The Reality Draft - QF: Jayvin vs The Red Viper

[The Red Viper]

No no, just that you have a front three who are all comfortable in a high pressing system which is something you should have used. Of course one that starts when they enter your own half, but still those three could have done a massive job defensively from the front.

They could have pressed high up the pitch, yes. But, two things. I need them not to be too far away from my midfield. Even though both Bastian and Scholes possess a great range of passing, you can't expect them to find those attackers in the final third everytime. Also, since I wouldn't have dominated possession, they would have had a lot of running to do which would haven't helped them because they would have consumed a lot of energy winning the ball back. I would rather prefer them to save their energy and be fresh whenever I initiate attacks. However, I should have mentioned in my tactics about Eto'o pressing Blanc.

 

[The Red Viper]

counterattacks are used excessive in these drafts. Almost every one writes, that he is playing on the counter regardless of the team. There are very few top teams nowadays that sole rely on counterattacks. Most teams are not going full-possession or full counterattck, nut something in between. Furthermore there is a difference between a quick transition/direct play and counterattacks. Its not the same.

I love both teams, but I am pretty disappointed by both managers and the tactical discussion. TRV has Schweinsteiger, Scholes and Eto in his lineup and he really wants to focus on counterattacks? These are great player to control a match, ignoring that to focus on only one aspect seems unreasonable. Its the same with Jayvin. Alonso, Figo and Boban (who I dont know very well) add more than counterattacking threat.

I guess I understand why the managers are doing that. Its very easy and the caf overrates it, but its not realistic or good.

I had to play on counters against Jayvin. With the pace he had in Overmars, Romario and Figo and considering both my CBs were slow on the turn, it would have been very risky had I decided to take the game to him because I would have played right into his hands. If I had a Nesta or Rio in there, I would have contemplated the idea of a high backline with a high-pressing and possession based football but with Vidic - Stam against Romario, that was a no go for me. Now, I could have played a possession based football with a deep backline as well but do you think it would have yielded results?

 

[antohan]

Also, Sagnol can still affect the games from deep. His crossing from deep was sensational.

It was indeed, great early crosser.

 

[The Red Viper]

It was indeed, great early crosser.

Both his and Abidal's performances often gets underrated in that 2006 World Cup. Usually everyone is like how Zidane single handedly dragged that teams to the finals when in reality the likes of Thuram, Vieira, Sagnol and Abidal played a very important part as well.

 

[antohan]

They could have pressed high up the pitch, yes. But, two things. I need them not to be too far away from my midfield. Even though both Bastian and Scholes possess a great range of passing, you can't expect them to find those attackers in the final third everytime. Also, since I wouldn't have dominated possession, they would have had a lot of running to do which would haven't helped them because they would have consumed a lot of energy winning the ball back. I would rather prefer them to save their energy and be fresh whenever I initiate attacks. However, I should have mentioned in my tactics about Eto'o pressing Blanc.

All very good points. I didn't think the pressing was required or a good idea, but you are right about Blanc.

 

[antohan]

Both his and Abidal's performances often gets underrated in that 2006 World Cup. Usually everyone is like how Zidane single handedly dragged that teams to the finals when in reality the likes of Thuram, Vieira, Sagnol and Abidal played a very important part as well.

As much as Thuram, Blanc, Desailly, Lizarazu and Deschamps bossed it in '98!

 

[Chesterlestreet]

I think a big cause is that the more in depth you go about things - the more enemies you will make who disagree with you. The more generic you are, and the less you actually say - the more you let the voter just assume you will play exactly like he thinks "your players would play".

So by just throwing in a generic statement, like "I will play counter-attacking football" and writing a story about your players attributes you avoid being called out for just leaving it blank - which you basically could have done instead.

This is largely true. But then it's up to discerning voters to ask questions - as you often do yourself to your credit (it always spices up the match threads). If they don't, the manager in question gets away with being generic - and in my book that's fair enough. It's an easy way to win an argument - not going into bothersome details - but a legitimate one. The onus is on the opposition to demand a more in-depth explanation.

We all use certain terms - but we don't all understand the same by these terms. That in itself may be worth further inquiries: "You say you intend to press, possess, hit 'em on the counter - what exactly do you mean? When your opponent does X, Y or Z - how do you deal with this, give me some details."

That said, in this particular match TRV didn't simply state "I will play counter attacking football" - he provided more details than that and his players (in my opinion) were suited to his strategy. The latter is the most important part of it. You can employ what is essentially a non-strategy (just stating that you'll counter - or for that matter press or keep possession or whatever - and you may employ a detailed, fancy system...but both are as bad as each other if the players don't fit the bill or seem forced into roles which aren't their best.