Remake Draft R16 | Gio vs Enigma_87

[Joga Bonito]

Voters are asked to consider the XIs featured as remakes of classic teams, and to consider to what extent the manager has succeeded in re-creating both the individual roles and the overall functionality of the original. THIS IS NOT A FANTASY MATCH BETWEEN TWO SIDES, but rather a comparison of remakes.

Please feel free to tag the managers if you require more information about their set-ups/players etc.

Team Gio:
​

Philosophy/Ideology of Tactical Set-Up

No generation was as golden as Hungary's Golden Team that dominated international football in the early 1950s. The Magical Magyars were a step ahead of their peers: shaking off the shackles of the WM formation to unleash a 3-2-1-4 / 4-2-4 hybrid that bamboozled the world. At the heart of Gusztav Sebes' system was the deep-lying centre-forward, initially developed by MTK coach Martin Bukovi, whose positioning, ability to dictate play and overload in and beyond the hole was central to the Magyars' sustained success.

Style - Fluid, ball dominating and on the front foot
Defense - High line organised by a centre-half-cum-sweeper who builds play from deep. Combination of man and zonal marking as the situation dictates. Look to win the ball back early to carry on attacking.
Midfield - Classy and imposing: look to dominate and circulate the ball with superior technique
Attack - Fluid: intelligent through the middle and swashbuckling on the flanks

Player Roles

Claudio Bravo - good on the ball and shines with a high line. Grosics: "There was space behind our defence and I had to act as a kind of extra sweeper outside of my area".
Ivan Helguera - Like Lorant, Helguera was "strong and skillful" (Sebes), expansive on the ball, used to playing a high line in an often gung-ho set-up.
Branislav Ivanovic - capable of operating as a man-marking central defender or an overlapping right-back
Kahka Kaladze - experienced as a central-defender-cum-left-back
Daniele De Rossi - defensive-left-central presence to anchor midfield, dropping into defence when required.
Marco Verratti - ball-playing central midfielder who can also mix it.
Francesco Totti - the modern game's first false nine plays the role of the withdrawn centre-forward
Raul - left-footed support striker, expert finisher, dovetailing off a more physical line-leader
Miroslav Klose - aerially powerful centre-forward
Arjen Robben - free-roaming, heavy goalscoring, left-footed winger
Antonio Valencia - orthodox, disciplined, touchline-hugging outside right

Specific Tactical Manoeuvres

• Totti is the heartbeat: he drops into the hole between defence and midfield, sprays passes and supports the attack. Grosics: "Whoever was in this deep-lying position had to co-ordinate the whole team's strategy from behind the attack." Higedkuti: "If I went forward, Puskas dropped back".
• De Rossi can drop to make a more conventional back four as shown by his central defensive performances in Euro 2012 in particular. Szepesi: "Part of Sebes genius was for Zakarias to drop back to liberate the rest of the midfield - Hidegkuti in particular - to attack."
• Midfield pivots on the De Rossi/Verratti axis with Verratti freed up to support the attack in possession.
• As in the 1953 'match of the century' against England, Robben and Valencia play slightly deeper to work the flank. Sebes: "I wanted the wingers to drop back when necessary to assist the defence"
• Valencia hugs the touchline to stretch the defence and provide crosses for Klose to attack.
  
• Robben has the freedom to roam across the line and his team-mates will adapt to fill the space he has vacated. Puskas: "If Czibor wandered to the right wing, Budai would drop deeper. If Czibor decided to spend most of the game on the right wing, I would pull to the left to compensate".

 

[Joga Bonito]

Hungary 1953/Sebes (3-2-1-4)............................................................/.......................................Gio's Modern Remake

 

[Joga Bonito]

Team Enigma_87:

Philosophy/Ideology of tactical set-up

“Il Metodo” (the method) was a football formation developed by Italian manager Vittorio Pozzo in the 1930s. Fundamentally, it is a defensive adaptation of the 2-3-5 formation, formed by withdrawing two forwards from the frontline.

