Since I clearly struggle to explain how this works in real life, here's a "tactical change" that would more accurately represent my team's set up in possession — which would be most of this game.
Nostalgia Draft - QF: Physiocrat vs harms
- Thread starter Synco
- Start date
@Synco can you please make a tactical change.
Last edited:
Yeah sure - only thing I need to know: does it replace the original formation graphic or is it added below?
I think it replaces the original with an original formation put in a spoiler below with a note that this change was made 7 hours before the end of the game.
Done!
Cheers.
@harms
That's interesting about Ferdinand. I'm not mentioning it just because we have a match but that I have always hesitated putting him at LCB in a back four.
On the goalscoring threat, as I said before I underestimated Litmanen but I think it still clear I have a goal scoring edge. On Koeman and Mendieta I would be interested to see how many penalties they scored. When researching Breitner's goal record in his later Bayern career (the one with a great goalscoring record) it was mostly penalties and some free kicks IIRC. I also watched all of the Matthaus's goals in his 20 goal season for Inter. It was a similar story. As an additional goal threat fine, but he won't be a regular goal threat in the way a forward or AM would be.
On 442 isn't this B2B role for Mendieta isn't this the same role he failed for Lazio at. It seems to me that Mendieta and Beckham overlap in their favoured positions for this to work optimally.
That's interesting about Ferdinand. I'm not mentioning it just because we have a match but that I have always hesitated putting him at LCB in a back four.
On the goalscoring threat, as I said before I underestimated Litmanen but I think it still clear I have a goal scoring edge. On Koeman and Mendieta I would be interested to see how many penalties they scored. When researching Breitner's goal record in his later Bayern career (the one with a great goalscoring record) it was mostly penalties and some free kicks IIRC. I also watched all of the Matthaus's goals in his 20 goal season for Inter. It was a similar story. As an additional goal threat fine, but he won't be a regular goal threat in the way a forward or AM would be.
On 442 isn't this B2B role for Mendieta isn't this the same role he failed for Lazio at. It seems to me that Mendieta and Beckham overlap in their favoured positions for this to work optimally.
Seriously, how is that clear? Can you provide literally any evidence, because on sheer numbers Cristiano + Litmanen have 231 goals between them while all three of your big goalscorers have 233 goals between them. Even if you discount a significantly better creative unit from my team (Iniesta, Beckham, Litmanen, Koeman, Mendieta).
Sheva 83 + Vieri 71 + Rivaldo 79 + Silva 24
Cristiano 146 + Litmanen 85 + Koeman 48 + Mendieta 45 + Beckham 26 + Iniesta 18...
That's certainly an interesting point, but I'm not going to waste my time counting those — it's on you at this point to prove your "clearly" better goalscoring claim, I've spent enough time gathering peak goalscoring numbers already
Be sure to count every players penalty stats though, including your forwards.They really don't — if you've watched them both, you'd see that they are as different as they can be in terms of their interpretation of the role & Mendieta still a central midfielder by trade, while Beckham was a winger. He didn't fail at Lazio because he was moved centrally.
Why do you insist on total goals rather than looking at goals per game ratios? It seems obvious that per game matters more since the more games you play the more you can score. On the free kick and penalty issue, you can't easily double count the goal threat of players who mostly scored set pieces since only one of them can take a set piece at one time. It does not multiply the threat like open play goals do.
I could also work out the goals scored normalised for the total goals scored in that league which I have actually done before for Platini and Riva but we then get to much more of an intangible debate. Again though Litmanen scored his goals in the Eredeversie which was easier to score in than Serie A in the early 00s, that is clear.
Beckham was a wide-mid not a winger. If you did a heat map his average position he wouldn't be nearly as far forward as say Giggs. Mendieta liked to be able to roam wide and would like to end up in similar positions to Beckham. Now Mendieta can of course just stay more central all the time, it just isn't optimal.
You can go the ratios if you want to, I do it because it takes less time. I don't think that you have any advantage in terms of goalscoring even if we discount a clear disparity in the level of service (especially considering how reliant you are on your fullbacks to provide width).
I'm not a fan of this semantics as we all know how Beckham played. There are different kind of wingers, he's not Giggs or Matthews, that doesn't mean that he isn't a winger. For many he would be the text-book definition of a winger and I wouldn't question them.
Mendieta, on the other hand, is not a winger. He's a central midfielder who favoured wide channels, and this is exactly the role that he's playing here. You don't talk about Neeskens or Bonhof overlapping with wingers, do you?
