise the point.

The issue with players like JL Andrade or Monti isn't the era or competitive landscape but simply the lack of video footage.

Agreed - that's my point. It impacts the quality of evidence i.e. having a primary source.

 

[Moby]

Aye, it's a shame that only Monti's physical antics were under the spotlight here whilst his other all-round game and ability has severely gone under the radar.

His ability on the ball was a far bigger reason of me picking him here, of course that being blended with his physicality separated my team from a usual 'soft ball playing unit' and provided the balance in that regard but there were quite a few options for no nonsense hard tackling DMs out there who don't quite come close to his offensive nous and how he would be rounded off that midfield trio. Was never really interested in mentioning that man marking or thinking he'd do anything similar to Zidane, don't really need that in my team either.

 

[Ecstatic]

I haven't followed the game and voted but thought Luis Monti was a 'destroyer'

 

[Enigma_87]

I haven't followed the game and voted but thought Luis Monti was a 'destroyer'

Nah mate, had the metodo for the remake draft and used Busquets for a modern day analogy.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/remake-draft-r16-gio-vs-enigma_87.418677/

IMO he's a good fit in terms of describing his game with a modern day example. Monti of course was more physical but in terms of positional play, participating in the build up, dropping back to defence and being the link up between defence and midfield at the base of a triangle.

His passing ability and ability on the ball were also excellent and the reason why he can draw a lot of similarities to other types if midfielders - modern day deep lying playmakers rather than typical destroyers.

 

[Gio]

They are absolutely spot on and relevant when discussing their legacy and standing in the history of the sport but also at the same time render an all time draft completely pointless. You obviously didn't miss out on the opportunity of getting that out of the way very soon based on pretty much non-footballing factors or the evolution of the game, which at least to me makes little sense when the draft OP has allowed all those tournaments to be considered equally on their merit. Heck, the draftmaster came out with an all 1940s-50s team to which pretty much the exact same arguments can be applied. I also would say that the names you took are treated harshly, mainly as their particular brute shows happened at the biggest stage when in reality pretty much every defender took the exact same measures and from their point of view they didn't necessarily go out of their way to achieve those results. What they are actually doing there is giving a fair representation of the style of play during the time they played, the style of play which used as a big argument when rating attacking players like Maradona to have overcome all of that and something that was obviously not limited to those names - so it being used as an argument time and again in an exercise where we are specifically asked to choose players from the entire history of the sport is obviously very contradicting.

The assessment works both ways as well, as far as the context goes. It is just as fair to say that a modern attacking player playing under more protection, better pitches, fitness regimes and the likes would not perform at the same level if he was put in front of endless crunching tackles, no yellow or red cards, heavier balls, having a dictator running the show from behind the scenes, what have you. It makes just as little sense in the end and is mainly nothing but conjecture.

Anyway, just think none of this context is needed in these games, as far as going forward with all time drafts is concerned.

Agree with almost all of that. But ultimately I believe you do want to get into the contextual detail, it's more interesting and gives the threads about the same old players more depth. That doesn't mean one era is better than any other, because that context can work both ways as you say. A big towering centre-half from the first half of the 20th century could be a great physical match for a Didier Drogba for instance. Or a slighter defender from the modern era might struggle to get to grips with a man-mountain like Gunnar Nordahl.

The off-the-park context cannot be separated either. For example, in the Eastern European draft the Yugoslavian defender Milutin Ivkovic had excellent credentials, but his CV on the surface was blotted by a 6-1 defeat by Uruguay in the 1930 World Cup. But when you look at how that result came about, with an official kicking the ball back into play for one of the early Uruguayan goals, you start to get a feel for some of the challenges particular players faced at certain points. Different issues for Peru in 1978 or Colombia in 1994, but ultimately very important off-the-pitch context to understand how and why they performed the way they did. And usually there are all sorts of great stories to uncover.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Aye, it's a shame that only Monti's physical antics were under the spotlight here whilst his other all-round game and ability has severely gone under the radar.

It's almost as though man-marking Sindelaar out of that game in 1934 WC was the only thing he ever did. Not pointing fingers at anyone here but I do think he deserves more credit for his body of work.

Monti played a revolutionary centro mediano (halfway house) role which was absolutely critical for Pozzo's metodo (more info available in Inverting the pyramid where Jonathan Wilson delves deeper into the eccentric Pozzo's methodology and the origins etc)

Here is a fantastic article by Jonathan Wilson on the comparison between Pep's Barca and Pozzo's metodo, where he even calls Busquets the modern-Monti in terms of what their roles dictated.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/oct/26/the-question-barcelona-reinventing-w-w





So yeah, Monti just wasn't 'just' a DM (although he could play that more straightforward role to high distinction as well, like he did for Argentina), he was a truly revolutionary figure for that Italian vintage and absolutely critical to their WC and CEIC (Euros) wins. Whilst of course, there is always an element of exaggeration when it comes to a revolutionary aspect/playing style, there's no doubt that he played a pivotal role both on the ball and off it. Whilst his defensive work might be up for scrutiny, I think it's fair to say he was a top-notch inspirational presence on his day (the talisman for Argentina for example) and not just a 'limited thug' who just lashed out at opponents.

