Sheep Draft R1: harms vs. Arbitrium - Voting closed

[Moby]

I really don't like the use of Matthaus here, especially as I was waiting eagerly to see him in a 3-man midfield with Stielike at the base, Masopust as the LCM and Matthaus as the RCM. Would have been an incredibly balanced role for him and allowed him to showcase his entire defensive prowess as well as those late runs. I usually don't like him at all in advanced midfield roles. If your rationale of playing him there is getting goals from him, you can pick a host of other much more effective and attack minded goalscoring midfielders and get that same output without wasting a midfield colossal as a primary goalscoring assignment from midfield. The Inter team he played in was massively defensive, and he was a better goalscorer than the midfielders that played around him as well as more talented on the ball so naturally he played the more expansive role. In an all time setting there is no such environment and I don't see this as the optimum usage of someone who should ideally be setting the platform for the attack constantly, while on the ball. Would have loved him in a 4-3-3 with Blokhin and Boniek as the wide men and a #9 up front. More obvious and frequently used setup but still the ideal setting for these set of players.

Similarly, I always hate it when Boniek is used in off the ball roles and used primarily as an outlet at times (even as a wing forward at times). Happy to be corrected about what exact role he is playing here as I haven't read the entire discussion but he was primarily a creative player, so much so that the Juve president made the statement that whoever plays next to him will be the Serie A top goalscorer as a result of his exquisite ability on the ball in terms of dribbling and passing. That statement was true both at Juve with Platini and then again when Boniek moved to Roma. He gets used for his workrate and running far too often and rarely gets a role where he is the primary creator in the team which is what his best talents were. Hence, a 4-3-3 would have made a lot more sense for him as well.

Just personal concerns in the end, the team would still overcome the opposition here without much difficulty. I appreciate the freshness of the formation as well, nicely thought overall.

 

[harms]

@harms is the 4-1-3-2 used just to underline the high press?

Because it looks more like a 4-4-2 diamond to me. I'd usually associate 4-1-3-2 with those three behind the strikers being more of a forwards rather than midfielders. In your case both Masopust and Schuster are midfielders rather than forwards.

For example I'd have Boniek instead of Schuster and someone like Nedved instead of Masopust. Still hard workers but closer to forwards in their roles rather than the more deeperish Schuster or Masopust.

At his peak I'd have Matthaus as the most advanced midfielder in 4-3-3 so that he has freedom but is not that close to the goal as a designated #10.

I really don't like the use of Matthaus here, especially as I was waiting eagerly to see him in a 3-man midfield with Stielike at the base, Masopust as the LCM and Matthaus as the RCM. Would have been an incredibly balanced role for him and allowed him to showcase his entire defensive prowess as well as those late runs. I usually don't like him at all in advanced midfield roles. If your rationale of playing him there is getting goals from him, you can pick a host of other much more effective and attack minded goalscoring midfielders and get that same output without wasting a midfield colossal as a primary goalscoring assignment from midfield.

Like Harms’ shape. Some conventions on here dictate that 4-man midfields need to be either flat or diamond and nothing inbetween. But there are so many great examples out there with different variations of 4-man units.

What Gio said. I think people don't really understand what I've tried to do here, even though I tried to explained it in my OP as well as in formation — my bad, obviously.

Matthäus isn't an attacking midfielder, his role here is a central midfielder who makes constant runs forward — like Matthäus himself played for Inter or, for example, like how Neeskens played for Netherlands, where he made all those runs into the space that Cruyff created for him. It's still a midfield 4, Masopust, Matthäus and Schuster are not forwards.

Their high position indicates general compactness of my team and is an indication of the intensive pressing. The ideal for me was the 76/77 team with all stars fit and ready to play, but this picture from 1975 is still quite telling. Kolotov = Matthäus, Buryak (in this case) = Masopust, Troshkin (in this case) = Schuster, Konkov = Stielike.

Spoiler: Dynamo

Matthäus actually participates in central battles more than either of Schuster/Masopust, who help out wide, and this formation can easily be represented as a more flat 4-4-2. A lot like today's Atletico with the likes of Koke starting nominally outwide. Both of my forwards are often peeling wide as well, as it's their natural game, and Matthäus breaks forward.

