Draft of Drafts

[lanman]

The pick that I thought handcuffed you was Carlos, because he can't be played anywhere but LB in a format like this. You can't justify playing him as a wide withdrawn midfield player, not amongst this company. Even though it puts beckenbauer out of my preferred position for him, I would have done it something like this.

Thuram Beckenbauer ???
Desailly Boszik
Puskas Zidane Best
??? ???

We have to play a back four, so that rules out anything along thoese lines.

As it is, you picked a few players questionable of being considered "All-Time". I admit my little knowledge of KocsisI thought there were better players besides Kocsis available for the taking. At the same time you took Zidane but undervalued him. To be honest the French National team was good without him, but they definitely rode his back at most times. I believe he is good enough to be your number 10.

I think you are underestimating the ability of some of our players. The only player we have who may not eventually be regarded as an All-Time Great is Thuram, but even then I think that would be a mistake.
Kocsis is arguably the greatest aerial striker of all time, and scored goals at a better rate at International level than any other player with more than 40 caps. I can't honestly think of someone I would consider a better pick, especially given his understanding with Puskas.

Another thing I saw was your team's initial response to pair Best/Puskas as forwards and then the subsequent shying away from it. Barring only the Kocsis/Boszik picks I could have easily seen this formation. Taking either a two striker setup or playing one of the [?] as a pair with Zidane or Beckenbauer. Maybe using Boszik as a runner in between both. Either way I thought that formation called for a stronger forward. One thing I think this team lacks.

Thuram Desailly Figueroa Carlos
Beckenbauer
Puskas Zidane Best
??? ???

Puskas is a striker, plain and simple - playing him off the front two means you would not be getting the best out of him. He and Kocsis are second and fourth respectively in all-time international goals despite playing in the same team.

I personally think comme undersold our formation, I would have it more along these lines:

----------------Schmeichel
Thuram---Desailly--------Figueroa---R.Carlos
-----------Bozsik--------Beckenbauer
Best---------------------Zidane
-----------Kocsis--------Puskas

Zidane would play as our nominal left midfielder, but be given a free role on that side of the pitch while Roberto Carlos would provide our width.

Bozsik as a runner? He was probably the first "modern" midfielder in that he was as much a playmaker as a stopper. He and Beckenbauer are the most important players in our team.

[Twenty26Six]

Let's see...
Whew...

Aight RR you're not making very easy with slamming me with so much at once. :) I'm not going to quote you because this would then be the longest post in the history of BS. I'm gonna be as short and sweet as possible and try to get this into more of a dialogue rather than an essay contest.

Quick Points and Questions...

Overath, you said, was the star of one WC. Many players were stars of one WC. Was Overath even the second best player on the FRG team? Was there anything in his resume that suggested to you that this player was above and beyond others for the taking? What other players were discussed? Who was left off in favor of him? He isn't the most questionable in my opinion of picks on the team, because of his roleplay value. His position does not need to be filled with an uber-sensational star.

Secondly, and IMHO most important. Why pick Krol? I question not only the choice of Krol, but the choice of a centerback. [Based on aquired knowledge,] you could have easily just played Overath deeper and more defensive. Slid Maldini a little more central to pair with Baresi and worked from there. Why not? You could have then gotten another striker and pushed Gullit back to a 3 man midfield with Neeskens, Overath. That would have freed up Zico and Cruyff to be liberal in their runs and attacks. You could have paired Romario with a lot of strikers who would be available in the last round.

Thirdly, and almost and afterthought. Why so many Dutch multi-positional players? Why go for versatility in a talent pool so deep that players perfect for their positions can be chosen? The two picks I woudln't have taken were Krol or Neeskens. That's mainly personal preference and not a knock on you guys in particular. Was it a team strategy to go Dutch? Were you trying to keep your options open by picking versatile players?

[Twenty26Six]

We have to play a back four, so that rules out anything along thoese lines.

I personally think comme undersold our formation, I would have it more along these lines:

----------------Schmeichel
Thuram---Desailly--------Figueroa---R.Carlos
-----------Bozsik--------Beckenbauer
Best---------------------Zidane
-----------Kocsis--------Puskas

Zidane would play as our nominal left midfielder, but be given a free role on that side of the pitch while Roberto Carlos would provide our width.

Bozsik as a runner? He was probably the first "modern" midfielder in that he was as much a playmaker as a stopper. He and Beckenbauer are the most important players in our team.


