Again, are you sure that your memories of Davids playing for Juventus doesn't cloud your judgement? Because he, like Seedorf, massively improved in terms of an on-the-ball qualities later. The only thing that he "regressed" is his goalscoring runs - because there were no other lunatics like LVG to create such a complicated mechanism.
Remake Draft R16 | harms vs mazhar
- Thread starter Joga Bonito
- Start date
Not close enough, I take it. I'm not sure I agree with that. Davids wasn't a superman on the ball - he was very good at it, but by no means outstanding to the extent that you need someone positively great on the ball in order to re-create him.
I think the fit is a pretty good one myself, not bad at all.
Remember: It's a 22 year old Edgar Davids we're talking about here - not the prime incarnation.
Look at the video of Yaya's time before City that I posted - you'll see that defensively he goes out wide quite often. He has all the required skills, but compared to 19-years old Seedorf he lacks hardworking mentality - although if you'll watch the video of his before-City days that I posted earlier, you'll see (or remember) that he wasn't always the lazy luxury player, but a very tough and energetic defensive midfielder.
Essien literally played as a fullback later in his career. At his physical peak at Chelsea he covered even more ground than Kanté does today - I don't see a problem with him helping the defence out wide at all. He does lack ball-playing skills compared to Davids, but the difference between him and the 22-year old version of Davids isn't that big, and in that Ajax team the right side of midfield were more creative and the left side was more combative (which is equally true for Essien-Toure pairing), although Davids scored more goals, at least that's my feeling after rewatching their season reviews without checking out the stats.
Offensively they are not responsible for the flanks and they never were in Van Gaal's system - while defensively both Toure and Essien have enough energy and expertise to help out.
I think that I explained all my choices on the questionable positions, so I'll restrain myself for a while and let mazhar answer to the questions about his team. I won't criticize his team but I would be very interested to read a more thorough analysis about how his midfield (the most complicated task in recreating 1982 side) is supposed to work.Hiddink said:
Last edited:
Genuinely no idea. Picked Adam Smith as his "replacement" for the bench, as he played as a striker (without a great goalscoring output), as a side and as a holding midfielder, but apart from the similar positional history I don't think there're many similarities between them. To think of someone as technical and inventive who is equally at ease as a central/side midfielder and as a focal point of the attack (mostly bringing others to play but still scoring regularly)... It's harder than to pick Rijkaard's or Litmanen's replacement.
From the all-time pool Sarosi, Mazzola-senior and Di Stefano seem like a good fit. Maybe even Zizinho. From the post-1975... I considered Smith, Kuyt, Rooney and a few others (they just slipped my mind). I would love to know other opinions, maybe I missed someone obvious
This may be discussed further. Disregarding the question of whether Neymar should have been cast as Zico (he wasn't - and that's that), how close to the mark is De Bruyne?
The directness you mention is actually a plus for me - since I interpret Zico '82 as, precisely, fairly direct compared to how he looked in other settings: Zico '82 was more about trickery and finishing than about playmaking (as such). The team had several playmakers - from Junior via Falcao to Socrates - and Zico didn't do as much proper string pulling as he did in other contexts.
On the flipside, I'd repeat the original criticism: De Bruyne isn't enough of a focal point - not enough of a finisher and de facto main man up front. He is less of a striker than Zico - actually - was for that team.
That's my points - but just as interesting are the ones harms lists above: Not good enough in tight spaces, better suited for the counter, issues with consistency. Should be some opinions on that.
An obvious point to make would be that Zico '82 is the finished article: The main man of the team, the star of the stars.
De Bruyne lacks a great deal of that gravitas - if we're talking overall impression.
Positives for mazhar/P-nut:
Junior: Extremely difficult to re-create. While v. B'horst isn't ideal, I think he's a decent enough fit. And that's what you're asking for, realistically.
Maicon is arguably an upgrade on the original. Cesar is an obvious upgrade in terms of quality - and the fit seems good enough.
Serginho / Drogba:
I'm inclined to interpret this as a very decent fit (big fecker, line leader, not really a crucial role in the team, but important enough) and an obvious upgrade (you get someone who can do what the original did, but who is a better player who would have made the original XI stronger while still performing much the same role).
There are question marks, as I see it, over every point in the actual square - but that's to be expected. It was a bloody tricky team to re-create - and one that was bound to be scrutinized heavily.
Junior: Extremely difficult to re-create. While v. B'horst isn't ideal, I think he's a decent enough fit. And that's what you're asking for, realistically.
