You don't get my point. In this match he MUST cover for Facchetti and Kaizer. Having a attacking game is detrimental to his team not a even things factor.
Somewhat out-of-flow response, but as the point is pretty general, here it is:
I suppose what you said there goes right to the core of the “Euro/peak” problematics – but there have to be certain limits here, surely: What we had, in this particular example, was a player who is known as a brilliant (pure) defender in general and who did – unless anyone proves otherwise – play as a
defender (albeit probably not a “pure” one) in a Euro context, and who played very well on top of that (according to known sources).
Now, his role in this team (the draft team, I mean) clearly did NOT imply that he would be bombing forward as he undoubtedly did against France in the World Cup (but that is irrelevant) and as he may have done against France in '60 (but we don't know precisely what he did there). Which means that your argument has to be something like this: Because this player probably played something of an offensive role
for a defender in '60, he can ONLY play that role (or a very similar role) in this particular (fantasy) match. In spite of the fact that we know that he would have been more than capable of playing a LCB role – and that the role he excelled at in '60 would have been that of a defender (not a striker or a winger).
Spirit of the draft? Well, clearly – you can argue that it counts against him as such that he did not feature in exactly this role in a Euro context (as far as we know) – but this is surely a minor point unless the whole team is built around him in this arguably less than ideal role. And you certainly can't claim either a) that the role he did feature in (in a Euro context) was immensely different or b) that he is generally incapable of playing the role he's given here (the importance of the latter point becomes greater the less evidence we have to scrutinize, that's just the way it is).