First, I don't think you can value international goal scoring record as nothing more than a side factor. It's an arbitrary number that which value changes time and time again. Second, no one says you have to play a four man defense. I don't think anyone would cry foul if you went the other way. You could easily have disguised it as something else.

How you explain the formation is a big plus to me. I had assumed whoever played on the side as Carlos would be more of a striker and had assumed it was Best on the left and he would be pushed up. My formation with Best and Puskas "wide" would really be more them pushing up as forwards. I like the slight variation of Zidane left, but free and Puskas ahead of him. I have to say you did a much better job selling your team than others did.

I use the term "runner" for Boszik implying he would have been a two way midfielder between Zidane and Beckenbauer and not confined to offensive or defensive duties.

In any note, I didn't even slag your formation. I just thought it didn't quite reach that of Team A or Team C. Now with a little better understanding I could see you competing with those teams, but still a step off. Capable of wining but not the favorite. However you may have, as I said from my very early posts, arguably the most complete midfield out of any of the teams.

[comme]

First, I don't think you can value international goal scoring record as nothing more than a side factor. It's an arbitrary number that which value changes time and time again. Second, no one says you have to play a four man defense. I don't think anyone would cry foul if you went the other way. You could easily have disguised it as something else.

How you explain the formation is a big plus to me. I had assumed whoever played on the side as Carlos would be more of a striker and had assumed it was Best on the left and he would be pushed up. My formation with Best and Puskas "wide" would really be more them pushing up as forwards. I like the slight variation of Zidane left, but free and Puskas ahead of him. I have to say you did a much better job selling your team than others did.

I use the term "runner" for Boszik implying he would have been a two way midfielder between Zidane and Beckenbauer and not confined to offensive or defensive duties.

In any note, I didn't even slag your formation. I just thought it didn't quite reach that of Team A or Team C. Now with a little better understanding I could see you competing with those teams, but still a step off. Capable of wining but not the favorite. However you may have, as I said from my very early posts, arguably the most complete midfield out of any of the teams.

International goal scoring is not simply an arbitrary number, it is a key indicator of how a player performs at the highest level. Another is WC performance, Kocsis scored 11 goals in 1954, only Fontaine can top that in one tournament.

You have to play a 4 man defence, tpmazembe stipulated that at the start of the draft.

I always said that Zidane would play left side of midfield and Best on the right. Zidane will naturally drift to the centre as he always does at Madrid, Carlos will then overlap him.It is obvious that Best will play as an attacking winger, he always did.

[Real Ray]

Ai
The two picks I woudln't have taken were Krol or Neeskens. That's mainly personal preference and not a knock on you guys in particular. Was it a team strategy to go Dutch? Were you trying to keep your options open by picking versatile players?
Our first 4 picks were-Cruyff, Baresi, Santos and Maldini. The rules are that you have to play 4 in the back. There were other CB, but we all liked Krol's versatility and smarts. His being Dutch, was neither here nor there. It was more his overall talent, which I think is greater vs the other traditional CB left. But yeah, it's a fair point-and one that we understood at the time, as that pick came down to Desailly and Neeskens.

Neeskens is a bit different, as one member was very high on him, and made a good case. I think there was an early view among some of the group that Gullit was going to be played different. (I had him as a forward/withdrawn forward.) And here (w/Neeskens) I think the Cruyff connection played some part. But by the last three picks, it became very clear that our views had key differences, and our picks became entangled/fixed to the formations we wanted to play. At one point, it looked like we had the votes for Gento:

------Neeskens
Zico----Cruyff----(Gento)

-----Gullit

--------------?

Me and another liked Gullit this way and Neeskens fits nicely. But the rest of the team was at best so/so on Gullit here. At this point, we had three picks. I would have picked the keeper last-and as Gento was no longer available, I began to lobby for this formation with Tom Finney in the Gento slot. My feeling was that by many accounts, Finney was Matthews equal and if Matthews rated, so did Finney-a natural fit in that slot. I think the group gave me a "E" for effort, :) but I would not have the votes at the end of the day IMO. At this point, the way the debate was going, I became firm in my view re: two strikers.

We pushed this debate aside and picked a keeper. The problem after this was that we played a man down-if he had been a bit firmer in his views, then we would have had two strikers, no Overath. I would have been in the minority re: not wanting two strikers. The last pick then decided the formation: One fixed vote for Nordhal, one fixed vote for Romario. I could have picked Nordhal over Romario, as he better fits my idea of the team, but that would not have been fair vis-a-vis earlier postions and views I had stated. So I went with my honest feelings-Fontaine was the player I really liked, and hoped that my case for him might swing votes his way. Instead we ended deadlocked.