Maicon is arguably an upgrade on the original. Cesar is an obvious upgrade in terms of quality - and the fit seems good enough.
Serginho / Drogba:
I'm inclined to interpret this as a very decent fit (big fecker, line leader, not really a crucial role in the team, but important enough) and an obvious upgrade (you get someone who can do what the original did, but who is a better player who would have made the original XI stronger while still performing much the same role).
There are question marks, as I see it, over every point in the actual square - but that's to be expected. It was a bloody tricky team to re-create - and one that was bound to be scrutinized heavily.
You mean Alan Smith. Don't think Adam Smith would have bought into LVG's philosophy
.Sarosi is a great shout for that role. Gullit maybe, but Sarosi would have been the best possible fit.
Last edited:
Don't think Adam Smith would have bought into LVG's philosophy
Damn right. He would have hated LVG's main work, An Inquiry into the boring Nature of Football considered as a Process.
Brazil & Ajax had wonderful 'playmaking-attacking midfielders': technical/dribbling skills, great as creator, passer, organizer and go attacking.
These players are very rare so I would be lenient of the choices regarding the roles of Socrates & Litmanen.
Zico is a very special attacking midfielder: another impossible mission. I agree with Chester and also think Neymar was a better option in the role of Zico - the mega star of the Brazilan team, a GOAT.
Eder was not a 'special player' so why not De Bruyne there?
These players are very rare so I would be lenient of the choices regarding the roles of Socrates & Litmanen.
Zico is a very special attacking midfielder: another impossible mission. I agree with Chester and also think Neymar was a better option in the role of Zico - the mega star of the Brazilan team, a GOAT.
Eder was not a 'special player' so why not De Bruyne there?
Last edited:
Yes - mainly.
But the particular nature of the '82 team makes this slightly more problematic. In one sense you could say that the actual roles of the players in question (if we're talking Neymar/De Bruyne/Pogba/Drogba and the players they're representing) should be something more akin to this:
Serginho/Drogba = striker/centre forward
Eder/Neymar = striker/winger
Zico/De Bryune = second striker (with plenty of creativity but less of an actual playmaker)
Socrates/Pogba = attacking midfielder/playmaker
In terms of how important the players were to the '82 team (and how much genuine star quality they had), I'd rate them as such:
Zico
Socrates
Eder
Serginho
That would be my take on it - more or less.
Eder was an important cog, but I'd rate Falcao and Junior above him.
Zico
Falcao
Socrates
Junior
were the most influential imo.
@harms make sure to vote for yourself since despite being too busy pnuts did find time to vote for his team
Obviously. I wasn't rating the XI, only the front four - I thought that was obvious.
And if we go by the same, we could try to play the same game with "star quality" or "X-factor" or "whatever - but you know what I mean" in mind, and look at the remake in terms of how well the overall balance (in terms of "who does what and how good they are" is concerned):
Original:
1. Zico 2. Socrates 3. Eder 4. Serginho
Versus:
1. Neymar 2. Drogba 3. Pogba 4. De Bruyne
I don't think that's entirely unfair - and the discrepancy there is pretty obvious. The least obvious player in terms of "oomph" plays the role of the most oomphish player in the original XI.
And the two most oomphish ones play the parts of the least oomphish blueprint players. *
* Again, in Drogba's case, that's a plus as such - as he can be viewed as a pure upgrade on his counterpart, and couldn't have played any other role.
Last edited:
The Brazil 1982 side was always one of the more interesting historical sides for me. Always had some ill-conceived notions regarding that side before watching them in depth - that they were weak in defense, didn't have adequate protection from midfield, suffered from a lack of width etc. All of which, weren't true to a certain extent.
I actually think their defense was quite solid, Junior was a brilliant playmaking fullback-midfielder hybrid, but he was also pretty good defensively; Luizinho played a superb role as a LCB covering for Junior when required, and being solid in the middle; Oscar was a fairly solid centre-back too; Leandro was a real classic Brazilian wing-back who was truly gifted on the ball and could run the flank single-handedly, but he too carried out his defensive duties fairly well. No surprise that half that defense (Luizinho and Junior) made the TOTM.
Falcao wasn't exactly a flair playmaking midfielder who could 'only' put a shift in, but a truly complete midfielder who could rival B2B midfielders for tenacity and industry. A sublime and an immense all-round package. I'd say Toninho Cerezo's defensive game wasn't as impressive as it is generally made out to be but his ability on the ball was top notch for a defensive midfielder - played more like a B2B for 1982.