Blokhin-Boniek
Masopust-Stielike-Matthäus-Schuster
Briegel-Schnellinger-Hansen-Cuccureddu
Cudicini​

 

[harms]

Similarly, I always hate it when Boniek is used in off the ball roles and used primarily as an outlet at times (even as a wing forward at times). Happy to be corrected about what exact role he is playing here as I haven't read the entire discussion but he was primarily a creative player, so much so that the Juve president made the statement that whoever plays next to him will be the Serie A top goalscorer as a result of his exquisite ability on the ball in terms of dribbling and passing. That statement was true both at Juve with Platini and then again when Boniek moved to Roma. He gets used for his workrate and running far too often and rarely gets a role where he is the primary creator in the team which is what his best talents were. Hence, a 4-3-3 would have made a lot more sense for him as well.

I think we've had the same discussion before. I don't agree with your notion that he was firstly a playmaker, even though I'm well aware of those quotes. For me peak Boniek will always bee a free-roaming forward — either for Juve, where he had a fantastic partnership with Platini, or for his national team, where it was even more evident. Here's one of his classic European performances. And the quote from Platini was «Whoever plays alongside Boniek will be the top scorer in the league» — there was no mention of his dribbling and passing in particular. His movement off the ball and general selflessness is a massive help for any of his striker partners. He was a creative forward — and, like Blokhin, when he began to lost pace, he dropper deeper and worked more at his passing, but I would never call his peak version a playmaker (only later, when he dropped to midfield and even later to a libero position at Roma, he would become one).

 

[Enigma_87]

Matthäus actually participates in central battles more than either of Schuster/Masopust, who help out wide, and this formation can easily be represented as a more flat 4-4-2. A lot like today's Atletico with the likes of Koke starting nominally outwide. Both of my forwards are often peeling wide as well, as it's their natural game, and Matthäus breaks forward.

Blokhin-Boniek
Masopust-Stielike-Matthäus-Schuster
Briegel-Schnellinger-Hansen-Cuccureddu
Cudicini​

yes this was what I was implying in terms of Schuster/Masopust roles. Makes sense to me now.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

Think the argument has been a bit unfair towards Arbitrium, especially w.r.t his attack and harms' defense.

Firstly, that front 3 is super complimentary with all three players having performed at their peaks in such a setup.

Coming to harms' defense, while I don't know too much about Cookubird, Hansen's biggest weakness was his lack of pace. I am not going to dismiss Cooku just because I don't know him, but considering I have never seen him feature here, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the all time GOAT. Cristiano is set to have a monstrous game here. Schnellinger won't be a choice I would appreciate too much either considering the defense already lacks a big name in their best position. In the overall scheme of things, that attack is hands down way better than the defense they are facing.

Coming to dismissing Ronaldo due to a lack of service because the midfield will get overun, is probably the kind of tosh you'd only see in draft games.

You have a midfielder expected to play as a number 10 and contribute with goals, you have two midfielders expected to provide width as well and one to cover for probably the greatest false 9 of the modern era after Messi. Unless you expect all of them to be at 2 places at once, you are back to the same nonsense logic used in 5-3-2 with wingbacks.

I think Arbitrium's midfield should do alright while still not be fully up to the mark. Will eventually come down to how precise and lethargic they will be on the break. Totti played his best season in a counter attacking setup like this for Roma and no one needs to sell Ronaldo here.

I might be sounding biased here, but the so called neutral argument has been disappointing w.r.t appreciating the good parts of the CR team.

 

[Moby]

I think we've had the same discussion before. I don't agree with your notion that he was firstly a playmaker, even though I'm well aware of those quotes. For me peak Boniek will always bee a free-roaming forward — either for Juve, where he had a fantastic partnership with Platini, or for his national team, where it was even more evident. Here's one of his classic European performances. And the quote from Platini was «Whoever plays alongside Boniek will be the top scorer in the league» — there was no mention of his dribbling and passing in particular. His movement off the ball and general selflessness is a massive help for any of his striker partners. He was a creative forward — and, like Blokhin, when he began to lost pace, he dropper deeper and worked more at his passing, but I would never call his peak version a playmaker (only later, when he dropped to midfield and even later to a libero position at Roma, he would become one).

In the European versions him and Platini swapped roles at times which was more a testimony to their tactics in big games which were a lot more counter friendly, like the penalty he won vs Liverpool.