Two center backs protect the shoulders of the goalkeeper while the left and right halves take up the opposition wingers. The center half marks the opposing striker while two inside forwards lie deep to help on defense. The center half, just like in the pyramid position, serves as the transition from defense to offense. The offensive strategy is based on counterattacking and long balls, which the center half initiates with the inside forwards.

The Italian football team brought il metodo to prominence by winning the 1934 and 1938 World Cup titles.

Defensive:
Pozzo's system is based on the defensive pillar first and foremost. The idea itself was putting traditional CB's who were strong, agile, good in the air and tough just off the shoulders of the keeper and having 3 pivot players in front of them. The central half in Monti had to act as an anchor and link the defense with attack. In some sources they even quote Monti to be the first deep lying playmaker and his passing attributes(although not on Pirlo or Guardiola level) were recognized as he was one of the most important players in that formation. He covered a lot of ground and was practically everywhere. His main responsibility apart from dropping into CB and following the opposition forward were also the vertical link up between him and the 2 inside forwards which creates a triangle - much similar to what Barca in their Dream team and later under Guardiola adapted as modern example. The left and right halves first and foremost were tasked to watch and man mark the opposition wingers but also push forward and help the midfield. Pretty much what you would expect as modern day wing backs minus the attacking overlapping. The two inside forwards were supposed to provide cover on the flanks when needed, especially Ferrari, while Meazza was given more of a free role.

Offensive:
The build up began with Monti and the inside forwards were the other creative pillars in that formation. The system itself required solid and organized defence and adapted long balls but also relied on the creativity of the two inside forwards and the trickery and pace of the wingers playing off the shoulders of the #9. The #9 itself is an agile striker with excellent two feet, strong and as the other wide attackers possessed decent amount of pace, required for the counter attacking set up.

Style -
Counter attacking, Direct, Long passes. Man mark the wingers out of the game. Press inside your own half to deny the opposition players of time and space.

Defensive line - Deep. Press when opposition wingers and CF are in possession in own half.

Marking - Man marking the wide players, Monti/Busquets to follow the opposition striker inside his own half and drop as a CB.

Off the ball - Physical style get the ball back inside own half. Tough tackling. Inside forwards to provide support in defence, especially Ferrari/Seedorf. Meazza with a more free role, but still decent work rate.

On the ball - Launch a quick counter either with direct vertical passing or look for the flanks for the quick wingers. Direct style, quick passing.

Midfield:

The right and left halves provide also protection in midfield. Their role is more restricted in attacking plan as Orsi, Guaita, Meazza, Ferrari, Schiavio form triangles and link up between them. That front five is the creative force of the system with Monti starting attacks. The "wing" halves provide support up to the center of the pitch with inclination to drift in. Not much overlapping.

Attack:

Spearheaded by Schiavio - fast, well built, agile, excellent scorer and two good feet but also technical forward. Of course physical attributes have to be up to par. 2 wingers off his shoulders - fast, great technique, good cross. In Orsi's case ability to cut in. Both wingers were very skillful and would often go on a run if there was an opening in front of them. Direct style, putting in crosses, but also playing on the ground and forming triangles for quick interplay. Meazza was not that fast player - excellent dribbler and passer but also a main goalscoring threat. He was the combination of a false 9, #10 but also 1 in a 2 goalscorer. Ferrari was basically Seedorf - advanced playmaker, great engine, excellent long shot and often a goal scoring threat due to that.