If it was with Beckham then possibly. As I say it depends on the role you give them. Restrict Mendieta that's fine it can work with Beckham, it just isn't optimal.
Anyway for everyone who thinks Vieri was just a brute.
God i love the goals debate, it must be the most pointless thing in team sport 
AbsolutelyGod i love the goals debate, it must be the most pointless thing in team sport
Leaning one way here, but still stuck on these points:
- I'm not sure about Silva's role here - will he mesh nicely in this system or would it be too direct to play to his strengths? Thinking about the system, he probably fits okay in terms of that Brazil 4222 model from 82/94/98.
- Can see why Harms bolstered the central defence as it looks that Vieri could bully them somewhat. Koeman can get an unfair reputation, but he wasn't great defensively post-92 with the big hits of his defensive CV coming from the late 1980s with PSV and Holland. That said, Tassotti is a good fit to give some central support and Rio is a decent compensatory partner.
- Thuram looks like Cristiano's cryptonite here, but at the same time the supply lines from Litmanen, Iniesta and Beckham are top class.
Aye that’s the one. At one point he was the dogs bollocks as a striker and when Fenomeno was out injured I’m pretty sure everyone thought about him as the best striker in Europe, whilst the competition was very tough at the time and it was full of quality strikers, with Sheva obviously one of them even for Dynamo.
I'm going to say this one more time before shutting up completely — somehow all the discussion is focused on my team's weaknesses (fair enough), but how do people see that midfield battle commence?
How are Albertini and Mascherano are going to take care of the likes of Iniesta, Mendieta & Dunga? Silva had a decent work-rate for an attacking midfielder, but he's hardly going to help out. Rijkaard is going to be a busy bee with both fullbacks bombing forward (which is the only option, as both of Physio's wide players are cutting inside).
It's by far the biggest mismatch on the pitch that is absolutely crucial to how this game will go, yet no one is willing to discuss it for some reason
I'm signing off for the remaining few hours, so good luck anyway @Physiocrat. It's been a tougher battle than I expected, so kudos to you (funnily enough it's a complete opposite of my previous game that I didn't expect to win).
How are Albertini and Mascherano are going to take care of the likes of Iniesta, Mendieta & Dunga? Silva had a decent work-rate for an attacking midfielder, but he's hardly going to help out. Rijkaard is going to be a busy bee with both fullbacks bombing forward (which is the only option, as both of Physio's wide players are cutting inside).
It's by far the biggest mismatch on the pitch that is absolutely crucial to how this game will go, yet no one is willing to discuss it for some reason
I'm signing off for the remaining few hours, so good luck anyway @Physiocrat. It's been a tougher battle than I expected, so kudos to you (funnily enough it's a complete opposite of my previous game that I didn't expect to win).
That Beckham/Mendieta axis looks spot on to me. A lot of similarities but Mendieta provided goal threat getting into the box from central and inside-right areas, while Beckham did it by hugging the touchline or by having pings from 25 yards in central areas. If Mendieta goes, Beckham can tuck in, and vice versa. I said that Rivaldo was a threat from that area, but to be fair to Harms, Mendieta thrusting past Albertini is a danger too.
I agree @Physiocrat poses the greater goalscoring threat while @harms main route to goal is Cristiano.
His defensive pair looks a bit funny but both are great fits to the pair they are dealing with, while at the other end it's all a bit of a car crash once Rivaldo gets hold of the ball.
I can't see that happening all that much though. There's one midfield clearly bossing this game and that's @harms which also provides fantastic service for Cristiano while Litmanen's main -not insignificant- contribution is keeping Rijkaard busy really.
If you play this game ten times I can see @harms always scoring a couple of goals while conceding anything between 0 and 3, or even 4 if everyone entered the pitch thinking they have some useless dude at CB. That's where I think the formation and what it relayed about mindsets is very relevant. Could make all the difference really.
His defensive pair looks a bit funny but both are great fits to the pair they are dealing with, while at the other end it's all a bit of a car crash once Rivaldo gets hold of the ball.
I can't see that happening all that much though. There's one midfield clearly bossing this game and that's @harms which also provides fantastic service for Cristiano while Litmanen's main -not insignificant- contribution is keeping Rijkaard busy really.
If you play this game ten times I can see @harms always scoring a couple of goals while conceding anything between 0 and 3, or even 4 if everyone entered the pitch thinking they have some useless dude at CB. That's where I think the formation and what it relayed about mindsets is very relevant. Could make all the difference really.
