The Virgin League Draft - Physiocrat vs. Šjor Bepo & Gio (GROUP E)

[Theon]

I dont really get it, Pirlo shined for both Milan and Juve with similar types of players who in fact were both much more on the ball then Gazza - Seedorf and Pogba. Lets focus on Seedorf as we are using Milan version of Pirlo, while both were of the same type(complete/b2b midfielders with great ball ability) their style was a bit different so while Seedorf in those days was more of a secondary playmaker we have Gazza who will roam around, use his powerful runs from midfield to break defensive system all while staying tactically disciplined and with good ball usage in first two thirds.
If anything, based on your views what Pirlo needs, he would have a bigger clash with Seedorf.
As for Hidegkuti, its just baffling....F9 overlapping or disrupting a deep-lying playmaker - its not like Pirlo had great success with Rui Costa and Hidegkuti with Bozsik.

Voted for your team mate and as I said in my post there’s lots to like about it so don’t take some views honestly held the wrong way. Waiting for the end of the game to respond on the Kante point as really don’t agree with you.

On Seedorf vs Gazza you must have a different perception of Seedorf to me as imo he’s the exact sort of selfless team player than you could stick with any midfield parter and he’d adapt his game and contribute accordingly. He definitely wasn’t the playmaker for Milan, that diamond ran through Pirlo and the quality of Seedorf was a compliment to that in a way that I don’t think Gascoigne’s dribbling and directness quite is in the same way. They’re very different players and I think Gazza could take up the sort of role (not necessarily position) that Kaka did in the Milan’s side but that’s not what that midfield three needs imo.

On Hidegkuti as I said in my post I think there’s one too many playmakers for a team with someone as dominant as Pirlo, so if Gascoigne wasn’t there I’d be fine with a false #9. As it is I think theres a lot of overlap between the three of them and the balance of the side would be better with a different sort of striker (or midfielder). End of the day it’s just my opinion and I don’t think there’s anything dreadfully wrong with it, I just don’t think it’s a Pirlo based side. No big deal. There’s some decent all-touch compilations of Bozsik on YouTube and he’s again a very different player to Pirlo so I don’t think the comparison is that great. Football was a lot different back then and you didn’t tend to get an orchestrator hitting 100+ passes a game the way someone like Pirlo or Xavi would.

 

[Theon]

He wasn’t really the deepest next to Drinkwater or Matic. They usually played as holding midfielders with him running around, winning the ball. The issue with Sarri/Lampard is not that he is not the deepest midfielder, it’s that he is asked to play a way bigger role in the attacking phase, which is not his forte. I doubt that this is the case here.

Yes obviously agree with you on the fundamental issue under Sarri being his role in the offensive phase, but disagree that has no correlation to his position on the park – it’s obviously related to the fact he was taking up positions higher up the pitch ahead of a deeper midfielder in Jorgino (which is the formation most similar to the one here frankly).

Also disagree with you that he wasn’t the deepest midfielder for Ranieri / Conte – both times he played in double pivots and was equally as deep as Matic / Drinkwater (in fact there are some stats that suggest Matic was more advanced than Kante). In this game he is positioned on the formation graphic in a 4-3-3 formation ahead of a single pivot in Pirlo, which is not the role he played under Ranieri, Conte or in the world cup winning side for Deschamps.

You can see the change of position under Ranieri, Conte and Sarri in these heat maps – there’s a whole load of them here (link) and these are the first ones in the list for each manager so I haven’t selectively chosen these. All games are 3-0 wins for Kante’s team so it’s the same ‘type’ of game and you can quite clearly see how much deeper he is under Ranieri and Conte than Sarri – so the requirement to be a greater part of the attacking phase was a direct consequence of him moving positions ahead of Jorginho as opposed to just a tactical switch. The two things are correlated.

Spoiler: Heat maps

Also just to clarify you seem to be assuming that when I say Kante was part of a deep double pivot that means he must have been a ‘holding player’ but I never made that argument – I’m obviously aware that Kante’s style of defending is based on heavy pressing and closing down of players, the point is that he was generally pressing horizontally across the midfield areas as opposed to vertically high up the pitch as he did under Sarri. Under both Ranieri and Conte he was doing that as part of a deep central midfield pairing as opposed to ahead of a pivot.