[Excape Goat]

Our first 4 picks were-Cruyff, Baresi, Santos and Maldini. But yeah, it's a fair point-and one that we understood at the time, as that pick came down to Desailly and Neeskens.




We were set to pick Neekens for our group, but then he was selected. I think we went after Desailly after that. our team would have been very different if we got Neekens.

[lanman]

I began to lobby for this formation with Tom Finney in the Gento slot. My feeling was that by many accounts, Finney was Matthews equal and if Matthews rated, so did Finney-a natural fit in that slot. I think the group gave me a "E" for effort, :) but I would not have the votes at the end of the day IMO.

I've heard many people claim Finney was England's best ever player, and he would almost certainly be in most people's top 5. The reason Matthews usually gets thought of over Finney is longevity, but Finney could and did play in any of the front 5 positions.

[Dark Savante]

I am surprised so many responded to kold_77_krush. He could have just said he likes a flat 4midfield and have been done with it.

It is apparent kold does not know much about some of the lesser known players in the draft so how can he make a balanced evaluation?

Not to be offensive to you kold krush but you display a lack of knowledge within your summations, which is why I didn't even bother to respond. The fact that others have done so really does surprise me.

[comme]

Team E comme, Excape Goat, merengue, lanman


First sub

John Charles (Il Buono Gigante)

Nation: Wales

Clubs: Leeds United, Juventus, Leeds United, Roma, Cardiff City

Major honours: 3 Italian titles

International caps 38 goals 15


John Charles is considered by many to have been the greatest all-round footballer ever to come from Britain. It wasn't just that he was comfortable playing either centre-half or centre-forward. He was world class in both positions.
He could also play full-back or midfield, if required, and such was his versatility that he managed to break the Leeds United club scoring record with 42 goals in a season at a time when he was appearing at centre-half in internationals for Wales.
He started his career at 15 with Swansea City before joining a struggling Leeds United side in 1949.
His reputation quickly grew and the 42-goals scored for Leeds in the 1953-54 season remains a club record. But when he joined Juventus for a record transfer fee of £65,000, his life began to resemble a storyline taken from a Boy’s Own comic.
Between 1957 and 1962 Juve won three league titles as well as one Italian Cup competition. To this day, this illustrious club recognises the great contribution Charles made during his time there. He is still considered one of the best players to have represented Juventus.
In 1958 Charles led a shambolically organised Wales team to their first and only ever World Cup finals. Wales drew all three of thir group games which resulted in a play off against Hungary, deprived of a number of their greats but still boasting a team including Bozsik, Grosics and Hidegkuti. Wales overcame the Hungarians but at a great cost, Charles like Puskas in 54 and Pele in 62 was subjected to a physical battering which meant that he missed the quarter final against Brazil. Wales lost that game 1-0, Pele scoring his first WC goal. Many believe that had Charles been present the scoreline would have been very different.
Charles moved from Juve to Leeds and then back to Italy with Roma, but did not enjoy quite the success he had previously. He finished his career at Ninian Park with Cardiff City and took up management at Hereford United
Perhaps his greatest attribute was his stunning versatility. Fellow Leeds player Tom Holley once wrote: "Nat Lofthouse was asked who was the best centre-half he had played against and without hesitation named John Charles. The same week Billy Wright was asked who was the greatest centre-forward he had faced, and he too answered “John Charles".
John Charles was the ultimate footballing gentleman. Not only was he never booked or sent off in his entire career in the face of some appalling treatment, he always behaved with honour and sportsmanship.