Adaptation:
1. Combi <==> Cech - solid keeper first and foremost. Dependable, no sweeping type. Cech is an excellent fit being also a higher profile keeper. Combi was the first notable keeper for the Italian team, one man team that won 5 Seria A titles with Juventus - was one of the best keepers in the 30's.
2. Monzeglio <==> Varane - Agile, strong defender off the right shoulder of the keeper. Monzeglio was the more agile of the two defenders.
3. Allemandi <==> Samuel - the bedrock in Italy's watertight defence - strong, great in tackling and in the air, basically the wall of the Italian defence. No wonder he's replaced by El Muro.
4. Bertolini <==> Chivu - man marking responsibilities, but also good on the ball and very good long passer of the ball to launch the quick counters. Of course he was very good defensively, can help the midfield as well and tuck in. Basically what Chivu did in his club career playing as a DM, LB and CB. Chivu is also very good long passer on the ball which makes the comparison even more apt.
5. Ferraris <==> Sagnol - again we are looking here for excellent defender and Sagnol played pretty much against one of the best wingers in the game. Ability to cover in midfield - he was known for capable of doing that as a wing back(started his career as right midfielder as well). Long passing attribute is a must as well - he has one of the best crosses as a full back.
6. Monti <==> Busquets - probably the best comparison along with Seedorf/Ferrari. Monti is basically the older version of Busquets - excellent passing range, vertical movement, dropping into CB position, roaming everywhere to get the ball back, can't really ask more than that for an apt comparison.
7. Ferrari <==> Seedorf - A creative, advanced midfield playmaker, Ferrari was a strong, physically fit, hardworking, versatile, and well-rounded footballer, as well as being a generous team player. Due to his technical ability, vision, tactical intelligence, and passing ability, he excelled at building attacking plays and creating chances for team-mates, although he was also capable of scoring himself due to his powerful and accurate shot." That is how Ferrari was described. You can accurately describe Seedorf in the absolutely the same way as well.
8. Meazza <==> Robin van Persie - probably the biggest issue I had while picking a replacement for the remake. For Meazza's role I had 2 players - Totti and Ronaldinho. Neither unfortunately made it to me in the first pick. Meazza was unique player with bags of creativity, not the fastest one but excellent vision and technique. The biggest issue is that he was also a great goalscorer. I've picked Persie just for that - his proven goalscoring record, also the ability to drop deep, his spraying passes, quick interplay and also playing in the inside left position(Meazza was deployed as inside left for Italy in 1934). Of course there are similarities but they are very different players either. Here I've bet more on the role and the significant goal threat RvP is, which makes Meazza invaluable in this team. Decent work rate but not one of the most industrious one in the team (RvP certainly fits the bill).
9. Orsi <==> Hazard - Orsi was one of the quickest and most skillful players in the 30's. Safe to say legend of the game, he was cutting in left winger - goalscoring treat and one of the most creative players in that team. Hazard has similar built, fast, tricky, skillful and apart from last season he has proven for 2 seasons in a row apart from creativity his goal scoring prowess.
10. Schiavio <==> Eto'o - Angelo Schiavio was quick, powerful striker with excellent technique. Accurate finisher and capable of using his both feet. Eto'o is clinical striker with the same attributes.
11. Guaita <==> Mahrez - Another skillful winger with a good goalscoring return. Mahrez is perfectly adapt for counter, fast bags of creativity and this season he has proved that he's a great goal scoring threat for a team that is an underdog.

 

[Joga Bonito]

Italy 1934/Pozzo (2-3-2-3)............................................................/.....................................Enigma_87's Modern Remake

 

[Joga Bonito]

Good luck gents

@Gio @Enigma_87

 

[Enigma_87]

Good luck @Gio ! Thanks @Joga Bonito for setting it up!

 

[Enigma_87]

Some quotes on RvP to reiterate on his role in this game.

In 2009, RVP was playing as a false 9, dropping deep and allowing players like Eduardo to take up more attacking positions. But last season, with Walcott and Gervinho on the wings,Van Persie’s role was slightly different. He was the focal point in Arsenal’s attack, whenever he had the ball in an area away from the box, he looked to the wings to pick out Walcott or Gervinho. And when the ball arrived in the penalty box, he was there to finish it. This exactly doesn’t fit the description of a False 9, maybe you can call it a nine and a half. Essentially he is a number 9,but shoulders some creative responsibility too.

