Shame really as your side looks good tactically but NM's quality and your sheeps just made it too hard to overcome.
Sheep Draft - NM vs MJJ - players at their peak
- Thread starter Skizzo
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Shame really as your side looks good tactically but NM's quality and your sheeps just made it too hard to overcome.
Really? That intrigues me.
Shame really as your side looks good tactically but NM's quality and your sheeps just made it too hard to overcome.
I had a real struggle picturing his tactics, or how they would work. There is real quality there, but I struggle to see how it would function. Xavi in effectively a midfield two, and no real link between forwards and midfield. I don't see it.
I don't really agree regarding Platini contra Pirlo. Platini dropped deep regularly but he was incredibly intelligent when he did and he did it with intent. He often offered a one touch play for a midfielder, i.e Tardelli, who would make a run forward which left a gap for Platini to fill at times when he wanted to.
Both Gattuso and Tardelli are energetic and will make forward runs here so there will easily be space for Platini to operate with Pirlo and Pirlo-to-Hamrin will be a great Plan B to have in the team.
What I personally don't like is the fact that people treat Platini very oddly. He's the teams main goalscorer in his peak, his "Strikers" like Boniek, Lacombe, Rossi, Bellone, Rocheteau etc weren't great goalscorers at all but rather complementary to Platini who was the main goalscorer even if goals came from everywhere at smaller numbers.
Platini really should be the teams number one goalscorer with the two strikers having complementary roles to allow Platini the best opportunity to score those goals.
Both Gattuso and Tardelli are energetic and will make forward runs here so there will easily be space for Platini to operate with Pirlo and Pirlo-to-Hamrin will be a great Plan B to have in the team.
What I personally don't like is the fact that people treat Platini very oddly. He's the teams main goalscorer in his peak, his "Strikers" like Boniek, Lacombe, Rossi, Bellone, Rocheteau etc weren't great goalscorers at all but rather complementary to Platini who was the main goalscorer even if goals came from everywhere at smaller numbers.
Platini really should be the teams number one goalscorer with the two strikers having complementary roles to allow Platini the best opportunity to score those goals.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. I meant it looked tactically alright despite being saddled with the sheep and losing Van Hanegem.
Agreed that this set up doesn't get the best out of Xavi but he can't really line up in an expansive possession based team with his personnel and against your team can he? His defense looks solid though with Gilberto screening them and two wingbacks being the runners in a counter attacking set up. Xavi isn't going to shine in this regard either but yeah.
I actually find MJJ's setup to be okay given what he's had to deal with in this draft so far. Sinclair's the only one who's causing MJJ real problems in the team, plus Xavi can't be of much use in this setup, but other than that, it's not too shabby. Still, though, NM's team has too much quality that even MJJ's tactics can't do much about it.
Hamrin's can shred Iuliano a new one with his quickness, guile, and dribbling. Puskas roaming around will create gaps for Platini to enter. The Brazilian full backs will cause problems for the opposing team in the final third as well. Tardelli and Gattuso's energy will mean that there will always be options for NM's playmakers and, in Tardelli's case, someone to aim for for the Brazilian full backs. I quite like NM's team and find no issues at all with Pirlo and Platini. In fact, those two can combine very well with each other and have the intelligence to roam around. If Platini drops back, Pirlo can roam forward to thread through passes. Platini can also spend time up front to get into goalscoring positions if needed.
Drogba will always be a nuisance, and Roberto Carlos will be a threat that NM has to be worried about. However, MJJ will be pegged back, and this is where NM's team will have the advantage over MJJ.
Hamrin's can shred Iuliano a new one with his quickness, guile, and dribbling. Puskas roaming around will create gaps for Platini to enter. The Brazilian full backs will cause problems for the opposing team in the final third as well. Tardelli and Gattuso's energy will mean that there will always be options for NM's playmakers and, in Tardelli's case, someone to aim for for the Brazilian full backs. I quite like NM's team and find no issues at all with Pirlo and Platini. In fact, those two can combine very well with each other and have the intelligence to roam around. If Platini drops back, Pirlo can roam forward to thread through passes. Platini can also spend time up front to get into goalscoring positions if needed.
Drogba will always be a nuisance, and Roberto Carlos will be a threat that NM has to be worried about. However, MJJ will be pegged back, and this is where NM's team will have the advantage over MJJ.
With Puskas' goal scoring record, he is a better shout to be the one who should e this team's goalscorer than Platini.