Here’s a graphic showing his different approaches under Ranieri and Conte – in both he rarely ventured high up the park and mostly patrolled the midfield areas. The biggest difference is that under Ranieri he pressed much wider, whereas Conte’s more structured style had him sitting deeper in more restrained central areas.

Also just to add – in terms of Kante not being a ‘deep midfielder’ you might remember when Kante first joined Chelsea there was commentary about him being asked to play a sitting Makelele role.. which is extremely deep and genuinely is a holding position. Obviously Conte moved away from that system post-the Arsenal defeat but it shows that he wasn’t playing this advanced hounding role which you’re suggesting. Another (quite surprising) stat to back that up would be (pre-3-0 vs Arsenal) Matic covering more ground than Kante for Chelsea (11.88 km vs 11.34 km) and generally pushing higher up the park whilst Kante sat and screened deeper.

In terms of the 3-4-2-1 that Conte moved to (which was Kante at his best winning Play of the Year) Kante was equally as deep as Matic in a solid double pivot, again Matic pushing up and contributing offensively with 7 assists in the league – by far his highest total ever and the 3rd highest in the Chelsea team. Kante also made almost twice as many interceptions than Matic (2.4 pg vs 1.4 pg) as he shielded the defence as well as closed down in terms of ball-winning - honestly the idea there was a deeper player in Matic with Kante pressing the ball up the park is really far off.

There’s a decent video from Tifo which talks about the 3-4-2-1 of Conte, quite short but shows how the double pivot worked and talks about the importance of Kante as a defensive shield freeing up the rest of the Chelsea team (i.e. the wing-backs) to move forward and attack.

Spoiler: Conte's 3-4-2-1

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Voted for your team mate and as I said in my post there’s lots to like about it so don’t take some views honestly held the wrong way. Waiting for the end of the game to respond on the Kante point as really don’t agree with you.

On Seedorf vs Gazza you must have a different perception of Seedorf to me as imo he’s the exact sort of selfless team player than you could stick with any midfield parter and he’d adapt his game and contribute accordingly. He definitely wasn’t the playmaker for Milan, that diamond ran through Pirlo and the quality of Seedorf was a compliment to that in a way that I don’t think Gascoigne’s dribbling and directness quite is in the same way. They’re very different players and I think Gazza could take up the sort of role (not necessarily position) that Kaka did in the Milan’s side but that’s not what that midfield three needs imo.

On Hidegkuti as I said in my post I think there’s one too many playmakers for a team with someone as dominant as Pirlo, so if Gascoigne wasn’t there I’d be fine with a false #9. As it is I think theres a lot of overlap between the three of them and the balance of the side would be better with a different sort of striker (or midfielder). End of the day it’s just my opinion and I don’t think there’s anything dreadfully wrong with it, I just don’t think it’s a Pirlo based side. No big deal. There’s some decent all-touch compilations of Bozsik on YouTube and he’s again a very different player to Pirlo so I don’t think the comparison is that great. Football was a lot different back then and you didn’t tend to get an orchestrator hitting 100+ passes a game the way someone like Pirlo or Xavi would.

Why would i take them the wrong way, you have a right to think what you want so you didnt really need to wait until the end of the game.

Not really, i also think Seedorf is a great teammate and would work well with pretty much anyone as he does have that selfless note in him - thing is, i also think the same for Gazza. Yes Gazza would add that directness of Kaka to this side and for this side(not Milan where you have Kaka) it works as you get that engine in the middle, someone who can disrupt the defensive system of the opposition and add something different to the team.

Hidegkuti and Pirlo are the only playmakers in this team, how is that too much? One is from the deep and the other is for the final third, its baffling. Gazza isnt a playmaker, never was.
Obviously they are not the same player but the fact is that both were deep-lying playmakers playing with a F9 playmaker, feck Hungray even had Puskas in the mix as well. Football changed yes, but will never change to that point where a forward playmaker will overlap with a playmaker from deep, feck in the modern game you even get more playmakers paired with each others in tight areas not less.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Yes obviously agree with you on the fundamental issue under Sarri being his role in the offensive phase, but disagree that has no correlation to his position on the park – it’s obviously related to the fact he was taking up positions higher up the pitch ahead of a deeper midfielder in Jorgino (which is the formation most similar to the one here frankly).

Also disagree with you that he wasn’t the deepest midfielder for Ranieri / Conte – both times he played in double pivots and was equally as deep as Matic / Drinkwater (in fact there are some stats that suggest Matic was more advanced than Kante). In this game he is positioned on the formation graphic in a 4-3-3 formation ahead of a single pivot in Pirlo, which is not the role he played under Ranieri, Conte or in the world cup winning side for Deschamps.

