g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
That quote tells pretty much the whole story of Leandro, a typical Brazilian full back, Leandro was brilliant at attacking. Cut from the same cloth as Cafu, Alves, Maicon etc, he was a player you would rely on to run the wing by himself.Ian Ladyman said:The team that Brazil took to the 1982 World Cup in Spain was the first that I really remember. I was 12 at the time and was captivated by the way they played the game. I was a right-back for my school team at the time – we won ONCE in five years – and decided I would model myself on the defender they called Leandro. Full of attacking intent, he spent more time in the opposition half than he did in his own and at times seemed to simply play as a second right winger. My PE teacher didn’t appreciate it when I tried to do the same. Leandro only played for one team – Flamengo – in a 12-year domestic career. I also only played for one team. For different reasons.
Usually played as an inside forward. As with several of the old school positions, however, translating it to modern ones isn't a simple operation. Some inside forwards operated more like strikers, others more like midfielders: Liedholm (who was mainly a playmaker – a great passer and so forth) would definitely belong in the second category.Wasn't Liedholm an inside forward who most likely today would be an AM? Watching him in the '58 World Cup final he certainly didn't play like a deeper playmaker; Didi played more in the position you've assigned him. That said he could have the skills for it but I'd need to see the case for it.
That's a fair summary. I wasn't meaning he was a modern inside-forward just that from what I saw today he'd either operate as a 10 or an 8 in midfield. So to be fair with Mascherano and Zagallo it's not that unreasonable.Usually played as an inside forward. As with several of the old school positions, however, translating it to modern ones isn't a simple operation. Some inside forwards operated more like strikers, others more like midfielders: Liedholm (who was mainly a playmaker – a great passer and so forth) would definitely belong in the second category.
Personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to field him as more of a central midfielder (rather than a purely attacking one, if you will), based on his particular traits: I think you can probably make a case for him being an inside forward who liked to drop fairly deep at times to do his orchestrating. However, if I were to simply stick a (modern) label on him, I'd say he's an attacking midfielder of some sort – so whether he'll work as a central one would depend on the setup as a whole. Here, he's working with a designated defensive midfielder – and two wide or wide-ish players who both have plenty of graft in them, and who will help out defensively much more than a pair of straight (attacking) wingers would – so, yeah, why not?
From what I've seen of him and read about him, I think Iniesta is a really good modern comparison. An attacking midfielder, who offers a lot of classic CM traits along with brilliant dribbling at rather slow pace instead of a more goalscoring attacking midfielder.Usually played as an inside forward. As with several of the old school positions, however, translating it to modern ones isn't a simple operation. Some inside forwards operated more like strikers, others more like midfielders: Liedholm (who was mainly a playmaker – a great passer and so forth) would definitely belong in the second category.
Personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to field him as more of a central midfielder (rather than a purely attacking one, if you will), based on his particular traits: I think you can probably make a case for him being an inside forward who liked to drop fairly deep at times to do his orchestrating. However, if I were to simply stick a (modern) label on him, I'd say he's an attacking midfielder of some sort – so whether he'll work as a central one would depend on the setup as a whole. Here, he's working with a designated defensive midfielder – and two wide or wide-ish players who both have plenty of graft in them, and who will help out defensively much more than a pair of straight (attacking) wingers would – so, yeah, why not?
Definitely a bit odd. It would be really offensive and he'd probably be best in a midfield three in a modern formation. He was a great passer but also worked hard for the team and knew how to play plenty of positions so it wouldn't be the end of the world or anything.@Skizzo @BBRBB
Wasn't Liedholm an inside forward who most likely today would be an AM? Watching him in the '58 World Cup final he certainly didn't play like a deeper playmaker; Didi played more in the position you've assigned him. That said he could have the skills for it but I'd need to see the case for it.
Any thoughts our resident Swedish expert? @Annahnomoss
Yup, I agree. His main negative was his pace like Balu says which could be important for a central midfielder in a 4-4-2 but the fact that it is Junior in the left back role compensates a bit for it. Offensively he'd be beautiful to watch in a role like that but defensively one can wonder whether Mascherano can cover enough for him.Usually played as an inside forward. As with several of the old school positions, however, translating it to modern ones isn't a simple operation. Some inside forwards operated more like strikers, others more like midfielders: Liedholm (who was mainly a playmaker – a great passer and so forth) would definitely belong in the second category.
Personally, I don't see it as unreasonable to field him as more of a central midfielder (rather than a purely attacking one, if you will), based on his particular traits: I think you can probably make a case for him being an inside forward who liked to drop fairly deep at times to do his orchestrating. However, if I were to simply stick a (modern) label on him, I'd say he's an attacking midfielder of some sort – so whether he'll work as a central one would depend on the setup as a whole. Here, he's working with a designated defensive midfielder – and two wide or wide-ish players who both have plenty of graft in them, and who will help out defensively much more than a pair of straight (attacking) wingers would – so, yeah, why not?
