Aye, I said as much, was the only recognisable pattern I could see in how they would go about the game.Yeah and that's a pretty bad tactic here given the opposition will stretch the backline on the other side. Also Man City in the last few years have been sensational in using overlapping fullbacks and especially Silva has combined beautifully with Zabaleta in this exact same role - can only imagine the partnership he will have with Zanetti with all the space Serginho has left behind. That Zanetti-Silva-Sheva axis is a beauty and without great protection it will be a chance creation highway.
For all the kudos for Kanchelskis and Ruud people forgot about Ryan Giggs.
Surveillance Draft - R1- Physiocrat vs mazhar13/Enigma_87
- Thread starter green_smiley
- Start date
Agree, 100%. As I said, that was the clincher for me. It went from great pair to total confusion as to what they were playing at.
When in doubt I'll always go for the team setting up to get the most out of their players.
Haha yeah I remember that game, watching Milan win games like that used to be painful back then, had no love for them whatsoever!
But yeah Serginho's dynamic attacking was always useful and there are plenty of memorable CL moments that involve that, but that Milan setup was tailor made to afford their fullbacks that freedom, like it was with Cafu on the other side without getting exposed. Here, it won't work.
I think you are underrating Desailly as a CB. He started there for Milan in some big occasions when needed and did a stellar job. If winning CL and the biggest international tournaments is not a compelling case I don't know what else isBigger name, mostly because of what he did as a defensive midfielder at Milan. You can make the same point about Basile Boli who was even more influential in the 1993 final so it's hardly a unique badge of quality. I don't think there are many on here who would argue that his best position was as a DM - where he's as good as anyone ever IMO - and his second best position is as a CB - where he's still class but not quite as compelling. Ultimately most of his CB career was before the age of 25 and after the age of 30. I'm hardly shitting on your players here. As for Sol Campbell, I rate him higher than most and would pair him with Rio in a post-92 Prem or England XI. He was outstanding in the 1998, 2002 and 2004 tournaments. Same for Thiago Silva where most of the criticism appears to be the fact he played in Serie A and Ligue Un, rather than a reflection on his abilities and performances on the park. Look at these quotes for example:
Cocu is on the wrong side, it's clear as day - having a right-footer on the left in CM and a left-footer on the right isn't optimal. Not a match-decider, but an easy thing to get right. You had a rationale around that, which made sense, but I'm not sure if it helped or hindered the clutter ahead. I've always called CMs and CBs or wide midfielders on the wrong side - did you want a free pass, especially with one of my favourite players? And I'm not sure when was there a 3-man backline?And if so, where was your right-winger to exploit it?
Xavi was at the wrong side in the 2008 EURO, did that proved to be less influential for him?
Look at the graphic above. Physio started with a three man CB.
Either way I'm done with the game. Still it's a bit better to get a better picture of how neutrals view each side and what is wrong with it instead of little to no comments and Sheva/Raul as a focal point.
The reason was Vidal being the more energetic and explosive one would need more space to operate in while Cocu as a deeper playmaker and also occupying the right central channel will give the stage to Silva in the inside right.
If you swap them, although in their natural left/right side position you get less balance in that team with that forward line. But seems that people were more concentrated on left/right footedness.
Desailly along with the likes of Kohler and Santamaria has the argument of being in the top-3 stoppers of all time. Campbell and especially T. Silva don't match his credentials at all. The Frenchman was the lynchpin of one of the greatest defenses ever seen on the international stage, and a World Cup that was won on the back of that defense. And then going on to win a Euro soon after. Thiago Silva can take his yellow card and go home, he doesn't belong in this discussion. Campbell had brilliant physicality but in terms of reading the game, marking and intelligence he's not up there with Marcel, who was a beast physically himself.
I'm not saying you were wrong to do it and I appreciate the thought you put into it.. hence why I voted for you.
I was just saying it was a risk because most people look at the formation graphic and just think WTF and then no matter how good your reasoning is, they won't change their mind. In that sense, you gave yourself a hurdle which you didn't need to jump.
yeah there were one off games, but you know what I mean
Exactly, France's success on the international stage from 1998-2000 was built on their rock-solid defensive setup, and Desailly was a huge part of that. There's no way I'd put Campbell and Thiago Silva there with him even though both were really good defenders (I rate both quite highly and in the same tier as the likes of Ferdinand, Vidic, Nesta, etc., even if they aren't necessarily better defensively).
As i said, I liked the Sheva-Silva-Zanetti side. I could see how it would work (precisely, an upgrade on Aguero-Silva-Zabaleta). I don't think Sheva is a support striker, but what I don't think is he needs someone like Raúl next to him. I mean, Raúl would contribute some things Sheva is doing, others Silva is doing, and if he drifted left he could contribute, but there's Giggs there... I just don't see him fitting in a way which adds as much as his specific/individual weight as a player. I'd have rather seen someone more like Rui Costa with Sheva solo, or -in particular- another kind of CF to take advantage of Zanetti-Giggs crosses. Shevchenko and Raúl are both more ball on deck. In fact, everyone is ball on deck in that front four, some oomph would be useful.
