Annahnomoss
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2012
- Messages
- 10,101
g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });
I noticed that during the game, after all that wailing about scan voters plumping for Garrincha...I count 6 managerial votes for Pol and only 2 for Crappy.
You don't play differently from real life because it is a fantasy draft, nor do you chop and change a side drastically according to oppo. If you are playing like Brazil 82 you have one attacking fullback and you rely on him to provide width. If he has a handy winger that means risk and more or less conservatism being required, but you don't change how you play the game dramatically. Not unless you are clearly inferior. I would expect Carlos to attack, which entails risks, but he would, otherwise there's no point having Carlos in the first place, and the team needs that width.Nice version of Brazil '82 Anto. How would you change it to adjust it to a fantasy draft? Considering someone like Carlos would not be able to provide the width very much(as seen against Garrincha).
No, you don't. You need width on both sides and what Brazil did was have it provided by the fullback on oen side and a striker pulling wide and freeing up space for Zico. It was a 4-2-2-2 that switched to 2-2-2-4. That's what you see up there.You almost need the width provided by the left striker a la Boniek or from the left AM then.
I think you missed my point mate. I don't mean you need to keep all the same players. That is why I said your team was nice, but if I could choose any players I would prefer having the width provided from somewhere else if I was bound to play a magic square.You don't play differently from real life because it is a fantasy draft, nor do you chop and change a side drastically according to oppo. If you are playing like Brazil 82 you have one attacking fullback and you rely on him to provide width. If he has a handy winger that means risk and more or less conservatism being required, but you don't change how you play the game dramatically. Not unless you are clearly inferior. I would expect Carlos to attack, which entails risks, but he would, otherwise there's no point having Carlos in the first place, and the team needs that width.
Are you sure? I wouldn't be.Theon had Carlos in this match, but he was given little credit for any width as he was up against Garrincha.
Magic squares have usually had much of the width on BOTH flanks provided by fullbacks. It's actually quite negative (and most likely an aknowledgement of inferiority) to have four men at the back all staying as defenders all game.So if I was forced to play a magic square, I'd make sure I didn't rely on wing-backs to provide any width, but rather a very complete forward who will be comfortable moving wide.
Well, ideally you would want as many options as possible. I do indeed tend to prefer how Brazil's left flank worked than the right. Junior-Falcao-Zico-Eder was the far more dyanmic and interesting side. One issue, of course, is finding the right personnel. Real managers don't pick a team from the All-time WC pool.For example style-wise, playing Stoichkov on one side and Boniek on the other. They would be able to alternate as strikers and wide men. This sort of width would be there whether your opponent had Garrincha or not, that is all I mean.
I count 6 managerial votes for Pol and only 2 for Crappy.
I noticed that too. Struck me as odd since Maradona, Eusbeio and Garrincha are vote magnets. May be Pol should not have dropped Rivaldo after allI noticed that during the game, after all that wailing about scan voters plumping for Garrincha...