I wouldn't agree on that being his best version though. It was a case of being highly pragmatic in Europe and not being able to afford to be on the frontfoot without risking goals at the back. A lot of teams, like our United team in late 00s have done similar things where we played Rooney on the left for example as that meant a safer reliable measure against strong attacking teams. But as you would find in most testimonies, in the leagues games where Juve played more on the front foot and also when they had to break down compact Italian defense, it was Boniek wizardry on the ball and creative aspect that brought him a lot of fame. Not trying to say using him as an outlet is bad but that is not representative of his best qualities. A player as versatile and as multifaceted as him would be great in most roles, but we are discussing about the roles that brought out his best, and that would be one where he is tasked heavily with the creative duties in the team and gets to be on the ball a lot more than off it.

 

[Moby]

And the quote from Platini was «Whoever plays alongside Boniek will be the top scorer in the league» — there was no mention of his dribbling and passing in particular.

What else does that mean? He was a dream to have alongside for a goalscorer in the way he created space through his ball control, dribbling and ability to attack all channels as well as his final ball and service to his teammates. So the reason I am putting this forward is that I don't like that that part of his game literally never gets mentioned, and it's always the duracell bunny side that is showcased. He isn't a rich man's Park Ji Sung.

 

[Moby]

like Matthäus himself played for Inter

Like I said, I am not fond of people recreating his role at Inter, which was as much a result of the tactics deployed at Inter at the time and the players around him. He seems to shuttle between too defensive and too attacking roles all the time, not sure why people hesitate giving him proper two-way gigs like you'd see someone like Robson or Keane getting. I don't really value his goalscoring aspect highly in an all time aspect, that can be replaced with a no. of attack minded players, what you cannot replace is his midfield qualities both on and off the ball. You were lucky to come up against a poor midfield here, but against a stronger midfield he should be at the heart of the game, and tasked with defensive and offensive duties in equal proportion. If I had to pick one, I'd edge towards his defensive game as the one that provided a bigger impact to a match than his offensive games. People need to come out of the late 80s Serie A and imagine him in more expansive roles and setups. Not just specific to your team in a way, which has Schuster and Masopust compensating for the offense and creativity, but watching him in a 3 man midfield with two defensive/hard working midfielders behind him is an absolute eyesore.

 

[harms]

Coming to dismissing Ronaldo due to a lack of service because the midfield will get overun, is probably the kind of tosh you'd only see in draft games

No one is dismissing Ronaldo, you won’t find a single post that says that.

I guess you don’t read much articles on today’s football then. A simple google search from the phone offers this Hansen’s (ironic) article about the best (and only) strategy to limit Ronaldo:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...aldo-of-ball-by-cutting-off-supply-lines.html

We’ve seen this done by Barcelona many times. We’ve seen Uruguay do it just this summer. It’s the only way to deal with an all-round package like Ronaldo after he pretty much cut off prolonged dribbling from his game in favor of off-the-ball movement.

 

[harms]

watching him in a 3 man midfield with two defensive/hard working midfielders behind him is an absolute eyesore

I’ve already said multiple times that it’s not an accurate description of his role here. Schuster and Masopust aren’t behind him, they’re on his sides and it’s Matthäus who drops back to Stielike in the defensive phase.

 

[Enigma_87]

Think the argument has been a bit unfair towards Arbitrium, especially w.r.t his attack and harms' defense.

Firstly, that front 3 is super complimentary with all three players having performed at their peaks in such a setup.

Coming to harms' defense, while I don't know too much about Cookubird, Hansen's biggest weakness was his lack of pace. I am not going to dismiss Cooku just because I don't know him, but considering I have never seen him feature here, I am going to give the benefit of the doubt to the all time GOAT. Cristiano is set to have a monstrous game here. Schnellinger won't be a choice I would appreciate too much either considering the defense already lacks a big name in their best position. In the overall scheme of things, that attack is hands down way better than the defense they are facing.

Coming to dismissing Ronaldo due to a lack of service because the midfield will get overun, is probably the kind of tosh you'd only see in draft games.

You have a midfielder expected to play as a number 10 and contribute with goals, you have two midfielders expected to provide width as well and one to cover for probably the greatest false 9 of the modern era after Messi. Unless you expect all of them to be at 2 places at once, you are back to the same nonsense logic used in 5-3-2 with wingbacks.

