Want to tag them so they know it's done?
The Criteria Draft - Preliminary Discussion
- Thread starter RoadTrip
- Start date
So we judge solely based on the formation or will there be any write-ups?
I ca do player profiles and a write up...probably won't be able to get it done tonight though. 10pm here now. Depends how quickly the turn around time on this is supposed to be.
What is this?
I've added the strategy to the lineup.
I think you missed a trick here. You have a classic Dutch total football type of formation. Type "Dutch World Cup Squad 1974" and you get Suurbier right and Bergomi looking a safer bet than Jonquet centrally, Piet Keizer, Rob Rensenbrink or Johnny Rep who suit this better than Julinho and you get the option of Best to play on the right if you want it (I would). Bozsik is better positioned where Monti (a misfit) is and instead you could play Philip Cocu there.
Last, but not least, if you don't fancy Suurbier vs. Stoichkov... well, you can keep Bergomi there and play Bobby Moore in the central role.
Heh, Bobby Moore seems a right miss. (No slight on Jonquet, of course.)
They were going off their full names in wiki so Bobby Moore doesn't apply.
I'm sure they both thought of Bobby Moore.
I'm sure they both thought of Bobby Moore.
Yeah. Suurbier and Moore do not qualify. Neither do Keizer and Cocu.
Comments on my team?
Your choice for the victor?
Comments on my team?
Your choice for the victor?
Oh, I see you are using full extended names... that's ridiculous tbh. It effectively goes down to parents being idiots who can't make up their minds on a single name.
BTW, Oleg Blokhin could play on the left then, letting Best be on the right. Good example on the full name being a problem, under en.wikipedia he qualifies (Oleh Volodymyrovych Blokhin), es.wikipedia he doesn't (Oleg Vladímirovich Blojín).
Skizzo, hands down. Bergomi and Krol are immense so I can't see him being too vulnerable despite the back three. In fact, you would want a back three with players like them to deal with those counters while throwing the kitchen sink at that double bank of defensive players.
The tipping point is that quartet of Best, Rivelino, Seeler and Bozsik our left. Yes, you have Kohler, whom I rate highly but that quartet is unstoppable and will turn you inside out over and over again. And then there's Gullit alternating between midfield and attack.
You are stuffed here, but I've no idea whether you could have done any better (other than Blokhin also being better than Völler as a striker for a side set up this way). The random criterion narrows the pool quite drastically and it may just be him being lucky the right sort of player is available for his formation, while there's little other than Stoichkov/Conti that really sets my pulse racing with your side (but, again, Krol/Bergomi is as good a match as you could get).
I definitely preferred picking for my formation...I think I got fortunate that I was able to get Bergomi and Krol and then build the rest of the team while Edgar had to try and find defenders for his formation.
Was fun and challenging...although I agree the full name made it a bit of a chore with selections.
Was fun and challenging...although I agree the full name made it a bit of a chore with selections.
I think the midfield three works perfectly, both Bozsik and Monti could play as both a CM and DM and the same goes with Gullit so I believe they'd interchange who would be going forward and not without issues.
I don't think Cocu is a better player than Monti, not near being the same player even - although he suits a formation like this well I wouldn't want him replacing Monti.
Everything looks pretty perfect for Skizzo with Jonquet clearly looking the odd man out even if he was a great player.
For EAP I think Kohler is the only one at that top level in history which I guess is down to the roles you had to fill having less players fitting the criteria. I would give it to Skizzo and who got Gullit and not certainly was a huge decider.
I don't think Cocu is a better player than Monti, not near being the same player even - although he suits a formation like this well I wouldn't want him replacing Monti.
Everything looks pretty perfect for Skizzo with Jonquet clearly looking the odd man out even if he was a great player.
For EAP I think Kohler is the only one at that top level in history which I guess is down to the roles you had to fill having less players fitting the criteria. I would give it to Skizzo and who got Gullit and not certainly was a huge decider.
I'll go with Skizzo as well. His midfield is great and from there on providing the ammunition to that attack, they should get the win.
I think he pretty much nailed it. Gullit is the absolute perfect way to even improve on the Seedorf role, him being better defensively than Seedorf was at the time and pretty equal going forward and out wide right.