Their attack was truly brilliant to watch with Socrates-Zico-Eder being on the same wavelength and the likes of Junior, Falcao, Leandro, Cerezo all joining the party from deep. Junior playing as a pseudo-full back was actually really entertaining to watch tactically, and he himself claimed he preferred to play as a central midfielder, but you have to admit that there was a certain beauty in him marauding inwards and influencing play from the left back-LCM position. Never did I think that it was too centrally clustered or that they had too many superfluous aspects to their attacking game. The likes of Zico and Socrates were willing to forage wide when necessary (Socrates almost played as a RW against New Zealand for example) with Leandro and Eder being brilliant at providing service from their flanks, and there was excellent synchrony and fluidity in their midfield and forward play imo.
Well, Serginho was absolutely atrocious up top for them, couldn't finish to save his life and countless moves just broke down due to him but yeah, they didn't have any other alternatives with Careca and Dinamite being injured iirc.
Ultimately, it was simply their mentality which led them to fail against Italy. Quite tragic that, but they simply took the 'jogo bonito' and carnival aspect too far and didn't have someone like N.Santos/Djalama or Zito at the back who could shore things up and also more importantly, provide the leadership qualities that the side was sorely lacking in. They simply played their usual standard attacking game regardless of the context of the game or the occasion, and seriously lacked any semblance of pragmatism or tactical nous imo. It wasn't the case of them lacking the defensive/tactical tools but simply them lacking the means to implement or execute it. Having a purist like Tele Santana for a manager obviously wouldn't have helped. A top notch centre forward and a bloody minded and steely leader at the back or a more pragmatic coach, and I believe they could have rightly established themselves at the top of the pile when it comes to great international sides, as opposed to being a nearly great side which never quite fulfilled its glorious potential.
I actually think their defense was quite solid, Junior was a brilliant playmaking fullback-midfielder hybrid, but he was also pretty good defensively; Luizinho played a superb role as a LCB covering for Junior when required, and being solid in the middle; Oscar was a fairly solid centre-back too; Leandro was a real classic Brazilian wing-back who was truly gifted on the ball and could run the flank single-handedly, but he too carried out his defensive duties fairly well. No surprise that half that defense (Luizinho and Junior) made the TOTM.
Falcao wasn't exactly a flair playmaking midfielder who could 'only' put a shift in, but a truly complete midfielder who could rival B2B midfielders for tenacity and industry. A sublime and an immense all-round package. I'd say Toninho Cerezo's defensive game wasn't as impressive as it is generally made out to be but his ability on the ball was top notch for a defensive midfielder - played more like a B2B for 1982.
Their attack was truly brilliant to watch with Socrates-Zico-Eder being on the same wavelength and the likes of Junior, Falcao, Leandro, Cerezo all joining the party from deep. Junior playing as a pseudo-full back was actually really entertaining to watch tactically, and he himself claimed he preferred to play as a central midfielder, but you have to admit that there was a certain beauty in him marauding inwards and influencing play from the left back-LCM position. Never did I think that it was too centrally clustered or that they had too many superfluous aspects to their attacking game. The likes of Zico and Socrates were willing to forage wide when necessary (Socrates almost played as a RW against New Zealand for example) with Leandro and Eder being brilliant at providing service from their flanks, and there was excellent synchrony and fluidity in their midfield and forward play imo.
Well, Serginho was absolutely atrocious up top for them, couldn't finish to save his life and countless moves just broke down due to him but yeah, they didn't have any other alternatives with Careca and Dinamite being injured iirc.
Ultimately, it was simply their mentality which led them to fail against Italy. Quite tragic that, but they simply took the 'jogo bonito' and carnival aspect too far and didn't have someone like N.Santos/Djalama or Zito at the back who could shore things up and also more importantly, provide the leadership qualities that the side was sorely lacking in. They simply played their usual standard attacking game regardless of the context of the game or the occasion, and seriously lacked any semblance of pragmatism or tactical nous imo. It wasn't the case of them lacking the defensive/tactical tools but simply them lacking the means to implement or execute it. Having a purist like Tele Santana for a manager obviously wouldn't have helped. A top notch centre forward and a bloody minded and steely leader at the back or a more pragmatic coach, and I believe they could have rightly established themselves at the top of the pile when it comes to great international sides, as opposed to being a nearly great side which never quite fulfilled its glorious potential.