I don't see any problem with Pirlo-Platini either, feels a bit like Tigana-Platini to me which worked wonderfully
Scratch that just realised MJJ has eboue.#gamechanger
As opposed to Pirlo and Platini who operate in the same spaces, right?
Seriously, I'm glad most people agree this isn't issue because it's one of the more bizzare criticisms I've seen in these drafts - which is saying something.
Pirlo is an out and out #6 - he spends the game closer to the two centre backs than the strikers. As Annah mentioned, amongst all of Platini's playmaking and ability on the ball he was consistently his teams best goalscorer - whether it's scoring 82 goals in three seasons in 80's Serie A, or 9 goals in 5 games at Euro '84.
The fact that Platini has the ability to drop deep and play as Pirlo would is a non issue considering no one is their right mind would want Platini playing as a #6 or spending any significant amount of time sitting deep in front of the back four.
You again mention Cruyff in your post and say that Platini was similarly complete as a player, which he was, but I can't see how that is a good example of any issues here considering Cruyff played with deep lying playmakers and never suffered as a result. For Holland more often than not it was Van Hanegem who would initiate those attacks and pick the ball up off the centre backs. As I have mentioned previously, he actually has some limited similarities to Pirlo in the nonchalant, technical way he would knock around the ball but that didn't seem to cause Cruyff too many issues.
Indeed the whole concept of having one designated playmaker which you seem to be getting at is beyond me - lots of great teams don't play that way. And for the Dutch in particular it seems a strange thing to get at considering the complete fluidity of that side. As I mentioned before the same issue can be said of Brazil '70 - arguably the best team ever - who were inundated with playmakers - Gerson, Rivelino, Tostao - but that didn't seem to cause Pele many issues.
Even Clodoaldo was excellent on the ball and of the team he was probably the most defensive. Just look at his ability in possession at 18s in the Carlos Alberto goal vs Italy.
The part about Puskas is similarly unfair IMO - I can't see how he'll struggle playing with Platini when he was scoring near enough a goal a game for Madrid whilst playing with Di Stefano, Kopa and Gento. Indeed Platini would surely be great with Puskas, seeing as he was similarly complete and has the same tendency to drop deep as Di Stefano that you keep mentioning. Internationally again the team Puskas played in was way more clustered up top with two wingers plus Hidegkuti, Bozsik and Kocsis all central with Puskas and he still scored 84 goals in 85 games. Saying Puskas was a #10 seems misrepresentative IMO and that isn't how I would describe him, he dropped deep to pick up the ball the way a second striker would but his passing wasn't particularly impressive and I don't think anyone would class him as a playmaker, he was a goalscorer.
@Theon kicking ass and taking names 
On Puskas, I mentioned that he had thrived alongside Kopa and Di Stefano so that proves he can adjust. I don't think Platini will suffer playing with Pirlo.
The only player I am arguing will suffer is Pirlo as he needs a team to be built around him to thrive. Platini will go about his game no matter who is playing alongside him. . He has that character about him and versatility to his game.
Of course a multitude of playmakers can play together see Zico and Socrates for Brazil. That isn't the issue, I just think these two players in particular wouldn't gel and bring out the best in Pirlo. Pirlo would have to slightly adjust his game and I think someone like Van Hanegam was more versatile in terms of the areas he could move into and he was also tough defensively so if Cruyff was to inhibit him in any way he'd still be offering something else to the team whereas Pirlo is there purely for his play making ability.
I don't see it as a huge issue, I just think that if it came up against a more complementary midfield. .people would pick up on the slight flaw chemistry wise. Its slight but depending on who is the opponent it could be significant.
Eboue/Sinclair will dominate that wing. Gattuso is playing wrong side and so won't be much joy. Ze Roberto being the relatively weaker full back helps MJJ.
Add in Xavi pass to Bebeto to the flank overload above and I see some goals there for MJJ.
R Carlos vs Carlos A is a good match. but having 3 defenders should help R Carlos. I see MJJ having aedge there.
Gilberto Silva will take out Platini. I see that diminishing NM to a great extent. Pirlo will try to dictate, but there is no one listening to it sadly. A sad waste of dictation.
Hard luck NM. You had a good team, but nobody wins against Eboue, and I mean, Nobody.
Voted MJJ!
Troll
Add in Xavi pass to Bebeto to the flank overload above and I see some goals there for MJJ.