Monti isn't going to sit as deep as Rijkaard did during those years where he was far from in his physical peak. So I can see why Bozsik, another defensively minded midfielder would get the edge over someone providing that Davids role. Especially considering the quality you are bound to face from the opponent in a draft environment in comparison to in reality where Davids, Seedorf and Rijkaard, all all-time greats, had a huge skill superiority.
What have you been smoking? Gullit shits on Seedorf. I like Seedorf, think he doesn't get his fair dues, but Gullit is in another planet, particularly going forward.
Seedorf was outstanding going forward primarily in his earlier days in this exact role. Gullit is a much superior player acting centrally in the pitch with his "complete" goal threat but out wide moving up from a central midfield role I think they will provide similar things.
Seedorf was brilliant at accelerating in to space slightly out wide from his central midfield role and I don't think that was something Gullit had in his locker. Gullit would have been a lot better as a right winger than Seedorf, but in the pseudo CM/RM role I don't see Gullit providing more offensively than him.
I wouldn't say it if it wasn't for having rewatched the 96-00 seasons for Real recently. But like I said Seedorf was never as good defensively in this time as he later became, but when he became great defensively he no longer had the offensive ability of his youth.
Gullit had it all, at the same time but I really can't see Gullit providing a right sided diamond role offense greater than Seedorf did.
But that's what Julinho is there for (or Best if switched). This is not a 4-4-2 diamond (where Seedorf would be more accomplished, indeed), the role is actually quite different and the beauty of Gullit is he can turn 3-4-3 (3-3-3-1) diamond into 3-5-2 (3-2-3-2) instantly.
Depends on whether this is the LVG or Cruyff version. In the Cruyff version I would agree but LVG had Davids a newly converted LW/AM and Seedorf a RW playing these roles and they provided a lot of attacking the wide areas.
You've hinted right there why that happened, they were wide players converted to CM, the outstanding/unique thing wasn't their wide play but the fact they were effective as a central midfield partnership despite that propensity to peel wide. The key there was having the beastly, experienced and tactically aware Rijkaard in a side that didn't start 3-4-3 but switched from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3 at ease as a result of Rijkaard moving up to midfield to cover their arses.
It's an interesting one that... you usually see "proper" central pairs with a pivot behind them who can drop into defence to cover the fullbacks foraging forward. With Ajax what you had was less aggressive fullbacks and a defender moving up to midfield to cover the wide-foraging CMs. It worked, but I'd argue that's not the setup here, not when I see Luis Monti playing DM and a central defender who will also be completely unfamiliar with what is being asked of him. That's precisely why Cocu (if he wasn't also John-William) would be a better fit, the base of the spine is bound to be all over the place so Skizzo could do with a pivot who is equally comfortable in midfield and defence and has the tactical discipline and nous to decide when to do either.
Personally I still fancy my team. He has an advantage in Gullit, but on the other side Boszik is not a wide midfielder. He is more like a creative CM or even a DLP, but in that side he will bet beaten by Conti repoeatedly. Again Krol is a tough defender, but if it gets to 1v1 situations, I rpefer Conti. And Stoichkov on the other side.
It never crossed my mind Bozsik's job would be to track Conti, not even Proscinecki unless Krol has been caught out and Monti needs to cover him. Not an issue at all IMO. Not a watertight setup clearly, but part and parcel when taking the initiative.
Ideally its not the best placement of Bozsik, but I felt Monti would offer enough cover to allow the rest of the midfielders and front 4 to cause some serious damage. The front 4 I feel is enough to cause damage regardless, but with Gullit and Bozsik behind to pull some strings as well, it could produce some good stuff.
like Anto pointed out, theres probably a few players maybe better suited to the set up, but I feel it turned out quite well considering the name rule in place.
Krol and Bergomi I think are key to any success I would have. I think they are probably the best players I could have gotten for this...shame Bobby Chelsea Moore had an unfortunate name.
like Anto pointed out, theres probably a few players maybe better suited to the set up, but I feel it turned out quite well considering the name rule in place.
Krol and Bergomi I think are key to any success I would have. I think they are probably the best players I could have gotten for this...shame Bobby Chelsea Moore had an unfortunate name.
Other than Blokhin, everyone else I mentioned was ruled out, so it's pretty damned good indeed.
Even if I'd rather he were played centrally, it is fortunate to have Bergomi on his most dangerous man, and Krol would be my first choice for that role even if there had been no name constraints.