Van Persie’s movement is a vital cog in his ability to create space for himself and more importantly for his teammates. His knack of losing defenders and markers is under-rated. He always drops off defenders to find space and he doesn’t mind if he has to go wide or drop deep. The problem for defenders (especially last year) is his lethal finishing. He scored goals from all kinds of angles and positions. With a left foot like his, it is understandable that he values space than position. This quality of his, makes the job of his midfield partners much easier (i.e to find him).

When Arsenal lose the ball, they look to Van Persie to intiate the pressing. In fact, Van Persie is one of the leading players when it comes to distance covered per game in the Premier League. You generally expect a full back or a winger to have a high distance covered/match, certainly not a striker. Also, Alex Song’s lofted balls to Van Persie have given a different dimension to Arsenal’s attack. Song’s new found creative ability certainly has to credit to his understanding with Robin.

In this remake I'm looking at Arsenal's RvP. RvP will drop into channels wide and deep to get the ball and look for openings on the wings - Mahrez and Hazard. Of course his goal input is invaluable as well and as a finisher with the ability to evade defenders is very similar to what was expected of Meazza.

Albeit different type of players I'm looking at RvP to fulfill the specific role here but also his goalscoring prowess as Meazza was relied on to score the important goal and give the team the victory when he pops into the box.

 

[harms]

Surprised to see that @Enigma_87 sees Busquets and Seedorf as one of his best picks. Monti was a much more physical player than Busquets, who is pretty much unparalleled in the DM position. Seedorf... I guess you can interpret his role like this, although I would've preferred someone more attacking here.

Meazza/Van Persie is just meh. I don't remember, was Meazza still a great goalscorer in 1934 or did he move deeper already? (He still scored lots, but not as much as he did later). Someone like Iniesta would've been perfect, despite being a huge downgrade in the goalscoring sense. Van Persie wasn't that good at dribbling, like most of the tall players, while Meazza's low centre of gravity influenced his playing style.

On the other hand, @Gio created an almost perfect replica. Can't find any big mistakes/questionable choices

 

[Enigma_87]

Surprised to see that @Enigma_87 sees Busquets and Seedorf as one of his best picks. Monti was a much more physical player than Busquets, who is pretty much unparalleled in the DM position. Seedorf... I guess you can interpret his role like this, although I would've preferred someone more attacking here.

Meazza/Van Persie is just meh. I don't remember, was Meazza still a great goalscorer in 1934 or did he move deeper already? (He still scored lots, but not as much as he did later). Someone like Iniesta would've been perfect, despite being a huge downgrade in the goalscoring sense. Van Persie wasn't that good at dribbling, like most of the tall players, while Meazza's low centre of gravity influenced his playing style.

Meazza had his best goalscoring year for the national team in 1934 - 7 goals in 9 games. For Inter he also scored north of 20 goals in the league and 26 in total. Meazza was a very important cog and an unique player in that system, of course I can't replicate him directly but having Iniesta there I'm losing the goal scoring threat. From all sources I've encountered he played as in inside left but in sort of a free role, where Ferrari was doing more hard work and the running.

As an inside left I think RvP was kinda best fit as a free role. Sure I'm losing some of the passing and dribbling but Meazza is pretty unique player it's hard to find a close copy to him. Having Iniesta there will match him for creativity and also dribbling but not the goals which IMO for that team was what made him stand out as well.

Busquets matches ideally Monti's role. Especially if you look at his game for both Spain and Barca. He covers a lot of ground - same as Monti, drops in as a CB - same as him, but also has the passing game and the ability to start attacks. Sure Monti was tougher and harder but Busquets possesses the right qualities to replace him in that role both with his passing and vertical movement.

Seedorf is playing as advanced playmaker. Ferrari was the exact same type as him, he's has got a very good engine from most sources and did a lot of dirty work. Italy's basic formation was deeper and hitting on a counter, I don't think more attacking player would fit in the bill better.