R Carlos vs Carlos A is a good match. but having 3 defenders should help R Carlos. I see MJJ having aedge there.
Gilberto Silva will take out Platini. I see that diminishing NM to a great extent. Pirlo will try to dictate, but there is no one listening to it sadly. A sad waste of dictation.
Hard luck NM. You had a good team, but nobody wins against Eboue, and I mean, Nobody.
Voted MJJ!
Troll
Van Hanegem is an odd example. He did a good job in that deeper role at the World Cup in '74, but he never showed anything close to his best form. I'd argue he was the least important midfielder in that Dutch team and a bit wasted in the shadow of Cruyff. He also wasn't picked for the team at the expense of a 2nd winger or a different player who could add more to the team.
This, although you may as well have let them go ahead and finally get a striker
This x100.
I think there a quite a few Dutch people who would disagree with you there Balu. Van Hanegem was quite comfortably one of the best players in '74 and I found him more impressive than Neeskens. It was Van Hanegem's service that Cruyff played off and he dictated the game as much as anyone from that position, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. This is pretty much how I saw things,
"Whilst Cruyff’s leadership reinforced the philosophy on the pitch, van Hanegem controlled the tempo of the game and it would be his curving distribution to Cruyff and Rep that would assist the former to walk away with the Best Player of the tournament award. Very little footage exists of van Hanegem’s early years at Feyenoord; all we really have are those seven matches in that World Cup. In that footage we are treated to seeing van Hanegem running with stooped back, grizzly bear-like, hitting the ball toe-first as if it was a balloon. Every pass he makes looks like it has been sliced but each and every one sails over his opponent and lands at a teammate’s foot."
But aye, the point really was that a dominant player like Cruyff didn't struggle with a deeper playmaker in the team. Cruyff benefitted from having Van Hanegem and I don't think many Dutch fans would have wanted Cruyff doing van Hanegem's job. In the same way I wouldn't want Platini sitting deep like Pirlo, the fact he might be able to do it irrelevant.
This makes no sense by the way. Why is Platini not there anymore? If Pirlo picks the ball up from the centre backs then Platini will be in the final third ready to receive a pass and 'do something with it'. I'm not sure why having Pirlo in the team suddenly makes Platini disappear.
And that's the way I would rather have it, by the way. The whole, 'if you need Pirlo, Platini will do it' - I don't think anyone wants Platini to do it, bar yourself. If you ask people I am quite sure the majority would prefer Pirlo doing the deep lying work leaving Platini free to get on the ball and receive passes in more dangerous positions. It's a no brainer IMO.
Although it has to be said again that there is no reason a team cannot have two playmakers, some of the greatest teams have had more than that. So I don't really see how having someone good on the ball in a deep position is a problem for Platini, as we've spoken about it wasn't for Cruyff and Pele either.
I think his point is that when opponent has a dedicated DM, then Platini is liable to drop deeper and create..which in this case intrudes into Pirlo's area of influence. Pirlo is a better fit with Kaka type pure AM. Platini is that and much more and you are negating the much more part.
Voted for NM, obviously, but I too don't like it when the star players are limited to some specific role - Platini as a pure 10, Puskas as a striker, etc. I have nothing against two playmakers in the team, but Pirlo is a very special player and he needs for the team to be built around him - and with Platini you don't need that narrowly specialized genius deep-lying playmaker, you can do better.
It's a case of having a too good team in early rounds - you will win, but everyone's attention will be at your slightest flaws.
It's a case of having a too good team in early rounds - you will win, but everyone's attention will be at your slightest flaws.
The thing with Platini & Pirlo together is the issue over Platini not realising his full ability with Pirlo in the team. I don't really see how that can be an issue, though. The only issue is that, with Pirlo as the deeper player, he doesn't read the game well enough for such a role, IMO. However, having two such playmakers doesn't seem like an issue for me. In fact, I can see Pirlo and Platini gelling very well together. Also, unless we're talking about the Pirlo in his 30's, I don't see how Pirlo will just sit back if Platini goes back. Pirlo was quite a good attacking midfielder in his heyday whilst still possessing that good passing range. If Platini drops deep, surely Pirlo will start to move up and drag the opposition players around. I doubt I'd see Pirlo and Platini struggling together.
Look at Scholes and Carrick together. Those were two playmakers playing the deeper midfield roles, and they did well together, no? They had lots of energetic players to aim at up front, and NM's team has that energy in the team to make sure that Platini and Pirlo both being deep won't cause issues.