I think Arbitrium's midfield should do alright while still not be fully up to the mark. Will eventually come down to how precise and lethargic they will be on the break. Totti played his best season in a counter attacking setup like this for Roma and no one needs to sell Ronaldo here.

I might be sounding biased here, but the so called neutral argument has been disappointing w.r.t appreciating the good parts of the CR team.

Aye, Cristiano is going to have a great game here, but harms do makes a valid point of starving the other team out of possession. Arbitrium was unlucky on plenty of occasions with CB choice which lead to getting Pique at the end who is normally not rated around here.

I don't really rate Hansen in a high line in all time sense if the opposition fields solid midfield that can play counter attacking football. That Liverpool side is often underrated but its strength was the midfield and attack rather than impenetrable defence. In this matchup though harms has big advantage in midfield and can control the game, hence not allow much penetration to his backline and hide his deficiencies like lack of pace.

Personally I'm not a big fan of @harms defence and probably that's the first thing he has to address in the RR if he goes through. I'd prefer Schnellinger either as a LB or LCB in a back 5. Hansen is suspect when on the backfoot. Cuccureddu is a bit of a makeshift RB as he did play in that position but in all time draft against top quality opposition could be a liability.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

I guess you don’t read much articles on today’s football then. A simple google search from the phone offers this Hansen’s (ironic) article about the best (and only) strategy to limit Ronaldo:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/f...aldo-of-ball-by-cutting-off-supply-lines.html

To be fair, I don't. I have watched him enough to know that he will burn the chances when they come his way especially against a fragile defense.

The important question which you comfortably ignored is how much successful you'd be in cutting off the supply with a midfield where everyone is expected to contribute in more areas than one. It's not like you are playing a standard diamond to clog the area. And he has 4 bodies almost always present there, so it's not like you have a numerical advantage even in your best case scenario when everyone drops in.

You are winning the so called midfield battle because of the big names. Tactically, I am not so sure. As I said, it's the 5-3-2 wingbacks conundrum again.

One thing is Schuster and Masopust were way more attacking than defensive. They put a shift in but not to the extent of completely cutting off the supply. That is an over exaggeration which has sold well simply because of the fantastic names you have drafted.

And wtf does Hansen writing the article have to do with anything. Let's draft Duncan Castles next

 

[harms]

Personally I'm not a big fan of @harms defence and probably that's the first thing he has to address in the RR if he goes through.

Absolutely. Don’t agree with all of your personal notes but it’s without a doubt the weakest line in my team.

 

[Moby]

I’ve already said multiple times that it’s not an accurate description of his role here. Schuster and Masopust aren’t behind him, they’re on his sides and it’s Matthäus who drops back to Stielike in the defensive phase.

Ya, I mentioned that that comment is not for your team, the criticism for your team for me is mainly about a 4-3-3 being a more ideal setup with the players you have.

 

[Moby]

To be fair, I don't. I have watched him enough to know that he will burn the chances when they come his way

And harms has literally been saying that it is those chances that he intends to cut off. Which is a highly likely scenario in this game where a midfield of harms can harass the opposition into submission and not allow them much time on the ball to create those chances. A frustrated Cristiano starved of service isn't an image we need to imagine, as that's happened a few times in his career. You need world class playmakers in midfield who can evade the press easily and always play him though - such as Luka Modric and it is no coincidence that Modric's peak and Ronaldo's insane CL feats and BDO feats coincide.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

And harms has literally been saying that it is those chances that he intends to cut off.

If only intending meant the same as accomplishing, Penelope Cruz would have been raising my babies now. I have already posted my reservations in my last 2 posts about why that is not as feasible as it has been made to look by the neutral audience and harms

 

[Moby]

If only intending meant the same as accomplishing, Penelope Cruz would have been raising my babies now. I have already posted my reservations in my last 2 posts about why that is not as feasible as it has been made to look by the neutral audience and harms

Fair enough mate, I definitely buy that looking at the two midfields, it would definitely be realistic to curb the offensive and creative impact of the midfield behind Cristiano and starve him off the ball. It happened for 80 minutes in the CL 09 final, and harms midfield while doing it in a completely different manner is composed of similar quality and dominating presence that would be able to achieve that.