 

[Ecstatic]

Luis Monti is known for being an aggressive player - a 'destroyer' - but, given his broad range of skills, Busquets remains an excellent choice.
Regarding Bozcik, I don't see any better choice than Verratti

.

No equivalent player at the Juve but he would have been the perfect player to replace Guardiola (Dream Team of EAP). Barcelona DNA.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Jogas earlier write up on Monti

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/bil...oga-bonito-vs-stobzilla.414516/#post-18767089

 

[Gio]

Not much more for me to add that wasn't already covered in the OP. One thing I've attempted to do was to mirror the individual quality of Hungary's attack (within the constraints of the post-75 pool) by using my first five picks in the draft on the five standout players in the Magyars team. Inevitably that means the Eastern Europeans at the back aren't of the very top drawer, but that is merely a reflection of how Hungary played - gung-ho and we'll score one more than you. The one flaw the Magyars had was their concession of soft goals, but their attacking prowess ensured it did not matter for 49 out of 50 consecutive international matches.

Tactics-wise, the Hungarians had it all. They knew exactly what they were about and they had five of what I would call world-class internationals in that side - Czibor, Bozsik, Hidegkuti, Puskas and Kocsis. World-class players, all of them.

 

[Gio]

And cheers Enigma_87, good luck.

 

[harms]

Busquets matches ideally Monti's role. Especially if you look at his game for both Spain and Barca. He covers a lot of ground - same as Monti, drops in as a CB - same as him, but also has the passing game and the ability to start attacks. Sure Monti was tougher and harder but Busquets possesses the right qualities to replace him in that role both with his passing and vertical movement.

Just read Wilson's piece and I usually trust him with such things, he calls Bisquit "the modern-day Monti". There is still a point that, unlike the shape, the nature of Italy's and Barcelona's play are extremely different, but still. Maybe the positional resemblance is more important than matching Monti in physique

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Was Budai as one dimensional as Valencia? From what I recall, he still was able to cut into midfield and be a goal threat.

 

[Ecstatic]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

I don't know Budai but - in theory - this Hungarian team is an early exponent of the Total football philosophy requiring all the players to be uncomfortable in many positions.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Edgar Allan Pillow

I don't know Budai but - in theory - this Hungarian team is an early exponent of the Total football philosophy requiring all the players to be uncomfortable in many positions.

I know. That's why my query on a one dimensional footballer being in such a team.

 

[Ecstatic]

I know. That's why my query on a one dimensional footballer being in such a team.

I know you know. That's why my comment on the underlying philosophy in such a team

 

[Gio]

Was Budai as one dimensional as Valencia? From what I recall, he still was able to cut into midfield and be a goal threat.

I dabbled with Deisler (the sub) as a means of getting crosses onto Klose, but nah Valencia was a truer fit because Budai was much more a classic outside-right rather than an inside-right. He was the most functional member of that attack, disciplined in providing the width and working back. A solid foil for the individuality on the other flank. As a player he was very quick, dynamic, stayed wide - didn't go off seeking individual glory - and slung crosses into the box for Kocsis. Valencia was on the shortlist from the outset but the concern was whether he brought too much baggage from his recent form as opposed to the wing machine he was at his peak. But peak Valencia is perhaps the closest fit in the post-75 pool to Budai, there's maybe one other who I'd consider there.

 

[Enigma_87]

Just read Wilson's piece and I usually trust him with such things, he calls Bisquit "the modern-day Monti". There is still a point that, unlike the shape, the nature of Italy's and Barcelona's play are extremely different, but still. Maybe the positional resemblance is more important than matching Monti in physique

Yeah I was surprised that you didn't consider Busquets to fit like glove in the Monti role. Sure physically they were different but you have to take into consideration the pace of the game back then.