Honestly, I don't really see an issue here.
Seriously? Pirlo isn't half the player Platini was. If he interferes with Platini in any way shape or form you get shot of him. Simple.
This comment is so odd. Platini himself wanted to do it, all the time. He wanted the ball at his feet as often as possible and not roam around in the final third and wait for someone like Pirlo to pass it to him like Kaka did.
Just watch his final performance at the Euro in 1984 and you surely must realise how wrong that comment is? That's in the midfield set-up you used to argue how him and Pirlo would play completely different roles in the team.
Unless you're suggesting Platini was used wrongly throughout his whole career, it really makes no sense, sorry.
I'm really starting to believe that Platini's goalscoring stats are influencing your perception of how he played, there's really no other explanation. But if we discount his countless freekicks, how many of his goals did he score without starting the attack himself from somewhere in his own half? It's always 1-2s over the whole pitch, spraying passes from deep and making smart runs to get at the end of the attack himself.
I got three votes
I'm still not sure what the Cruyff - van Hanegem situation in '74 has to do with Platini and Pirlo or the game at all, but in case you want to continue:
Neeskens' role was more important because no one else could offer the same runs, the pace, the intelligent movement off the ball. It's not as visibly spectacular as van Hanegem's, who was clearly the better footballer than Neeskens. But it was a key ingredient in all the great performances of the team back then.
Anyway, it's not that you can't have two playmakers in the same midfield in general. Just look at Joga's set-up with Suarez and Schuster (who's in his approach to the game not too different to van Hanegem), that's great. It's that NM and you picked the most difficult one to include, the one who needs more protection, is less versatile in terms of tactics, the one who plays the game at his own pace, a different pace to what Platini wants to play at.
It's true that there isn't a lot of footage available of van Hanegem's peak years at Feyenoord, but from what is available it's quite obvious that he was a fantastic attacking midfielder who could influence games in the final third in a way he never got to show at the World Cup.
Do you really believe that Cruyff at the World Cup benefited more from van Hanegem playing a deeper playmaking role than from actually having wingers on both sides? Because that's what you miss out on by playing Pirlo in your team and that's completely different to Cruyff's situation. Then there's also the striker situation. If the Dutch had a prolific goalscorer, Cruyff would have dropped deeper into an AM or left wing role anyway and further reduced van Hanegem's influence on the game. Wim Jansen and Arie Haan were easily good enough on the ball to get the ball forward from deep. They didn't do it in style like van Hanegem, who was constantly taking the piss, passing with the outside of his foot all the time to ridicule opponents (and I love watching him play because of it), but they were effective enough. I didn't say that van Hanegem wasn't playing a good tournament, I said his role was the least important, the one that would be the first to be dropped if Michels had for example a good striker in the team. Playing Cruyff as a false 9 and Haan in defense to fill positions where they lacked quality opened up a role for van Hanegem that simply doesn't exist in your team. And then there's the fact that van Hanegem was an incredibly hardworking player, who could tackle, mark, defend in a way Pirlo simply can't. It's really a bad comparison to prove your point.
Neeskens' role was more important because no one else could offer the same runs, the pace, the intelligent movement off the ball. It's not as visibly spectacular as van Hanegem's, who was clearly the better footballer than Neeskens. But it was a key ingredient in all the great performances of the team back then.
Anyway, it's not that you can't have two playmakers in the same midfield in general. Just look at Joga's set-up with Suarez and Schuster (who's in his approach to the game not too different to van Hanegem), that's great. It's that NM and you picked the most difficult one to include, the one who needs more protection, is less versatile in terms of tactics, the one who plays the game at his own pace, a different pace to what Platini wants to play at.
You don't get it Balu. Nobody wants Platini to play #6, it's a no brainer apparently... to anyone who hasn't seen him play much at all.
What's really funny, Platini did it even more than I remembered
. I thought he mostly dropped deep when necessary. But going through these wonderful 'every touch by Platini' clips from his games at the Euro '84, he constantly collected the ball from the centerbacks, even when it wasn't necessary. He just enjoyed having the game in front of him at all times. I guess it was slightly less with Scirea at the back at Juve. Anyway, it was brilliant to watch his performances from '84 again. Absolutely immense, easily one of the best individual tournament performances of all time.On a side note, making these clips must take an awful lot of time. Pretty cool that someone took the time to do it.
Yeah, too bad that so many of them have such shit music in it.