 

[Gio]

Against a suspect defence? Tell me who's defence is more likely to work, The defence of arguably the greatest club side of all time with a better goalkeeper than they had, or a left back who didn't always play there next to a centre back who didnt always play there, a slow defender who was one of the main benefactors of a successful liverpool attacking dynasty, and a right back who played 13 times for italy in 3 years?

I don't really rate Hansen in a high line in all time sense if the opposition fields solid midfield that can play counter attacking football. That Liverpool side is often underrated but its strength was the midfield and attack rather than impenetrable defence.

Liverpool's defence was every bit as influential to their success as any other unit in that team. The first season that Hansen becomes a mainstay of the defence in 1978/79 they concede 16 goals in 42 games. That is ridiculously good, a ratio of 0.38 goals a game which, from my quick scan of other famous defences, might be the best of all time in any 'big league'. And if you look at the big European games they won, they were typically narrow 1-0 victories where they've grabbed a goal and defended solidly to kill the game. The results of the three finals they won were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1. And, for example, they kept 6 clean sheets en route to winning the 1984 European Cup. Now they didn't maintain that defensive record to that level across multiple seasons and nor would I paint the likes of Phil Thomson or Joey Jones as defensive maestros in this company, but they were a bastard of a team to play against who killed games every bit as ruthlessly as the great Italian defences. There is no denying the instant impact Hansen had on that team, nor the fact he was clearly the defensive leader who organised the inevitable shutting down of big knockout games. The strength of that team ran through its spine from Hansen plus Lawro/Tommo, through the central midfield partnership of Souness/McDermott and the front pairing of Dalglish/Rush. That was the bedrock of their success. Arguably they became a more fluent attacking team in the second half of the 1980s with Barnes coming to the fore, but lost a little of that defensive stuffiness that had been the hallmark when Hansen and Souness had been at their peak.

 

[harms]

Alternative take on the formation. I prefer the original one, but this one is probably easier to comprehend. Forgive me for the arrows, but Lobanovsky's football is a total football, even if it was a bit different from the Dutch version.

Notice that the baricentro (the average line of the player's vertical position) would be very high. It's a bit more complex term than the defensive line, as it includes the other outfield players as well.

The closest contemporary analogy would be Simeone's Atletico, aside from the fact that they use a low defensive line. Simeone uses the same midfield roles to control the pitch and the opposition's team, with the likes of Koke and Saul starting nominally on the wings.

 

[Enigma_87]

Liverpool's defence was every bit as influential to their success as any other unit in that team. The first season that Hansen becomes a mainstay of the defence in 1978/79 they concede 16 goals in 42 games. That is ridiculously good, a ratio of 0.38 goals a game which, from my quick scan of other famous defences, might be the best of all time in any 'big league'. And if you look at the big European games they won, they were typically narrow 1-0 victories where they've grabbed a goal and defended solidly to kill the game. The results of the three finals they won were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1. And, for example, they kept 6 clean sheets en route to winning the 1984 European Cup. Now they didn't maintain that defensive record to that level across multiple seasons and nor would I paint the likes of Phil Thomson or Joey Jones as defensive maestros in this company, but they were a bastard of a team to play against who killed games every bit as ruthlessly as the great Italian defences. There is no denying the instant impact Hansen had on that team, nor the fact he was clearly the defensive leader who organised the inevitable shutting down of big knockout games. The strength of that team ran through its spine from Hansen plus Lawro/Tommo, through the central midfield partnership of Souness/McDermott and the front pairing of Dalglish/Rush. That was the bedrock of their success. Arguably they became a more fluent attacking team in the second half of the 1980s with Barnes coming to the fore, but lost a little of that defensive stuffiness that had been the hallmark when Hansen and Souness had been at their peak.

Liverpool defence was very good, but compared to other all time material doesn't stack up for me. For Hansen in question I haven't been much impressed in the NT from what I've seen. They got mauled by Brazil in 82 WC and not too impressive in the odd EURO qualies I've seen in the early 80's. Sure that Scottish team wasn't as good as the Liverpool one(although he had a very good partner in Gough), but as an individual he wasn't much impressive either for the NT. Of course you can jump in as no doubt you have better view of that Scottish side.