It's not about "Raúl played well with Morientes" so you need a Morientes replica, it's -as you say- a matter of skillset. It's the skillset that made that pair perform and what Morientes/Crespo/Kluivert (a very late pick) can add is abundantly clear.
Yeah. Thank you for your input and participation in the match, mate. This is what the draft are all about and I'm glad that we had the discussion and your participation in it as it touched most of the topics at hand.
Precisely. He was natural as a stopper as they come. Playing as a DM and a CB in the sense Milan played required lot of similar qualities, hence the transition for him was really easy.
The fundamental issue is whether you are getting the most out of them or not. If the dynamics from your front four required Vidal on the left so he could bomb forward and someone more withdrawn on the right, then maybe Cocu wasn't the man. In fact, maybe you would have been better off with someone like Gattuso. What I sure won't do is rate Cocu in that role as highly as I otherwise rate him.
Questioning of Desailly's credentials as CB is very surprising. It's was his CB performances that got him the Milan role.
That's a strange way of seeing it. If you have two Messi in the team, one playing up-front, and the other as 2nd striker; why would you not like it, because they have the same skillset, and thus contributing the same way?
No worries pal, don't be disheartened - as always you demonstrated a deeper appreciation of the finer aspects of the game.
Isn't that what being a second striker's all about? Being able to contribute to all areas and cause confusion to the opposition accordingly? That's the reason we went for Raúl. He could confuse the midfielders/defenders with his vertical and horizontal movement whilst being effective in all areas of the final third. Plus, his goalscoring ability cannot be questioned, and he was very good in his positioning in the box, allowing him to get a variety of goals, including those that poachers would normally get. Having Rui Costa or Crespo in there would make it easier for the opposition to defend against us as they'd know where Rui Costa or Crespo would pop up. However, you can't say that about Raúl.
Whilst I appreciate the physical "oomph" being a key part of football teams, we wanted to add more guile and intelligence to deal with defences where such "oomph" can get cancelled out by the physical qualities of the opposition defenders. Thuram, Campbell, and Silva are all physical beasts. If we went with a more physical forward like Bierhoff, Crespo, Batigol, or Kluivert, Campbell would become more decisive. Instead, we tried to keep the physical qualities out of consideration with the players we picked and deal with those sort of physical beasts with more intelligent movement, poise, and fluidity.
I rate Desailly higher, but don't see why this is even an issue. Desailly isn't marking Campbell, or Silva.
I meant in terms of how the players are rated.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with all your sides sporting 9 AMs, one CB and a goalie.
I wouldn't mind two Messi's, one on either wing. Two in the middle? I'm sure you can find better pairs, even if Messi is individually better than any of the eligible partners.
Vidal in that role is optimal in our set up IMO. If you can argue otherwise I'm happy to hear your thoughts on it. Vidal with more space as box to box is better than to put him in Cocu's role as it was suggested.
You always have to sacrifice parts of someone's game in order to make a coherent unit and more balanced side. You know how it works. I've not put our entire gameplan on Cocu or Vidal in those roles. Our focal point was that front four and a solid backline led by Desailly and Zanetti. We didn't intend to control the possession or knock the ball around which I made clear right from the off, but more direct style which suits more our attacking quartet.
Cocu/Vidal roles were to bring steel to the midfield, get the ball back and provide the stage for the attacking unit.
Cocu and Vidal are both versatile enough to do that job in hand. Especially Cocu who in his whole career played in many positions fulfilling different roles.
I understand, it has come done to personal preference mainly at this point but I'd just repeat something you like to say at times - while you have Sheva, Silva, Giggs, Zanetti doing their jobs in attack - I expect Raul to be the match winner here, like he was for Madrid time and time again over the years. He's one of the most intelligent forwards to play the game, and a unique one at that. You lot rave about Thomas Muller being that guy who always pops up at the right place at the right time using his incredible positioning and intelligence - I'd just say Raul was like him while being times better on the ball minus the ruthless German winning mentality. He could literally pop up in any space, not just in front of goal but literally anywhere in a 25 odd yard range with the buildup that is going on via the rest of the team. And there were few better when it came to scoring literally all kinds of goals from any range - people would remember that he was the master of chip shots and some were from outrageous distances, a bit like Bergkamp who I remember saying knew which shot was the most difficult to save for the keeper and hence going for it. Raul had that composure and calmness, and the technique to go with it. This is really one of the few times I really liked how he was used, and he looks good to score the winner here.
You explained Raúl even better than I did. That's exactly who Raúl was in his pomp.
It was suggested by Gio that both Silva and Campbell are better CB's than him, which led to the argument.