That sounds about right to me - except Liedholm had more of Xavi in him as far as the actual role he had in the team is concerned, i.e. he was more of a main string puller/playmaker/general than Iniesta. But in terms of position and style - yes, I don't think that's wide off the mark based on what I've seen.From what I've seen of him and read about him, I think Iniesta is a really good modern comparison. An attacking midfielder, who offers a lot of classic CM traits along with brilliant dribbling at rather slow pace instead of a more goalscoring attacking midfielder.
Yeah, that's an excellent point actually. Lovely set-up.Yup, I agree. His main negative was his pace like Balu says which could be important for a central midfielder in a 4-4-2 but the fact that it is Junior in the left back role compensates a bit for it. Offensively he'd be beautiful to watch in a role like that but defensively one can wonder whether Mascherano can cover enough for him.
Tactics: Team Tuppet
FORMATION
A classic 4-2-2-2 system also known as a Brazilian magic square.
Previously used by Madrid, Juventus and France, the formation is best known as the regular system of the Brazilian National Team winning the World Cup in '94, reaching the Final in '98 and most famously captivating the imagination with breathtaking football in '82.
Müller will find himself in Thiago Silva's zone then, not a duel he's looking forward to, while Godin, Mascherano and Maicon take care of the Seeler threat.At the moment I'm weighing up how Junior helping out the midfield will work especially when Muller is roaming. This is a potential area for exploitation for Tuppet.
Mazzola's greatest strength from various sources is his ability to perform in multiple areas of the pitch a la De Stefano, with his Stamina, dribbling, two footedness and ability to score goals (considered one of the finest header of the ball) while running the midfield as well. He would be heavily involved in the buildup phase dropping deep to collect the ball and forcing the move forward.TheInsideLeft said:He was instrumental in the functioning of the sistema, making darting runs off the ball and freeing up space for his team-mates to run into. It was this unpredictable movement, this pattern-weaving, that wrought havoc in the opposition ranks.
TheInsideLeft said:He looked to dictate play, barking orders and demanding the ball wherever it was on the pitch – one minute picking up a short pass from the centre-half on the edge of his own box, the next arriving in the opposition penalty area to finish the move.
Its a complex role, and is probably even more involved than the Socrates role, one which would be really hard for a lesser player to implement. But Mazzola is not just a legend, he is one of the best and most complete player of all time, one who I can trust in this role. His completeness and similarity to De Stefano is noted in many places -Juventus legend Carlo Parola said:When Valentino Mazzola was unleashed, he dragged literally the whole squad with him, If he saw a team-mate relaxing at a dangerous moment, or if opponents threatened to take over, he rolled up his sleeves and brought the course of the game back on the desired track by force.
Were there more players like Di Stéfano and Pedernera back then, while today it’s simply not possible to play like that? After all, Valentino Mazzola and years later, Johan Cruijff are still similar players.
Team mate Rigamonti said:He alone is half the squad. The other half is made by the rest of us together
Good question@Skizzo @BBRBB
Wasn't Liedholm an inside forward who most likely today would be an AM? Watching him in the '58 World Cup final he certainly didn't play like a deeper playmaker; Didi played more in the position you've assigned him. That said he could have the skills for it but I'd need to see the case for it.
Any thoughts our resident Swedish expert? @Annahnomoss
If I have to label him I would say he is a free roaming right sided support striker. If it sounds too wordy thats because Muller is again one of those players which are hard to put in a single position, so much so that Football Manager has to invent a new position (Raumdeuter) for him. Even in the formations posted above (e.g. in WC final 2014) he was hardly confined to the static role, popping all over the forward line.What is the primary role of Thomas Muller here? Support striker? Right-winger potentially forward?
Since his sudden rise to the limelight of world football in 2010, no player has transcended boundaries such as Thomas Müller. An amalgamation of other-worldly unorthodox and traditionally fundamental — the self anointed Raumdeuter finds unique ways to create space, yet consistently makes textbook decisions with his passing and finishing. Possessing a borderline supernatural spatial awareness and a superlative all-round game, Müller would be absolutely deadly in this free role a right sided forward. The unorthodox German would cherish playing in between the lines in a roaming role, with umpteen reserves of creativity and fluidity flowing through the side. It's testament to his quality that Thomas Müller has arguably been the most consistent and pivotal player for both club and country from 2009, alongside Lahm. No mean feat given that it's WC winning Germany and CL winning Bayern that we are talking about here.
Thanks. I see your rationaleIf I have to label him I would say he is a free roaming right sided support striker. If it sounds too wordy thats because Muller is again one of those players which are hard to put in a single position, so much so that Football Manager has to invent a new position (Raumdeuter) for him. Even in the formations posted above (e.g. in WC final 2014) he was hardly confined to the static role, popping all over the forward line.
In this game particularly, he would be playing the Eder role from 82, drifting to right wing to stretch the game, but also operating in central areas when there is space over there playing off Seeler to finish chances or providing assist from wide areas. Its a complex role but one that suits Muller very much.
Ballon D’Or winner in 1967 and a hero in Hungary’s game against the World Champions Brazil in 1966, when he dictated the game which was the first Brazil loss at the World Cup in 12 years. Hungary defender Sandor Matrai remembered: “Garrincha, Gerson and Tostao were on the field in Liverpool, but there were 50,000-plus neutrals roaring “Albert, Albert, Albert” throughout!