Back to the Liverpool team. It's hard to gauge properly in EC as they had their fair share of humbling results like going out to Dinamo Tbilisi with Hansen, Thompson and Neill in the team, in convincing manner and also being humbled by Widzew side in 83 where they conceded 4 in 2 games against inferior opposition. They did rode their fair share of luck in their three wins as the best opposition they faced was Bayern Munich - a team in transition after the great squad they had in the early and mid 70's, Gladbach side which they eliminated narrowly in a tie that Hansen didn't play in and Roma which were the best side out of the three, beaten on penos.

They were humbled in the IC by Zico's led Flamengo and again lost to Bochini's Independiente. Of course you can beat whoever is in front of you and really shouldn't be held against them, but they did find the vacuum between the mid 70's and mid 80's where there weren't any great teams to challenge them.

Domestically apart from that first season they often conceded > than 30 goals on regular basis and our defence was on par with theirs, albeit having a much inferior team. It's fair to say that United through the late 70's, early 80's only Robson could get into their team and they were so good in midfield and attack that was hard for the rest of the pack to catch up.

All things considered that Liverpool side had some excellent individuals, but also was packed with superior talent compared to other English sides and were hands down the best team in Europe as well with the giants being in transition at the time and Italian teams moving to more conservative approach defensively as a whole throughout the 80's. More often than not ties were decided by one goal and it was not just them. Aston Villa's EC win in 81-82 came after they conceded just 2 times on the road to the finals in 9 games - superior to every campaign Liverpool had.

Similarly Forest won 2 finals 1-0 and kept clean sheet in half of the games in their campaigns.

In the late 70's early 80's the English sides were the most coherent ones in Europe and to me Liverpool wasn't any different and had the best midfield and attack by far. Most teams were more conservative, but Liverpool had the best protection of the back four and really the best midfield that can control the games against inferior or tougher opposition.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

I’m not completely sure I understand what gets taken into consideration in a draft.

We’ve got one team showing up in a system that suits every player on the park with every player in their best position. It has a mixture of serial trophy winners, grit, determination and loyalty and to top it all off the best player on the park.

The other team has now had a few different formation graphics to get a point across which still doesn’t really make sense because Masopust and Schuster drifting out wide doesn’t make sense for this team. All of harms play will be through the middle where my spine is solid enough. Then you have to question if some of the players are in their best position.

In drafts you’re supposed to sell your team and tactics. I haven’t had to at all. 3 or 4 of you have raised points with harms team which you’ve continued to somewhat disagree on after his explanation. Yet you all voted for him over a team guaranteed to perform well and considering they are at peak level, it’s a no brainer here.

It’s a matter of a team that works versus a team that you can’t be quite sure about.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Congrats @harms and good luck in the next round. Couple of adjustments and you’ll be tough to beat.

 

[harms]

Congrats @harms and good luck in the next round. Couple of adjustments and you’ll be tough to beat.

Thanks. Don’t think that I’ll go all the way though, it rarely happens with thematic teams and I won’t abandon it. Only if I’m seriously lucky in reinforcements, perhaps.

 

[Himannv]

Good win @harms. I think you're a bit lucky to get away with that defense though. You have a huge midfield advantage, of course, but if someone like Schuster loses possession while out of position, you've suddenly got CR7 bearing down on Cuccureddu or Hansen. They're good players, but a peak CR7 will score in this game IMO. Also, I prefer Schnellinger as an LCB in a back 3 or a defensive LB personally.

 

[Jim Beam]

I’m not completely sure I understand what gets taken into consideration in a draft.

I couldn't seperate, so didn't vote. Personally, I like more when I see a person build around the specific player or a theme adding different players which gives a sense of originality and you can also learn a bit during debate. Actually, I rate that the most in terms of voting.

You were a bit unlucky going against harms who has a very good team and is also a hard one to debate against. Thought Ronaldo - Totti partnership is great and I rate Puyol highly in terms of defensive skill. In most other matches you would probably go through or it would be much closer.

 

[Enigma_87]

I’m not completely sure I understand what gets taken into consideration in a draft.

We’ve got one team showing up in a system that suits every player on the park with every player in their best position. It has a mixture of serial trophy winners, grit, determination and loyalty and to top it all off the best player on the park.

The other team has now had a few different formation graphics to get a point across which still doesn’t really make sense because Masopust and Schuster drifting out wide doesn’t make sense for this team. All of harms play will be through the middle where my spine is solid enough. Then you have to question if some of the players are in their best position.

