Out of interest do you see Nesta is a player who can be either stopper or sweeper.. or is he not the sort of player you'd want alongside say a Ferdinand.
Surveillance Draft - R1- Physiocrat vs mazhar13/Enigma_87
- Thread starter green_smiley
- Start date
Ahem cough bergkamp Ronaldo
My sincere apologies dude.. I didn't mean it xoxox
Haha xxxxx
Bit of both, an all-rounder like Figueroa or Silva even.
That's surprising. And rating Desailly ahead of Nesta is strange too. I'd pick Marcel if I needed more physicality from my CB but if we're picking one to build a team around it would be Nesta
Is there any tournament where Nesta is better than Desailly's WC'98. I might catch Nesta not on the right time, every time I watched him.
If we take this to extreme we get that funny Team of 11 Cristiano Ronaldos vs. Team of 11 James Milners that Football Manager simulated during the Euros for fun
International? No, I don't think so. His body of work in Serie A and CL is more impressive than Desailly's (as a defender) though.
I'm a fan of Desailly and have picked him a few times, such a unique and brilliant player. Like Gio said, defensively he is as good as anyone in a midfield role (Rijkaard is superior only in his all-roundness), and I definitely rate him in a top tier of stoppers, with Nesta (still plays a stopper's role next to a libero in an all-time XI), Kohler and arguably a few others.
That's not how it works. Messi is an incredibly versatile forward. Try fitting 2 Maradona's in your team. Or maybe 2 Xavi's. Your argument only works with limited players imo and not a generic one.
For me, it's not a dysfunctional partnership, but better clarity on roles is available when partnered with other players.
Kinda similar argument on the discussion in earlier draft on a Baresi-Figueroa partnership.
Some memories I have about Nesta in CL are all bad ones. CL Final against Liverpool, and Rooney scored two past him.
Even as a defender, I actually see Desailly as superior to Nesta. But with so many rate Nesta better, I have doubting my opinion now.
I see Raul and Shevcenko as versatile forwards. Both can scores and assist, and have intelligent movement. Better clarity roles is a better partnership when equipped with equivalent quality.
People say that Raul-Morientes is a good partnership. But I'd take any day of the week of Raul-Ronaldo partnership.
Wow.. he really was an exciting winger. Very direct too.. honestly don't think Ruud would have an issue with him, he has a different style to Ronaldo who likes to beat his full back with trickery.. whereas Kanchelskis uses pure agility like a Matthews.
Glad you liked it. Him and Giggs in that early 90s United side were brilliant.
It's become a joke round here, I know, but if there actually is a «United way», those two racing down the wings is pretty close to it - for me. Probably haven't enjoyed any other vintage as much as that first golden Fergie side, on all sorts of levels and for all sorts of reasons.
It is pretty tough to rate Desailly as a centre back. Overall I agree with you but I can see why others would rate him higher as it is one of those cases that depends a bit on what you consider a peak and how you rate longevity over the peak. He was included in the team of the tournament in '96, '98 and '00 and one could argue that he was perfectly capable of performing as a CB in his physical peak as well regardless of not playing there consistently at the time. He was thrown in the deep end and had to play there for those tournaments and he was an absolute beast when called upon.
Again, nobody said that. It was a selective statement to equate players in their PL incarnations rather than compare peaks. You should expect a rival manager like Gio to do that.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
TBH, this seems like a constant in this game: you latch onto something apparently negative about your team, interpret it in an even more negative way, and explore it ad nauseam. Result? The discussion revolves around negatives and you look defensive. It doesn't help you one bit.
Compare to the game you mentioned where I was facing Desailly, Stam and Scirea. There's no way I would want the narrative to revolve around how great those three are, so instead I poise the dilemma of who is more likely to score Raúl or Vieri, straight from the off in the OP. "I put Raúl because some of you won't rate Vieri". Result: discussion revolves around the likelihood of scoring with either, that's a good thing. Those thinking Raúl show their approval by putting their vote where their mouth is. Once they have all voted, I bring on Vieri and all those who had been arguing it was Vieri now vote for the team after subs. Easy peasy.