I think harms has the more interesting side, especially from an attacking perspective. Something is slightly off defensively for me, but I think he just about gets ahead of Physio because of how well crafted that midfield is + Cristiano.
Yes, that is certainly possible and actually could work really well. With a proper attacking RB I think I would buy it.
With an overlapping RB ("attacking" raises the spec unnecessarily) it would be a phenomenal flank.
I suppose you could argue that shortcoming/imperfection is a bit more evident now Becks isn't portrayed as a wingback.
While an overlapping fullback is certainly bonus and Tassotti is obviously the first one to go if I were to go through, I feel like the importance of an overlapping fullback for Beckham's functionality gets a tad overrated.
GG @Physiocrat. I believe that a coin-toss is in order? @Synco @Invictus
Us Russians are famously lucky in those. Right?
GG @Physiocrat. I believe that a coin-toss is in order? @Synco @Invictus
Us Russians are famously lucky in those. Right?
Why would you need overlapping right back when you have Becks and Mendieta on that side ?
harms flank is mighty fine as it is. You also have player like Cristiano in the box to get at the end of Becks crosses. I’d also would’ve went for defensive or balanced full back on that side.
Now it's over and to be dealt by a coin toss. May I suggest you revisit the old rule of manager votes counting x2?
With a tweak, exited managers, because there's no agenda there and as tie-vreaker only.
It can help keep them involved and they know the rules, constraints faced, etc. Not that some non-managers aren't qualified, but others clearly aren't.
Less relevant now this is in a separate subforum, mind, and it would still be a draw in this specific case. As a tie-breaker though it seems a more appropriate next step than going straight to a coin toss.
With a tweak, exited managers, because there's no agenda there and as tie-vreaker only.
It can help keep them involved and they know the rules, constraints faced, etc. Not that some non-managers aren't qualified, but others clearly aren't.
Less relevant now this is in a separate subforum, mind, and it would still be a draw in this specific case. As a tie-breaker though it seems a more appropriate next step than going straight to a coin toss.
To be fair, every voter in this game at least is a regular voter. I understand the sentiment but it kinda made sense when we weren't secluded and sometimes people came to vote for a familiar name or in spite & now it just feels a bit elitist.
It's not a necessity but a bonus that takes that flank to another level, from a very high one to begin with. Difference between strong and unplayable.
Reckon you had this regardless.
As I said, it doesn't make any difference here (which pretty much indicates a coin toss is as fair as they come) and in a subforum it's quite clear most voters are regulars.
As a tie-break before a coin toss though (not for the initial count and draw) I think there's some merit to it, more so once you tweak to exited managers as it removes any bias that may have been introduced into a draw. It's not just manager vs regular voter "elitism".
Lest we forget, we have had a multiple draft winner stripped of his titles
Oh @Tuppet, the greatest thing that ever happened to this forum. I'm still waiting for that inevitable Netflix adaptation.
Mind, he would have probably entered a few patsies as managers to screw everyone else's drafting and then exit and command tie-break votes
@harms only place worse than injury at T4 would have been T3. That backline with Vidic in but Rio out would have lost the game.
You really need to sort that out, it's a far bigger problem than Tassotti not overlapping. Well, actually, which turn did Thuram go? Two birds one stone.
You really need to sort that out, it's a far bigger problem than Tassotti not overlapping. Well, actually, which turn did Thuram go? Two birds one stone.
I believe so. Let me take a look at the draft OP to make sure I don't mess this up.
Maybe losing this will make you be a bit kinder to poor Albert?Us Russians are famously lucky in those. Right?
Last edited:
I made a pledge to never think of Fellaini again, so the latter.
Nope. The issue with Albert wasn't that he wasn't lucky, who can blame a man for that, he was offered the first choice, chickened out (thought for too long apparently) and the referee gave the choice to Facchetti. If you have an option of deciding it yourself, fecking do it!
Come on Fellaini, make you career complete!
What's the story here?
Would be quite poetic if after all that midfield talk Merouane was your ace up the sleeve all along.
The 1968 Euros semi-final between Italy and USSR finished 0:0 and for whatever reason the way to decide the winner at that point was by a coin-toss (you'd think that they would be consistent with that, but the final also ended in a draw and they've got a replay). Referee went into the dressing rooms with both of the captains, Shesternyov and Facchetti. Apparently Shesternyov was offered to pick a side and thought so long that the ref said feck it and asked Facchetti — he choose the right one and Italy went through, eventually winning the tournament.
I have nothing against coin-toss in our games, but the idea to decide an actual football game based on that seems so insane