[comme]

Team E

Second sub

Juan Alberto “Pep” Schiaffino

Nation: Uruguay, Italy

Clubs: Penarol, Milan, Roma

Major honours, World Cup winner 1950, Latin Cup winner 1956, UEFA Cup 1961, 6 Uruguayan titles, 3 Italian titles

International Caps 52 (48 for Uruguay, 4 for Italy) Goals 12 (all for Uruguay)

Juan Schiaffino is widely regarded as the finest player ever to emerge from Uruguay. An inside forward with a tremendous range of passing, Schiaffino broke into the Penarol first team at the age of 18. Ten days before his twentieth birthday, he made his international debut against Argentina in the South American Championship, a competition the Uruguayans went on to win.
Schiaffino was instrumental in Uruguay's victory in the 1950 World Cup tournament, ending as the second highest goalscorer with five goals. The tournament was decided by a four team pool, rather than the usual final game. The Brazilians (the tournament favourites and home team) only needed a draw in their final group game, against Uruguay, to win the trophy. They looked to have wrapped it up after they scored early in the second half. However, Schiaffino dramatically turned the game around by scoring the equaliser midway through the half and then setting up the winner for Ghiggia with only 11 minutes to go.
By 1954, Schiaffino was the complete inside-left - he had the speed, the vision and a very fierce shot.
During the World Cup tournament of that year, he was once again Uruguay's key player, scoring goals against Czechoslovakia and England, as they advanced to the semi finals. However, Uruguay were beaten 4-2 in extra time by Puskas's Olympic winning Hungarian side, the South Americans suffering from many injuries, including one to Schiaffino. The team could then not lift themselves and lost to Austria in the third place playoff.
Later that year, Shiaffino moved to Italian club AC Milan for a world record transfer fee of £72 000. He helped the club to three Scudetto championships and the 1958 European Cup final. He also played for Italy in their qualifying campaign for the 1958 World Cup, but it wasn't to be, as they failed to reach the finals.
In 1962, Schiaffino retired, after a brief spell with Roma. Then in 1976 he returned to football as manager of Penarol and later as the Uruguayan national team coach.

[comme]

Team E

Third sub


Karl-Heinz Rummenigge

Nation: West Germany

Clubs: Borussia Lippstadt, Bayern Munich, Internazionale, Servette

Major Honours: European Championships Winner 1980, World Cup finalist 1982,86 European Player of the year 1980,81

International Caps 95 goals 45


Arguably Germany's greatest player in the post-Beckenbauer era, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge followed in the footsteps of Helmut Rahn, Uwe Seeler and Gerd Müller making sure West Germany's world class coverage up front was maintained. "Kalle" was born in Lippstadt in 1955 and played for the local club Borussia Lippstadt until he was 18 years old and discovered by Bayern Munich.

His move to Bayern forced him to give up his job as a bank clerk and concentrate fully on football. It paid off. Rummenigge was a member of Bayern's 1976 European Cup champions and soon earned a place on the national team squad. Coach Helmut Schön picked him for the World Cup in Argentina 1978 and Kalle was one of few players who impressed in the tournament which saw West Germany bow out already in the second phase.

By the 1982 World Cup in Spain, Rummenigge had established himself as one of the superstars in the game. Twice European Player of the Year, 1980 and 1981, and member of West Germany's European Championship winning team in 1980, most experts predicted Rummenigge - alongside Maradona - to be the star of the tournament. Kneeproblems prevented him from performing up to his full potential and manager Jupp Derwall used him sparingly. His memorable contribution when coming off the bench in the classic semifinal against France was the highlight of that World Cup along with his hat-trick against Chile. West Germany went from 3-1 down to equalize and later beat the French on penalties. Rummenigge first reduced the lead to 3-2 and then featured in the attack which saw Klaus Fischer equalize. A tired German team could not beat Italy in the final though and lost 3-1.

Rummenigge picked up his third league topscorer title in 1984 and moved south to Italy and Inter Milan after ten years with Bayern where he had netted 162 times in 314 Bundesliga appearances. Most world stars played in Italy at the time and Rummenigge stayed for three years with mixed success.

The World Cup in 1986 would end his international career. Rummenigge was once again not fully fit, but Franz Beckenbauer - now coach - was determined to bring him to Mexico. He featured in all matches, mostly as a substitute, as West Germany once again reached the final. Kalle was captain (52nd time) in his 95th and last

[Twenty26Six]

International goal scoring is not simply an arbitrary number, it is a key indicator of how a player performs at the highest level. Another is WC performance, Kocsis scored 11 goals in 1954, only Fontaine can top that in one tournament.

How can it be a key indicator when Fontained was not even picked? I mean, there were teams that copuld have used him. Besides no WC is the same, location, climate, players, styles all change. I mean it is every four years. A player may bever experience a WC at this peak. Who is to say that if a WC had been played in '88 that Van Basten may not have had a better showing? It's at best a supplemental stat in an already subjective argument.

You have to play a 4 man defence, tpmazembe stipulated that at the start of the draft.