In drafts you’re supposed to sell your team and tactics. I haven’t had to at all. 3 or 4 of you have raised points with harms team which you’ve continued to somewhat disagree on after his explanation. Yet you all voted for him over a team guaranteed to perform well and considering they are at peak level, it’s a no brainer here.

It’s a matter of a team that works versus a team that you can’t be quite sure about.

In my view the midfield gap is big in this game and probably the reason why most still voted harms on that basis. Usually bigger names win the ties and Masopust is generally well loved in here, along Schuster(who was underrated at one point) and Stielike(who was also underrated before). Barca's defensive line doesn't get much love here. Even Puyol from memory has had mixed reception and usually it's always the midfield securing the protection of the back four and starving the opposition of the ball, hence masking any deficiencies Barca backlines had in the past.

I didn't buy harms initial plan(probably due not understanding it from the off as it seemed more complicated), but that Atletico example was a good one and generally can agree that is a valid representation of that midfield personnel and that it can control the game creating more chances.

Pique was an eyesore as well to me. Had you Ferdinand who I think you went for in one of the rounds with Alves (whom I rate pretty highly myself) alongside Puyol and that Cristiano advantage you could've nicked this one for me defending deep and completely overlapping the midfield with a long pass.

 

[Don Alfredo]

Wow I didn't vote so I didn't knew the score, but this is seriously surprising. Expected it to be much closer in one way or another.

Safe to say that Cristiano has taken over from Zidane as the GOAT least likely to win you votes

I am waiting for a side with Cristiano as the focal point in attack or in a 2-men-strikeforce, should be able to get his goalscoring advantages much better across against weaker CBs instead for when he meets a weaker RB, because he is not regarded as a "great" 1v1 dribbler around here.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Wow I didn't vote so I didn't knew the score, but this is seriously surprising. Expected it to be much closer in one way or another.

Safe to say that Cristiano has taken over from Zidane as the GOAT least likely to win you votes

I am waiting for a side with Cristiano as the focal point in attack or in a 2-men-strikeforce, should be able to get his goalscoring advantages much better across against weaker CBs instead for when he meets a weaker RB, because he is not regarded as a "great" 1v1 dribbler around here.

Sometimes the numbers don’t reflect the true nature of the tie.

 

[Jim Beam]

Safe to say that Cristiano has taken over from Zidane as the GOAT least likely to win you votes

Yeah, we got to the point where we can safely say he is criminally underrated.

The narrative is just cut of the supply and it's done. Forgetting that we are talking about the player with one of the best off ball movement in history.

Personally, not his biggest fan, but objectively he should get much more credit.

 

[Jim Beam]

Even Puyol from memory has had mixed reception and usually it's always the midfield securing the protection of the back four and starving the opposition of the ball, hence masking any deficiencies Barca backlines had in the past.

Tbf, it was also their immense pressing which prevented teams from going forward. Still, Puyol was a great defender imo.

 

[Ecstatic]

I’m not completely sure I understand what gets taken into consideration in a draft.

We’ve got one team showing up in a system that suits every player on the park with every player in their best position. It has a mixture of serial trophy winners, grit, determination and loyalty and to top it all off the best player on the park.

The other team has now had a few different formation graphics to get a point across which still doesn’t really make sense because Masopust and Schuster drifting out wide doesn’t make sense for this team. All of harms play will be through the middle where my spine is solid enough. Then you have to question if some of the players are in their best position.

In drafts you’re supposed to sell your team and tactics. I haven’t had to at all. 3 or 4 of you have raised points with harms team which you’ve continued to somewhat disagree on after his explanation. Yet you all voted for him over a team guaranteed to perform well and considering they are at peak level, it’s a no brainer here.

It’s a matter of a team that works versus a team that you can’t be quite sure about.

I have voted for harms and his story even if:
- Cr7 would have a great impact here
- I would have preferred a target striker in his team given the team shape
- his midfield is maybe excessively playmaking

I would have voted for you if you had a more energetic midfield. Also I now tend to severely underrate players like Bernardini and cucureddu with limited video footage.

In these draft, a result doesn't deliver a sense.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

This was the version of Ronaldo I had in mind, where he started deciding games on his own.


He evolved at united to the point where he could pretty much pop up anywhere in the final third but he was at his best cutting in from the left.