I think you meant the piece from the Guardian with this quote in mind:

Nonetheless, the advantages of the W-W for a side that want to retain possession, the interlocking triangles offering simple passing options, remain the same. Having Busquets, the modern-day Monti, drop between Carles Puyol and Gerard Piqué is not just a defensive move; it also makes it easier for Barcelona to build from the back. Against a 4-4-2 or a 4-2-3-1, Busquets can be picked up by a deeper-lying centre-forward or the central player in the trident, which can interrupt Barcelona's rhythm (just as sides realised after Kevin Keegan had deployed Antoine Sibierski to do the job, that – counterintuitively – Chelsea could be upset by marking Claude Makélelé); pull Busquets deeper, though, and he has more space to initiate attacks.

The depiction is really correct. Barca and Italy obviously have different styles in terms of possession and counter attacking ideology but the Busquets role is really what you would call the modern day Monti. It's a myth that Monti was a pure destroyer back in the 30's as that Italy team was physical mainly - Orsi, Meazza, Monti, Guaita, Ferrari was just as elegant on the ball as the most technically apt players of that era.

To further point out the Busquets role in build up I've posted a video in the thread when picking him:


and defending:

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Budai was much more a classic outside-right rather than an inside-right. He was the most functional member of that attack, disciplined in providing the width and working back. A solid foil for the individuality on the other flank. As a player he was very quick, dynamic, stayed wide - didn't go off seeking individual glory - and slung crosses into the box for Kocsis.

Agree with this. He was quick, hard working and a foil for....But still he was a far better goal scorer than Valencia is. In the rare videos available I see him at edge of the box far more than Valencia usually does. I'd rate him closer to Jair da Costa of Grande Inter than Antonio Valencia.

Still apart from this, you've an excellent team.

As for Enigma, I'm still not convinced on RvP and Seedorf roles. RvP does not have the ball playing creativity that role requires and Seedofr...well I don't see him in that position at all.

I'd rather shift Eto'o wide, RvP centre and Hazard in Meazza role.

Busquets is a very astute choice and I can see him playing the Monti role despite the lack of physicality.

 

[harms]

Hazard in Meazza role

That's an interesting idea.

 

[Enigma_87]

As for Enigma, I'm still not convinced on RvP and Seedorf roles. RvP does not have the ball playing creativity that role requires and Seedofr...well I don't see him in that position at all.

I'd rather shift Eto'o wide, RvP centre and Hazard in Meazza role.

Busquets is a very astute choice and I can see him playing the Monti role despite the lack of physicality.

So basically Ferrari had the same qualities as Seedorf and was the same goal threat but you don't see Seedorf in that role? I'm interested to see your reasons for that?

As for other rotations - I've already said I'm using RvP there based on the goal threat and an area of the pitch that he occupied and was in the best zone for him. With Meazza you had to sacrifice something he was very complete player. Eto'o in Orsi's role makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Ecstatic]

So basically Ferrari had the same qualities as Seedorf and was the same goal threat but you don't see Seedorf in that role? I'm interested to see your reasons for that?

As for other rotations - I've already said I'm using RvP there based on the goal threat and an area of the pitch that he occupied and was in the best zone for him. With Meazza you had to sacrifice something he was very complete player. Eto'o in Orsi's role makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, it makes no sense because Orsi was a pure left-winger (like Ribéry). Eto'o on the left means wing-forward (like Cavani with PSG ).

 

[Ecstatic]

Very few players could have replaced Meazza: Totti, Ronaldo...

I have just read some articles about Meazza and understand Enigma had a dilemma, choose between the Option A and the Option B:

Option A: a guy very creative with dribbling skills and an eye for the pass: more an assister than a scorer (like WC 1938)
Option B: all-out striker, great leader with excellent shooting, exceptional heading ability & impressive stats:3 Times Italian Series A Top Scorer+ 3 Times Mitropa Cup Top Scorer (at the start of his career, so probably WC 1934)

Given the fact it comes to the Inter Milan version 1933, I am inclined to think it's rather a good choice. I understand he started his career as a striker before becoming a more accomplished midfielder since 1934.

 

[Enigma_87]

Very few players could have replaced Meazza: Totti, Ronaldo...