Last edited:
A more pragmatic coach would have hesitated to field all those midfielders in the same team. But I agree on the leader at the back. Someone like Rio would have been marvellous imo.
Oops
Then again, they may not have gone down in football history as quite that legendary if they had actually done what you propose. More pragmatism and less flair might have won them that World Cup - but if that had happened they could have entered history as the less flashy brother of the '58, '62 and '70 vintages - in other words, something far less romantic.
In a sense, the '94 champions were just that: Much more solid at the back, much more pragmatic, using traditional Brazilian flair in a much more...effective way. And sporting much less of it too.
The '82 team is legendary precisely because it was flawed. What is "legendary" is, after all, decided by us - the fans. And most of us are - thankfully, I would say - romantics at heart.
Don't mention it, old boozer. But it would've been a bit left field, even for me, if I considered Serginho more important to the team than Falcao.Oops
In fact just took a client out to lunch. Him being Muslim and all I was a bit anxious on halal/fasting etc..and was surprised when he declared himself not religious and proceeded to order ginger vodka martini for us both. 3 martini's down with lunch and I'm back at office...supposedly working on a deal.
Just remember that while booze frees up the creative part of the brain - it doesn't last. So - work fast. Drunk - but fast. That's the ticket.When you hit the sentimental (and quite possibly bitter and/or aggressive) stage - you're no good. But boozing as such is greatly misunderstood as a...tool. You can use it to your advantage.
Just look at James Bond. He does his best work after a few drinks.
No, I definitely picked Adam, despite all of their differences he would've been a brilliant mediator for any philosophyYou mean Alan Smith. Don't think Adam Smith would have bought into LVG's philosophy
Sarosi is a great shout for that role. Gullit maybe, but Sarosi would have been the best possible fit.
My mind played a trick over me while I wasn't paying close enough attention. I already typed him as Adam in one of my blueprints earlier
Philosophy is strong with me. Also reminds me of Monty Python sketch Gullit is a great choice too
The Brazilian team is a mess because:
- I would have tried Pogba in the role of Falcao: very fan of this analogy. Pogba is not a playmaker (like Socrates) and his read of the game/composure is limited.
- The super star Zico to be replaced by the only one current Brazilian star Neymar
- Socrates (very challenging I willingly concede) to be replaced by a classical playmaker or AM: De Bruyne could have done the job
- Eder by a wing/forward left-footed
because:- I would have tried Pogba in the role of Falcao: very fan of this analogy. Pogba is not a playmaker (like Socrates) and his read of the game/composure is limited.
- The super star Zico to be replaced by the only one current Brazilian star Neymar
- Socrates (very challenging I willingly concede) to be replaced by a classical playmaker or AM: De Bruyne could have done the job
- Eder by a wing/forward left-footed
Pogba is a very appropriate analogy of Socrates. Sure, he lacks experience and mental qualities to be called a playmaker yet - but, like Socrates, he is very much a highlights player with low workrate. All those flicks, long shots and amazing passes which Pogba is capable of are very much Socrates-esque.
He certainly isn't better at Falcao's role. Falcao had a great engine on him, amazing understanding of the game and in terms of an actual playmaking he wasn't inferior to Socrates (in my opinion he was even better)
Also, the direct and fast-tempo De Bruyne is probably the opposite of Socrates' interpretation of the position.
If you read the French press, Pogba is a very controversial player in tactical terms because he's a little bit 'unclassifiable'.
Let's say there are 2 camps:
1. Those who want him to play near the penalty area and have greater offensive responsabilities
2. Those who think he should focus his game on making the bridge between the defensive & offensive players (like Dybala I consider as the playmaker of the Juve side). I think Pogba has also a great engine despite his 'nonchalance'
My point of view is obviously subjective.
Let's say there are 2 camps:
1. Those who want him to play near the penalty area and have greater offensive responsabilities
2. Those who think he should focus his game on making the bridge between the defensive & offensive players (like Dybala I consider as the playmaker of the Juve side). I think Pogba has also a great engine despite his 'nonchalance'
My point of view is obviously subjective.