Well...yes. I suppose so. In a sense. After a fashion. They weren't a combo you'd confidently use in an all time fantasy match, though - and the latter is what this is. One could also argue that the Scholes-Carrick combo worked best before Carrick became an actual DLP (of sorts). When both of them were DLPs (of sorts), they were the best available combo out of a number of, frankly, rather underwhelming ones - a combo which worked well against weaker sides who gave us plenty of time on the ball. They were often shocking against sides who pressed us (it took a while before everyone and his granny realized the latter was all you had to do to make us come unglued.)
As for Pirlo, it's the Scholes conundrum again the way you present it: In that role (the one he's given here), it has to be the later Pirlo we're dealing with. You can't have the younger version on top of that - it's one or the other.
Seems to be a required feature, that.
Scirea did make a difference sharing the burden. The difference with Pirlo though is Scirea also marshalled the defence, while doing anything at all that Pirlo is supposed to be doing here. In Scirea's absence, Platini would drop back more often/deeper, and it wouldn't affect his goalscoring one bit anyway.What's really funny, Platini did it even more than I remembered
On a side note, making these clips must take an awful lot of time. Pretty cool that someone took the time to do it.
I really don't get this illusion that stranding Platini upfront at the end of Pirlo's passes will do any good. What is he? A target man? Nope, he was a tiny frail little thing who wouldn't outmuscle anyone. You basically turn him into a sitting duck. "But he had great movement", I can imagine someone replying. Yes, indeed, he did, and it started from the back. He would unleash the likes of Tardelli and Boniek and move up the pitch with them, defences backpedalling furiously, completely losing track of where the feck he is, so worried they are about everything else going on... and there he shows up unannounced to finish off the move with the simplest of finishes.
That's what Platini was about, Pirlo adds feck all, takes away from him, and takes away another player upfront provoking the sort of chaos that allowed him to move up the pitch unchallenged. It's not about "two playmakers", of course teams can have them, it's that this particular one is there entirely for the purpose of removing Platini from what made him unplayable. But no, it's a no-brainer you want him upfront waiting for Pirlo to "work his magic" and anyone saying otherwise is a bit soft.
Mental, absolutely mental.
So... This went well. Good game @MJJ
With all this Platini discussion, how would posters line-up with an all-time team which gets the best out of Platini?
I think he's ideal for a Trapattoni 3-5-2, a magic square 4-2-2-2 or a modern day 4-2-1-3.
Best in there because he'd work the flanks, get on the end of Platini's long passes and stretch the play. Scirea and Tigana because they combined well with him. Eusebio leading the line because he foraged and powered through wide areas and would help to create space.
Sorry Balu but Platini did not play the way that Pirlo does, there really isn't any question about that and I simply don't think we're going to agree there. Pirlo is a pure regista, a defensive midfielder who doesn't move from that position whereas Platini moved all over the pitch, affecting the game in the final third.
I'm not sure if you're serious with the goals comment or how many freekicks you think Platini scored, but here is a compliation of his goals in Serie A. Number 9 is exactly the type of ball Pirlo would provide constantly from deep positions, by the way. And his goalscoring record was phenomenal - 82 goals in 139 games in a peak 80's Serie A.
I have to say that I do find it strange that you're so incessant on wanting to play Platini as a #6 in this draft Balu, when I actually remember you suggesting Platini should play as a false 9 previously - in a team which had a regista in Guardiola no less. It seems like you're just changing your views in order to criticse.
I am not sure how playing Platini as a false 9 with Guariola is commensurate with the view you now advocate, that Platini needs to play really deep and be constantly picking the ball up off his centre backs in order to be used properly..
And aye, Platini dropping deep is no secret, but as people have explained to you it isn't a problem because you are allowed to have more than one player who is good on the ball. You just seem to be looking at it from a negative angle whilst others view Pirlo and Platini being in the team as leading to the two of them linking up well together – not an outrageous view at all IMO, and probably how you saw Platini/Guardiola working previously?
Platini and Pirlo are two intelligent footballers and some of the best passers to have played the game, so I don't think it's unreasonable to view them playing some nice football with one another. It is certainly the way I imagine it would work.
And as I said, a #10 dropping deep is nothing new nor is it something that's incompatible with a regista. We've spoken about Cruyff and Pele and there are countless examples, Socrates for instance would lazily strut around deep in midfield and flick out passes despite having other playmakers in the side. But to take another French playmaker Zidane would often drop deep and wriggle forward the way Platini would. Lots of playmakers do it, its a common part of their game and isn't an issue because, as has been said, you can have more than one player in a team who is good on the ball.