Indeed, I loved that side. Shame about the foreigner rules making it impossible to play full strength in Europe.
Tbh I didn't as he was already out, so rivalry is not something I had in mind at that point. It's pointless to compare PL incarnations alone since this is peak form. It's like comparing Sheva's PL form compared to peak - pretty useless if you ask me.
There were many others that confirmed the quality of Desailly over the other two so in that sense I think I proved my point. The discussion revolved around our attack more than the quality of the defence.
There was many points in that game including you involved in discussion if Raul can be a lone forward. It revolved around that from memory. Sometimes some change their vote, sometimes they don't. You know how it works and you can't possibly win all games. Either way it's a pity as I think we had the better team, but what can you do happens sometimes.
He made that point during the game though.
There was no point to prove. Everyone agrees Desailly is quality. What happened was that making it a discussion point only helped paint his pair in a good light and have everyone wondering about Christian Worns. You got schooled.
You reply as if we were arguing, all I'm doing is laying out reasons why you lost, since you guys asked.
I was wondering why people were voting for the other team without commenting or participating in the discussion. For you it might be Worns for others it might be something else.
I gave you 4-5 different reasons, but keep wondering I guess.
One way to create doubt is attack a player directly. The danger is someone coming out in their rabid defence (e.g. Zmuda
). Alternatively you talk around him and get everyone comparing Desailly vs. Thiago and Campbell. The unspoken elephant in the room ends up being Desailly's partner.I was going to address that myself (seeing that no one was even mentioning Wörns) by making an all-touches-and-moments video of him of a match that I found (UEFA Cup final 2001 when Kohler got sent off and Reuter partnered Wörns in defence). However, the match file got corrupted whilst I was editing it, and it was midnight where I was, so I didn't feel like starting all over again.
It's sad because, after watching Wörns, I really came to appreciate his reading of the game and intelligence. He really was a great German defender who sadly isn't better-remembered.
As I said, there could be 10 or even 20 reasons as different people view in different way all aspects of the pitch and formations.I gave you 4-5 different reasons, but keep wondering I guess.
One way to create doubt is attack a player directly. The danger is someone coming out in their rabid defence (e.g. Zmuda
Worns wouldn't get much love as he's rather unknown quantity and his injury woes during the biggest international tournaments doesn't help his case. The best way is to big up his partner as being the best CB on the pitch and make him complimentary to him(which IMO he is and that was the reason why we picked him).
The Zmuda example is a good one, despite a lot of people giving him credit(myself included) still a lot of people were voting due to him in the line up and being a focal point of the discussion. So as always it can go both ways
Please someone call the Draft police!! The secret winning code is leaked, folks.
Worns was a clumsy big giant. But I had him in one of the draft on other forum, and did a bit research on him. I don't think he'd be a problem at all in your team.I was going to address that myself (seeing that no one was even mentioning Wörns) by making an all-touches-and-moments video of him of a match that I found (UEFA Cup final 2001 when Kohler got sent off and Reuter partnered Wörns in defence). However, the match file got corrupted whilst I was editing it, and it was midnight where I was, so I didn't feel like starting all over again.
It's sad because, after watching Wörns, I really came to appreciate his reading of the game and intelligence. He really was a great German defender who sadly isn't better-remembered.
Its interesting, I've gotten in about a match and a half of Poland from the 70s since that discussion and one thing I noticed was how often the annoucners call out Gorgon's name compared to Zmuda. If I wasn't trying to watch for him, and I was just watching on TV back in the 70s I can see how people would remember Gorgon from that defense more than Zmuda just because of how the coverage happened, at least from the 2 matches I seen.The Zmuda example is a good one, despite a lot of people giving him credit(myself included) still a lot of people were voting due to him in the line up and being a focal point of the discussion. So as always it can go both ways