You can see the change of position under Ranieri, Conte and Sarri in these heat maps – there’s a whole load of them here (link) and these are the first ones in the list for each manager so I haven’t selectively chosen these. All games are 3-0 wins for Kante’s team so it’s the same ‘type’ of game and you can quite clearly see how much deeper he is under Ranieri and Conte than Sarri – so the requirement to be a greater part of the attacking phase was a direct consequence of him moving positions ahead of Jorginho as opposed to just a tactical switch. The two things are correlated.

Spoiler: Heat maps

Also just to clarify you seem to be assuming that when I say Kante was part of a deep double pivot that means he must have been a ‘holding player’ but I never made that argument – I’m obviously aware that Kante’s style of defending is based on heavy pressing and closing down of players, the point is that he was generally pressing horizontally across the midfield areas as opposed to vertically high up the pitch as he did under Sarri. Under both Ranieri and Conte he was doing that as part of a deep central midfield pairing as opposed to ahead of a pivot.

Here’s a graphic showing his different approaches under Ranieri and Conte – in both he rarely ventured high up the park and mostly patrolled the midfield areas. The biggest difference is that under Ranieri he pressed much wider, whereas Conte’s more structured style had him sitting deeper in more restrained central areas.

Also just to add – in terms of Kante not being a ‘deep midfielder’ you might remember when Kante first joined Chelsea there was commentary about him being asked to play a sitting Makelele role.. which is extremely deep and genuinely is a holding position. Obviously Conte moved away from that system post-the Arsenal defeat but it shows that he wasn’t playing this advanced hounding role which you’re suggesting. Another (quite surprising) stat to back that up would be (pre-3-0 vs Arsenal) Matic covering more ground than Kante for Chelsea (11.88 km vs 11.34 km) and generally pushing higher up the park whilst Kante sat and screened deeper.

In terms of the 3-4-2-1 that Conte moved to (which was Kante at his best winning Play of the Year) Kante was equally as deep as Matic in a solid double pivot, again Matic pushing up and contributing offensively with 7 assists in the league – by far his highest total ever and the 3rd highest in the Chelsea team. Kante also made almost twice as many interceptions than Matic (2.4 pg vs 1.4 pg) as he shielded the defence as well as closed down in terms of ball-winning - honestly the idea there was a deeper player in Matic with Kante pressing the ball up the park is really far off.

There’s a decent video from Tifo which talks about the 3-4-2-1 of Conte, quite short but shows how the double pivot worked and talks about the importance of Kante as a defensive shield freeing up the rest of the Chelsea team (i.e. the wing-backs) to move forward and attack.

Spoiler: Conte's 3-4-2-1

Appreciate the post and its a well constructed but this is the problem with stats, they say a lot but in the same time they tell you nothing.
Reminds me when morons at sky went and compared the current Liverpool team with a 99 United and there you have the genius Carragher(who i like actually) trying to argue how Mane is/was better then Giggs using stats not taking into account that both teams played a completely different ball game - similar to here where you using stats from different setups that have no touching points with this team or between themselves.

Yes obviously agree with you on the fundamental issue under Sarri being his role in the offensive phase, but disagree that has no correlation to his position on the park – it’s obviously related to the fact he was taking up positions higher up the pitch ahead of a deeper midfielder in Jorgino (which is the formation most similar to the one here frankly).

Already covered the issues in first post above Kante about why it has no correlation with this team, its a lazy comparison no offence. This team has Pirlo, Sarri team had Lidl Pirlo so everything will be the same.

Also disagree with you that he wasn’t the deepest midfielder for Ranieri / Conte – both times he played in double pivots and was equally as deep as Matic / Drinkwater (in fact there are some stats that suggest Matic was more advanced than Kante). In this game he is positioned on the formation graphic in a 4-3-3 formation ahead of a single pivot in Pirlo, which is not the role he played under Ranieri, Conte or in the world cup winning side for Deschamps.

thats how a midfield 2 works.....

You can see the change of position under Ranieri, Conte and Sarri in these heat maps – there’s a whole load of them here (link) and these are the first ones in the list for each manager so I haven’t selectively chosen these. All games are 3-0 wins for Kante’s team so it’s the same ‘type’ of game and you can quite clearly see how much deeper he is under Ranieri and Conte than Sarri – so the requirement to be a greater part of the attacking phase was a direct consequence of him moving positions ahead of Jorginho as opposed to just a tactical switch. The two things are correlated.