Yes, harms midfield might have a lot of the ball but I don’t think it would be a 70/30 kind of game as there’s a lot of directness in the team. I have a world class GK, ball winning midfielders and very good distributors from the back (coupled with abidal likely getting a lot of time on the ball due to no real right wing threat) so when harms does lose it, Ronaldo’s in time and time again.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

@harms

спасибо за использование онлайн переводчика

не говори им вреда, что они тратят свое время

Xxx

 

[harms]

Also I now tend to severely underrate players like Bernardini and cucureddu with limited video footage.

Define “limited”. There are many games available online with Cuccureddu featuring. Only on footballia there are 14.

 

[Ecstatic]

Define “limited”. There are many games available online with Cuccureddu featuring. Only on footballia there are 14.

I have never used footballia but I should, definitely.

I only use Youtube

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

@Arbitrium probably because you let the focus shift into harms tactics rather than this match. Peak position or not, Matthaus will always get rated, so discussions around him is useless for your team. You should have banged on more on harms makeshift backline and CR.

In my view the midfield gap is big in this game and probably the reason why most still voted harms on that basis.

Honestly Cucureddu keeping CR quiet is the biggest mismatch. Boniek won't be drifting wide right and stretching the line, so Abidal has enough space to support the attack. And Cuccureddu is a makeshift RB and not really in his peak. CR would have had a very good game. And despite Hansen's credentials a peak CR would destabilize the line and with Totti there, Arby would have more goals (though harms will have more possession).

Schnellinger/Briegel is also far from being complimentary. It will work but not at Schnellinger's peak (and I rate him as better LB than Briegel).

Barca's defensive line doesn't get much love here. Even Puyol from memory has had mixed reception and usually it's always the midfield securing the protection of the back four and starving the opposition of the ball, hence masking any deficiencies Barca backlines had in the past.

This x 10. That midfield overshadows every other facet of play.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

I have voted for harms and his story even if:
- Cr7 would have a great impact here
- I would have preferred a target striker in his team given the team shape
- his midfield is maybe excessively playmaking

I would have voted for you if you had a more energetic midfield. Also I now tend to severely underrate players like Bernardini and cucureddu with limited video footage.

In these draft, a result doesn't deliver a sense.

The energy in the midfield isn’t too bad. From what I read about bernardini he was an all rounder full of passion and desire. Also, look at the pictures of him, that’s a fine jawline and physique, he just looks like an an energetic player.

I think as a community we have to start accepting that certain players from pre 1940s we’re capable of being GOAT candidates, some maybe even tier 1.

I made a point to @P-Nut0712 that when players have stadiums,training facilities and streets named after them it’s a pretty big indicator of that persons level of success in football. Statues aswell.

We have “Estádio mane Garrincha”
The “Ernst Happel stadium” The “Sir Alex Ferguson Stand” and “sir Matt busby way” and we also have at old trafford the holy trinity statue with best, law and Charlton.

Now in 100 years it might be difficult for people to truly understand why those names are all so legendary. But right now, we get it, because of all the footage and information available.

I’m sure you could find people who watched bernardini and meazza play, and transport them to 2018 they would be very angry that the players were not getting recognition.

Bernardini has a training facility named after him and is in the hall of fame. Meazza has a stadium name after him and is in the hall of fame. When assessing there’s players in drafts, I think it’s safe to assume that they belong in the GOAT discussions and should not be discounted. You simply don’t get the eternal legacy that those two have unless you’re something really special.

 

[Deleted member 101472]

@Edgar Allan Pillow I didn’t want to bang on about the most obvious mismatch on the field.

Really wanted to hear more about cudicini’s story.

 

[Ecstatic]

@Arbitrium

You're right but let's imagine I present in this draft the following team for round 1

RB - Crompton
LB - De Vecchi
CB - Lorant + Pezzey
CM - Ocwirk + andrade + fritz walter
Offensive trio: morton + orsi + Bloomer

Unfortunately, you guess the outcome whatever the opposing team

 

[Deleted member 101472]

@Arbitrium

You're right but let's imagine I present in this draft the following team for round 1

RB - Crompton
LB - De Vecchi
CB - Lorant + Pezzey
CM - Ocwirk + andrade + fritz walter
Offensive trio: morton + orsi + Bloomer

Unfortunately, you guess the outcome whatever the opposing team

For the players I mentioned we have quotes from people too about how good they were. All evidence must be used.

And that’s a damn fine midfield