Serginho requires plenty of supprt if he's going to be played as a FB for sure, and as much as I liked that the rest of Physio's defence could fan out into a back three so effectively, perhaps I underestimated the impact of Giggs stretching that defence from the other wing. I dunno, there was alot to like about both sides and I would have been amazed if the scoreline had been one-sided here. For me it just came down to which team caught my imagination more and in this case it was Physio's. I'm a huge RVN obsessive, I've got a soft spot for both Serginho and Signori, and maybe the fact that Physio gave such prominent roles to those two rarely picked but talented players just made his setup seem 'fresher' to me.yeah there were one off games, but you know what I mean
It seems you got the voters confused instead
So if your rivals are physically imposing the answer is playing midgets? Never underestimate the importance of giving your rival defenders a good battering. In fact, it's better to appeal to that side of their game somehow.
But there's the thing, you got tied up -and still seem tied up- in comparisons of relative quality across players.
Thanks for the kind words mate, nah no worries. I never feel a grudge or something if I lose a game and always appreciate the opponent. It's just this time I feel we(mostly me) couldn't get the point across which is the pity.
And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with all your sides sporting 9 AMs, one CB and a goalie.
I wouldn't mind two Messi's, one on either wing. Two in the middle? I'm sure you can find better pairs, even if Messi is individually better than any of the eligible partners.
Football is an artistic sport. Those AM's can put it better than any other positions.Anyway, I think some players that have similar skillset but having great teamwork and football intelligent, would work in the team. Maradona and Messi that have some similarity would work. CRonaldo and Bale would work. Suarez-Griezman would work. Having Vieira-Keano as CM pair would work. Raul and Shevcenko would work also.
Last edited:
No, I'm only discussing this post-match. During the match, our main focus wasn't on why Desailly should be rated higher though we did keep mentioning that so that Gio's point didn't infiltrate the voters without considering Desailly's ability there. Our central defence was clearly defined and set up, so we didn't do discuss as much as Physio did with his 4-2-3-1-in-defence-then-WM-going-forward explanation.
Yeah, and that's where our front 4 comes into play. None of them unsettled by physically stronger players. All 4 of them were up for the physical challenge in varying degrees, especially Sheva, who did excellently in dealing with more physical players himself.
Very much so.
That was odd coming from you mate - didn't you sub off Vieri for Raul in the reality draft when playing against Desailly, Stam and Scirea?
Aye, he was impeccable as a centre back. Granted, he didn't have much of a career there but his body of work there for France is good enough to guarantee his place right up there with the best stoppers. And he was just as good in the 1996 Euros too, making the TOTM in '96 Euros, '98 WC and '00 Euros. Sort of like Beckenbauer in midfield for Germany in '66 and '70, with regards to their dual midfield and defensive roles.
Campbell and Thiago Silva don't come anywhere close to Desailly afaic, esp the latter.
Yeah. It's weird that anyone could criticize any players position in your team. The argument should be if the opponent has better players in that position. Which is still confusing because yours have better overall defence; and I fancy your team in midfield battle. Not to mention you have better overall attacking force (more creative, unpredictable, and varies in goal's threat and sources).
To be fair I didn't want to overly criticize Physio's team. IMO we had the better team and wanted to focus on our strengths rather than put the stress on the opponent. Seems that it didn't work well this time round.
No, not really, it was the other way around.That was odd coming from you mate - didn't you sub off Vieri for Raul in the reality draft when playing against Desailly, Stam and Scirea?
I started with Raúl as I was playing on the counter and I expected Stam to be seen as negating Vieri and Scirea negating Baggio = 0 goals. Starting Raúl was more about making Stam look like a useless lump(post) and them two playing their way around Scirea.
As it turns out, it didn't work and I subbed OFF Raúl and brought ON Vieri which turned the game around in my favour.
Ah, yes, I remember something like it. It was Raul starting as a lone striker and Baggio off him. That was a fun draft.
No it wasn't. This is what I said, which was in response to you claiming he was well ahead of them:
I stand by that assessment of their respective Premier League careers. When he moved back to centre-half in 1998, I was impressed with Desailly's physicality and abilities in the 1v1. He gets a lot of positive feedback from other players on that aspect. But particularly at Chelsea I don't think he was as mobile as earlier in his career, and his reading of the game wasn't absolute top tier. He got caught out a few times as a result, more than I expected to be honest based on his performances at Euro '96 and France '98 (at least until his red card in the final @Aldo).
Overall package Desailly is clearly a level above. Purely as a centre-half based on what he did at Marseille, Chelsea and with France, I'm not as convinced he belongs in the absolute top tier alongside Kohler and Nesta. Still, a notch below those two and earlier GOATs like Figueroa and Baresi is no criticism at all IMO.
Yes I stand by this claim and we are obviously comparing them on peak level not respective Chelsea/Arsenal career only. That's why I quoted his international form right from the off.
Even if you are claiming they are equal I think you won't find many followers who will take either of them instead of Desailly as a CB
What a genius. Three assists and a goal