Specifically in terms of Pirlo, I'm sorry to disagree but you're incorrect on the Kaka point. Pirlo played with other #10's beside Kaka and having one who dropped deep was never a problem. MJJ correctly brought up Totti in '06 but the best example would clearly be Rui Costa when he moved to Milan – there was an attacking midfielder who spent significant periods of the game dropping deep into Pirlo territory and the two played well together. Rui Costa was nothing like Kaka, and didn't 'roam across the final third waiting for Pirlo to pass it to him'.
Indeed Rui Costa could pretty much play as a central midfielder and would drop deep before pushing up into the final third, the way many players did including Platini. It really is the most important point, you somehow see it as a problem that two great passers would occasionally be playing close to each other and I don't know why because it's never been a problem I've noticed in many years of watching football. I think you also underestimate the difference in their two roles and just quite how deep and disciplined Pirlo plays in defensive midfield.
Well it's a funny question considering the way he's been used here previously.
Gio - who knows his football - played Platini with a deep lying playmaker in Xavi.
antohan switched to this formation with Platini - not one, not two, not three, but four playmakers in this team. Somehow Pirlo is causing all kinds of issues picking the ball up from the centre backs, but Passarella, Falcao and Schuster doing the same is wonderful.
And here is the false 9 set up that Balu loved - which is apparently completely different to the system we have here now of course.
With Facchetti and Carlos Alberto there, I'd probably get Boniek TBH, it's not as much the width and individual match-winning birlliance you need but Boniek's insane pace, stamina and workrate to drag defences all over the place.I think he's ideal for a Trapattoni 3-5-2, a magic square 4-2-2-2 or a modern day 4-2-1-3.
Best in there because he'd work the flanks, get on the end of Platini's long passes and stretch the play. Scirea and Tigana because they combined well with him. Eusebio leading the line because he foraged and powered through wide areas and would help to create space.
On the ssame grounds as Tigana and Scirea, I'd go Tardelli ahead of Matthäus. Familiarity aside, I'm not sure the fulll package of peak Matthäus is what you want there. "Lesser" players could work better as far as maximising Platini's impact is concerned.
Always felt my 50s final side was hard done by for being asymmetric
It's only flaw was that the moment I added Platini the midfield was no longer ideal. Both great players, but could have done with less passing and more gut-busting back and forth there. Should have played Lerby ahead of Schuster if I'm honest, but I had my hands full introducing and selling too many players. It wasn't mentioned a single time on the thread though, it was more a "can you score enough" as if that side couldn't score
What teams.No one is saying Platini is like Pirlo or that he will play #6, the point is that having someone dedicated to playing that for 90 minutes is a waste of a player because Platini will do pretty much everything he does and a truckload more. All you are doing is getting in the way of Platini's best game to play someone there full time when you only need the fecker to get the ball out of defence every now and then, something Platini did expertly. Unless you want to control the game from your half (the hog the ball I mentioned on the thread a few weeks ago), if that's the plan it's a ludicrous idea. Building a side around Pirlo, with this personnel? Crazy shit.
The last one is obviously the one which looks something like yours. Pep seems to play a sort of Pirlo role (your Pirlo, that is) there.
The first two seem less relevant.
The criticism isn't - as I take it - that you're fielding multiple players who can be labelled "playmakers". It's the balance of the thing, given Pirlo's and Platini's best roles.
The first two seem less relevant.
The criticism isn't - as I take it - that you're fielding multiple players who can be labelled "playmakers". It's the balance of the thing, given Pirlo's and Platini's best roles.
They're all relevant IMO mate - the last one of course is the most similar, but it's pretty much a replica. As close as you'll get in these things anyway, it's extremely similar. Even down to the workaholic side midfielders and the staggered winger/striker front two.
The other two are relevant as well though - Xavi plays a similar role to Pirlo, particularly if he's played in a midfield two, so he would be liable to the same criticisms here I.e needlessly picking the ball of the centre backs and what have you.
Same for the other one, between them Falcao, Schuster and Passarella are going to do far, far more passing from deep positions than Pirlo would. You can forget Schuster entirely, Falcao and Passarella alone would do more than Pirlo. I'm not sure what you need Platini dropping deep to the centre backs for when you have Passarella, Falcao and Schuster in the side.