Even if you take away his 1934 WC (although of course that should be the focus here given the theme of the draft), Monti led Argentina to a Copa America triumph and a Olympics (considered as the precursor to the WC) and a WC final (a tournament in which he was the best player for Argentina in their run to the final - where he probably genuinely feared for his life and understandably gave a muted display*), in addition to being the backbone of the CEIC (EUROS) winning vintage.

*when you read about some of the things that went on before and after that heated final

Except for this draft I do think the fact that Monti has two shady clouds over his two specific World Cup final counts much more than this general type of information which applies more to a general draft. I can't rate Monti's two WC performances on the highest level because of the shade of those illicit clouds.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Nah mate, had the metodo for the remake draft and used Busquets for a modern day analogy.

Not really sure about that. He was named double wide for his ability to cover the width of the pitch. Both offensively and defensively I'd rate him higher than Busquets. I expect his game style to be similar to Duncan Edwards or maybe Rijkaard than to Busquets.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Using pure markers in drafts is actually problematic in itself, to dwell on it some more. It has never been a bullet proof tactic in real life, and some of the more obvious counter arguments to it working is often overlooked (in drafts, I mean).

We nearly always presuppose that the players involved are prime versions, capable of using their full bag of tricks. Which means that you need to buy the idea of a marker successfully neutralizing not only a GOAT, but a GOAT in top form.

If said marker slips up, his manager will have wasted a player - who won't have contributed to anything but an unsuccessful marking job. But this - obvious, I would say - risk is rarely treated as such. In an actual match, going for a marker will have consequences beyond the actual «battle» between marker and target - and would (nay, should) be considered an even more drastic move in a fantasy match, where focusing on one star man would presumably mean leaving more room to players who are historically great in their own right. Which is bloody risky. With potential match winners all over the shop, going for a pure marker should be scrutinized much more severely than it usually is - and the reason why it isn't, I would add, is the old tendency to view the match in terms of isolated «battles».

 

[Moby]

Agree with almost all of that. But ultimately I believe you do want to get into the contextual detail, it's more interesting and gives the threads about the same old players more depth. That doesn't mean one era is better than any other, because that context can work both ways as you say. A big towering centre-half from the first half of the 20th century could be a great physical match for a Didier Drogba for instance. Or a slighter defender from the modern era might struggle to get to grips with a man-mountain like Gunnar Nordahl.

The off-the-park context cannot be separated either. For example, in the Eastern European draft the Yugoslavian defender Milutin Ivkovic had excellent credentials, but his CV on the surface was blotted by a 6-1 defeat by Uruguay in the 1930 World Cup. But when you look at how that result came about, with an official kicking the ball back into play for one of the early Uruguayan goals, you start to get a feel for some of the challenges particular players faced at certain points. Different issues for Peru in 1978 or Colombia in 1994, but ultimately very important off-the-pitch context to understand how and why they performed they did. And usually there are all sorts of great stories to uncover.

There's no doubt on these arguments and stories being far more interesting than saying Luis Ronaldo is faster than Vidic, etc but in the end there's no end to any of these, like I mentioned earlier. How do you objectively compare Lothar Matthaus playing in the 1990 climate to Xavi in the late 2000s one while taking everything on that level into account? It goes for literally every match up separated by any decent change that took place in the sport. I completely agree with having arguments based on style and ability - that's why these threads are created primarily, but obviously if you start banging on things like what was allowed back then in terms of tackling or physicality and wouldn't be now - which is what precisely happened in this thread and has happened plenty of times before with several usual suspects - then it goes towards the comparison of eras and not the players in question, can't have that. Nowhere in the OP does it say that the match is being played in 2017.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

And I've used the same line of argument when people have been wanking over Gentile's 'man-marking' of Zico in 1982.

But that was Gentile's worst man marking of the tournament. He did better against Platini and Maradona than Zico

 

[Enigma_87]

Not really sure about that. He was named double wide for his ability to cover the width of the pitch. Both offensively and defensively I'd rate him higher than Busquets. I expect his game style to be similar to Duncan Edwards or maybe Rijkaard than to Busquets.

I was talking more about his style rather than level. Monti was not the most agile, nor the fastest player around, so IMO Busquets is more apt comparison in terms of style rather than Rijkaard or Edwards. He was also starting attacks from deep and while Rijkaard is excellent on the ball I wouldn't say he has a similar style.