Last edited:
Well by more pragmatic I didn't mean a Dunga-like coach and a polar opposite of Tele Santana, but someone like Michels (not a great example admittedly) for example who would have let the Brazilian side play their free flowing football, whilst introducing a modicum of method and discipline to the side without necessarily shackling them. I mean someone who would have let the side play the way they did, but alter their style when the game called for it - the Brazil 1982 side seemed to be almost one-paced and just played their usual way regardless of the context of the game. For instance, playing a bit less recklessly and adventurously against Italy when the game was in their favour at 2-2 etc, without necessarily becoming a defensive side. Well maybe it would have made the side slightly less romantic as they wouldn't have been as cavalier, or stuck to their attacking ideals as steadfastly but they wouldn't have to be pragmatic as such but just less naive and one-paced to the extreme.
Indeed, and I think you could say the '02 winners were also a rather pragmatic side with a sprinkle of flair with the 3 Rs on top and their wing-backs.
Has Davids attacking game changed a lot really in his later years?
Here are some misc clips that are from all years. His dribbling style is quick bursts with the ball with faints and generally exploiting the space. At Ajax he was even more attacking(reflected in the stats as well) minded compared to Juve, whereas Essien at his best is more holding role.
Apart from couple of positions harms has done a pretty good job but those that I mentioned just irks me a bit on certain elements.
Yes. His close control wasn't as good, he improved massively over the years in this department. He was less of a ball-carrier, his main tasks were 1. defensive contribution (Essien fits ideally) 2. late runs into the box (Essien did them less frequently but he was certainly capable of them, look at his goals)
And even his manager described him as a creative player. You make it sound like he was Makelele - but he played with Makelele, who was a holding midfielder, while Essien was a classic box-to-box with great offensive qualities.
Essien was one of the first names on my blueprint, I think that he is very similar to Davids and I don't see anyone similar - out of interest, do you? Who would've been better in that role?
Well "more" - sure. But he still ventured forward to some extent - and when he did, he was often dangerous. Much more so than a pure holder would be - so I basically disagree if what you're saying is that he wasn't capable of transcending a more limited DM role (and doing so at a very high level). In his pomp, he was a beast of a player with plenty of strings to his bow - he even blasted in the odd long ranger.
Well, it's a shame that @mazhar13 and @P-Nut0712 didn't have time to participate, that side was one of the most interesting challenges in the draft
What I hope is that the discussion will heat up more and more - and become more and more interesting - as we progress:
In more or less one-sided matches in the first round, much of the focus will be on what a majority consider obvious weaknesses.
It's also the Euro/Copa factor - which obviously isn't ideal in terms of attracting sustained attention from the neutrals (or the managers themselves, for that matter).
Hum. In the last draft, the participation rate of the managers was relatively low: votes & posts.
This draft is maybe intellectually complicated for neutrals
.Yeah that Brazilian team is a mess... and the Milan version Sacchi the next one
.That's why I just wanted to be an AM instead of a full-time manager. I was actually excited to work with the Brazil 82 team, but I got less and less time to contribute to it. Still, I got to watch 2 full matches of theirs. It was still worth it.
yeah!
I'll give a more detailed reply when I get home, but I don't think that can work out well enough. Watching Falcão play, he wasn't just a tireless runner closing off options and winning the ball; he actually read the game quite well and took up several nice positions. He only looked worse defensively because of Tele Santana's ultra-attacking, cavalier setup.
Other than that, though, if Falcão wasn't doing that much defensive work, I'd think that he'd be a very good fit. His technique, passing, vision, and attacking runs pretty much remind me of Falcão.
I thought Cerezo was the central defensive holding midfielder (#6) et Falcao the box-to-box (#8) mainly known for his vision, passing and long-range shot (and not for his pure defensive skills).
Our diverging views illustrate well the case of Pogba: joga bonito style, presence, excellent technical skills for a central midfielder, pace but 'atypical hybrid player'.
That is why, he was on the bench in last game France/Albania: he doesn't meet all the high expectations with France.
Our diverging views illustrate well the case of Pogba: joga bonito style, presence, excellent technical skills for a central midfielder, pace but 'atypical hybrid player'.
That is why, he was on the bench in last game France/Albania: he doesn't meet all the high expectations with France.
Last edited:
Yes - but as mentioned: Euros/Copa. Timing isn't ideal in that regard.Hum. In the last draft, the participation rate of the managers was relatively low: votes & posts.
This draft is maybe intellectually complicated for neutrals
That said, this format is experimental. It's a different sort of debate. We're supposed to discuss - essentially - who fits what best within a 24 hour window, and with some kind of "match" in mind at that.
Rather than "playing out" a fantasy match within the same window. Different from what we're used to - and with less than ideal timing (given what goes on in the real world).
Hopefully, next round - we'll see larger match threads with more aspects covered.