I have just read some articles about Meazza and understand Enigma had a dilemma, choose between the Option A and the Option B:

Option A: a guy very creative with dribbling skills and an eye for the pass: more an assister than a scorer (like WC 1938)
Option B: all-out striker, great leader with excellent shooting, exceptional heading ability & impressive stats:3 Times Italian Series A Top Scorer+ 3 Times Mitropa Cup Top Scorer (at the start of his career, so probably WC 1934)

Given the fact it comes to the Inter Milan version 1933, I am inclined to think it's rather a good choice. I understand he started his career as a striker before becoming a more accomplished midfielder since 1934.

Aye, exactly this. If it was the 1938 version I'd rather have Silva or Iniesta in that role. However this is the 1934 version so Meazza was more of a goalscorer at that time and in a free role in that tournament which makes RvP the better choice.

 

[Enigma_87]

Congrats @Gio and good luck going forward.

 

[Ecstatic]

Unlucky @Enigma_87

To play against Gio in the 1st round is like playing Barcelona at the last 16 stage.

 

[Chesterlestreet]

Not exactly a lucky draw here for Enigma, as others have pointed out.

Gio hasn't left himself open to much criticism (as expected) - while Enigma opted for a couple of choices people were bound to focus on. Personally, I think the reasoning behind his picks is sound enough - and that people may have focused a little bit too much on the nominal side of things rather than looking at whether the traits of someone like Seedorf actually match the task he has to perform, but it's a hard-ish sell, clearly.

RVP for Meazza - well, that was one of those impossible tasks to begin with. Something had to give. I suspect people have considered RVP too lacking as an orchestrator - and would have preferred a tables-turned re-creation in that role, i.e. a player with flair and creativity to a greater extent, but with less of the goal threat.

Biscuits I can certainly buy. He has the gravitas - and what he lacks in sheer brawn he makes up for in other departments. Plus, as I mentioned behind the scenes here - he's a dirty bastard. That's a plus - Monti was no angel.

 

[Enigma_87]

Not exactly a lucky draw here for Enigma, as others have pointed out.

Gio hasn't left himself open to much criticism (as expected) - while Enigma opted for a couple of choices people were bound to focus on. Personally, I think the reasoning behind his picks is sound enough - and that people may have focused a little bit too much on the nominal side of things rather than looking at whether the traits of someone like Seedorf actually match the task he has to perform, but it's a hard-ish sell, clearly.

RVP for Meazza - well, that was one of those impossible tasks to begin with. Something had to give. I suspect people have considered RVP too lacking as an orchestrator - and would have preferred a tables-turned re-creation in that role, i.e. a player with flair and creativity to a greater extent, but with less of the goal threat.

Biscuits I can certainly buy. He has the gravitas - and what he lacks in sheer brawn he makes up for in other departments. Plus, as I mentioned behind the scenes here - he's a dirty bastard. That's a plus - Monti was no angel.

It was a bit of a losing battle anyway to be honest. Gio has done well and I had 3 positions that were really hard to fill especially with me picking 9th or so. If I could pick Ronaldinho or Totti it could've probably been better of course. The two of them are probably the closest to Meazza out of the pool. Iniesta is nothing like the 1934 Meazza apart from passing and dribbling.

I'm surprised at picking on Seedorf, as after my research on Ferrari they are very much identical and played in an identical role. I guess people focused too much on the inside forward role rather than their actual role in the team.

All in all I'm happy with how the team turned out to be. Maybe a better draw would've certainly helped as I had 2 reinforcements in mind that could've improved it but doesn't matter. Best of luck to @Gio again

 

[harms]

I'm surprised at picking on Seedorf, as after my research on Ferrari they are very much identical and played in an identical role. I guess people focused too much on the inside forward role rather than their actual role in the team.

Tbf I'm less critical of this choice now, after your explanations. He still lacks goalthreat, but you managed to convince me about him and Busquets. Van Persie was a decider though