Of course you can, Ranieri and Conte played defensive counter-attacking football while Sarri wanted to play possession heavy.
No its not, it was a consequence of team not having the right kind personnel for the tactic, Kante would be perfectly fine in the same setup if he had a normal fullback on his side(Sagnol), a right winger that can do something(Mbappe) on the ball, anything other then running and most importantly a third midfield partner(Gazza) that can take over the offensive burden of him as thats not his job, or at least it shouldnt be if you want peak Kante.
Lets even ignore the fact that Pirlo on a bad night with a blindfold this more in the final third then Jorginho in his whole career combined.

Also just to clarify you seem to be assuming that when I say Kante was part of a deep double pivot that means he must have been a ‘holding player’ but I never made that argument – I’m obviously aware that Kante’s style of defending is based on heavy pressing and closing down of players, the point is that he was generally pressing horizontally across the midfield areas as opposed to vertically high up the pitch as he did under Sarri. Under both Ranieri and Conte he was doing that as part of a deep central midfield pairing as opposed to ahead of a pivot.

Here we finally agree on something, sort off. It has nothing to do is he playing with a pivot or not, if anything he would get more freedom to press and hound. Dont even think there was much if any of the issue with Kante defensively under Sarri, it just didnt work on the offensive end which then involves lesser results, negativity in the camp, loss of confidence through the team and it affects everyones performance.

Also just to add – in terms of Kante not being a ‘deep midfielder’ you might remember when Kante first joined Chelsea there was commentary about him being asked to play a sitting Makelele role.. which is extremely deep and genuinely is a holding position.

Because people are morons.....black, short defensive minded player so it must be Makelele. Tall, lanky black midfielder and he is the next Vieira it doesnt matter how this players actually play.


As for the Conte stuff, dont even know where to begin as you cant compare stats and situations from back 3 formation to a back 4 formation.
In the defensive phase Kante would have the freedom to press and hound in a team that defends from a balanced mid line, so neither we are parking the bus nor we pressing high. In the offensive phase he wouldnt go up like he had to for Sarri, he would stay behind and protect. Either the central zones or cover for Sagnol when he goes up, depending on situation.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

good game @Physiocrat , tbh i also thought you would go with Schuster on the right. Id have Cocu - Carrick midfield, Schuster on the right, Albert and Crespo up front.

 

[Physiocrat]

Well played @Šjor Bepo

You have a great side. I think you would be better having Gazza at RCM instead of Kante to even up the attacking prowess on either side.

@Theon

Interesting stuff on Kante. What position and partner would you ideally have with him? IMO it seems he would be best as a defensive B2B in a 4231.

As for me I probably made a mistake with Ceulemans on Pirlo. I was probably better off keeping the same formation from the first game and exploit Pirlo's relatively poor defensive game and mobility with Albert. Hoping now for the best loser but this scoreline doesn't help.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Well played @Šjor Bepo

You have a great side. I think you would be better having Gazza at RCM instead of Kante to even up the attacking prowess on either side.

cheers, and he is on the left to balance the sides as our right side is much stronger both in the build up and in final third. We switch sides and our left side is as effective as the right side of United with AWB and Jesse/Mata.

 

[Physiocrat]

good game @Physiocrat , tbh i also thought you would go with Schuster on the right. Id have Cocu - Carrick midfield, Schuster on the right, Albert and Crespo up front.

I never considered that as I always wanted to give Schuster the main gig in the middle

 

[Physiocrat]

cheers, and he is on the left to balance the sides as our right side is much stronger both in the build up and in final third. We switch sides and our left side is as effective as the right side of United with AWB and Jesse/Mata.

My main thought is that Candela is a bigger threat going forward than Sagnol and Candela would be more offensive so I would switch them on that account.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

My main thought is that Candela is a bigger threat going forward than Sagnol and Candela would be more offensive so I would switch them on that account.

True but Lopez was more of a final third player so even if Candela was Marcelo he would need a bit of help from the midfield. Gazza was just a perfect fit for all parties involved.

 

[Jim Beam]

Rate that midfield above both Milan and Juventus while Pirlo played there. And then you have Hidegkuti - Bozsik vibes.