The other who can fit the bill is probably Redondo on the top of my mind, of course it's hard to have a carbon copy so more like similarities here and there and overlapping styles in terms of their contribution in the system they played in.

 

[Enigma_87]

Using pure markers in drafts is actually problematic in itself, to dwell on it some more. It has never been a bullet proof tactic in real life, and some of the more obvious counter arguments to it working is often overlooked (in drafts, I mean).

We nearly always presuppose that the players involved are prime versions, capable of using their full bag of tricks. Which means that you need to buy the idea of a marker successfully neutralizing not only a GOAT, but a GOAT in top form.

If said marker slips up, his manager will have wasted a player - who won't have contributed to anything but an unsuccessful marking job. But this - obvious, I would say - risk is rarely treated as such. In an actual match, going for a marker will have consequences beyond the actual «battle» between marker and target - and would (nay, should) be considered an even more drastic move in a fantasy match, where focusing on one star man would presumably mean leaving more room to players who are historically great in their own right. Which is bloody risky. With potential match winners all over the shop, going for a pure marker should be scrutinized much more severely than it usually is - and the reason why it isn't, I would add, is the old tendency to view the match in terms of isolated «battles».

Agree with your whole post but this one is really spot on. I'm not a fan of man marking approach in all time draft. There will be no doubt 1 on 1's most of the time and that a particular defender will come against a certain forward most of the time, but usually taking care of him will be when the attacker approaches his zone. So while isolated battles are sometimes key in terms of game specifics and getting advantage here and there a man marking approach against one of the other team star players is a bit of a no-no for me. You have a key defender on your own chasing the attacker like a mad man and leaving space behind for other star players to exploit and also the danger of not being able to quite get the job done as the attacker will surely win the battle on occasion creating a numerical advantage.

In real life man marking would work like Gentile on Platini/Maradona, Vogts on Cruyff, but the specifics are quite different - you had teams based around one star player who ran the show and taking him out would win you the game. When across the park there are Pele's, Maradona's, Cruyff's besides Platini for example, makes that approach a bit, well.. pointless.

 

[Moby]

Using pure markers in drafts is actually problematic in itself, to dwell on it some more. It has never been a bullet proof tactic in real life, and some of the more obvious counter arguments to it working is often overlooked (in drafts, I mean).

We nearly always presuppose that the players involved are prime versions, capable of using their full bag of tricks. Which means that you need to buy the idea of a marker successfully neutralizing not only a GOAT, but a GOAT in top form.

If said marker slips up, his manager will have wasted a player - who won't have contributed to anything but an unsuccessful marking job. But this - obvious, I would say - risk is rarely treated as such. In an actual match, going for a marker will have consequences beyond the actual «battle» between marker and target - and would (nay, should) be considered an even more drastic move in a fantasy match, where focusing on one star man would presumably mean leaving more room to players who are historically great in their own right. Which is bloody risky. With potential match winners all over the shop, going for a pure marker should be scrutinized much more severely than it usually is - and the reason why it isn't, I would add, is the old tendency to view the match in terms of isolated «battles».

Yep, from a general point of view it's a risk not worth taking against someone like a Maradona or a Messi.

It perhaps can work if done with a clear rescue plan, e.g. Stiles and Eusebio 'worked' because when Stiles got beat which most would vs. Eusebio there was Moore and Charlton at the back covering. But like Enigma said the bigger reason was that they weren't exactly worried about the rest of the team in attack and knew that taking care of Eusebio is most of the job done. These are usually the situations where you can attempt anything like that, where the team is revolving around one star player, and another example is Matthaus on Maradona in 1986. Bastian did it to Messi in 2014 which again points towards a team that depended highly on one player. What all those man markers had in common (Stiles, Gentile, Vogts, Matthaus) was always having people covering who could afford to leave their own match ups and help out the marker when he's beaten. Which is rarely the case in these games.

Even the most recent one was Herrera on Hazard, and Jose knew that team would fall apart if Hazard doesn't get the ball given their midfield pair is hardly creative. But it was still as always a massive risk which can never be considered as a success before the game is played. The crux of that tactic for me is simply diverting possession away from a particular player, which is fruitless if the others are equally deadly and only works if the rest would fail to use the ball as well as the main man.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Yes, it's interesting to note that the famous marking jobs usually cited were carried out in circumstances where the marking team were (either arguably or undoubtedly) superior in terms of overall quality. Stiles, Lothar, Schweiny, Gentile, Buchwald - all examples of very strong teams using the tactic against an opponent who'd be dramatically weakened with the marked player shackled. In drafts, on the other hand, I can't recall anyone using this tactic from a position of strength - i.e. if you consider your team on par with the opponent, quality wise, you don't use it (in spite of this being pretty much the only «proven» starting point for successful marking jobs in high profile matches - at least if we're talking about the ones people normally use as examples).