There were also talks of using other formations and I never heard a strong opposition to this.

I always said that Zidane would play left side of midfield and Best on the right. Zidane will naturally drift to the centre as he always does at Madrid, Carlos will then overlap him.It is obvious that Best will play as an attacking winger, he always did.

I used my comments based on you previous post where u listed your midfield as such...
Best Beckenbauer Boszik Zidane
To me it mattered specifically where Zidane would play and if Beckenbauer would be used to that side to cover for Carlos' runs.

Like I said RR cleared up a lot by posting a more exact formation.

[Twenty26Six]

Our first 4 picks were-Cruyff, Baresi, Santos and Maldini. The rules are that you have to play 4 in the back. There were other CB, but we all liked Krol's versatility and smarts. His being Dutch, was neither here nor there. It was more his overall talent, which I think is greater vs the other traditional CB left. But yeah, it's a fair point-and one that we understood at the time, as that pick came down to Desailly and Neeskens.

Neeskens is a bit different, as one member was very high on him, and made a good case. I think there was an early view among some of the group that Gullit was going to be played different. (I had him as a forward/withdrawn forward.) And here (w/Neeskens) I think the Cruyff connection played some part. But by the last three picks, it became very clear that our views had key differences, and our picks became entangled/fixed to the formations we wanted to play. At one point, it looked like we had the votes for Gento:

------Neeskens
Zico----Cruyff----(Gento)

-----Gullit

--------------?

Me and another liked Gullit this way and Neeskens fits nicely. But the rest of the team was at best so/so on Gullit here. At this point, we had three picks. I would have picked the keeper last-and as Gento was no longer available, I began to lobby for this formation with Tom Finney in the Gento slot. My feeling was that by many accounts, Finney was Matthews equal and if Matthews rated, so did Finney-a natural fit in that slot. I think the group gave me a "E" for effort, :) but I would not have the votes at the end of the day IMO. At this point, the way the debate was going, I became firm in my view re: two strikers.

We pushed this debate aside and picked a keeper. The problem after this was that we played a man down-if he had been a bit firmer in his views, then we would have had two strikers, no Overath. I would have been in the minority re: not wanting two strikers. The last pick then decided the formation: One fixed vote for Nordhal, one fixed vote for Romario. I could have picked Nordhal over Romario, as he better fits my idea of the team, but that would not have been fair vis-a-vis earlier postions and views I had stated. So I went with my honest feelings-Fontaine was the player I really liked, and hoped that my case for him might swing votes his way. Instead we ended deadlocked.

Fair enough, I felt the biggest thing that hindered you guys was everyones' versatility. Like you said it became not only an argument for different players but different styles of play and formations. I felt the teams that faired better were the teams that had their formations set from early on. You guys seemed to be battling for different styles all the way until the end. I could see the Gullit in a support role with a bigger/stronger forward. I would have probably been more inclined to fight for that. I'm surprised to know heavily at one point you guys were going for more of a winger. It kind of shed a lot more light on what you guys were going through amongst the arguments.

With all the flexibility in the starting eleven, could you see guys changing positions and the team changing shape to meet different game situations? It's easy to say that perhaps you are the strongest eleven because you may not ever need to take substitutions to change your approach.

[Twenty26Six]

Not to be offensive to you kold krush but you display a lack of knowledge within your summations, which is why I didn't even bother to respond. The fact that others have done so really does surprise me.

It is meant to be offensive.

Actually you just bothered to respond.

Next time you need to try harder if you want to be witty.

[Dark Savante]

It is meant to be offensive.

Actually you just bothered to respond.

Next time you need to try harder if you want to be witty.

It's not wit when its a matter of fact, friend. And if you look I didn't feel the need to justify anything to you with regards to the team, thus I did not bother to respond. Are you just here to spam or are you trying to give an eduacted opinion?

[imasyko]

Up to this point, DS, strategic disagreements, questionable picks, differences of opinion regarding players or formations, etc., have been handled with reasoned responses and class. All of a sudden, you are simply attacking the poster - I didn't read his posts as spam, only his opinion of how the teams worked out and his reasons for choosing one team over another. Others have posted their opinions without getting hammered, why the change?

Evidently, his ideas rubbed you the wrong way - I, for one, would be interested in hearing your rebuttal to his summation. For me, it's a learning experience, and I enjoy reading the opinions, no matter how diverse, of people who know far more about these players and the game than I.

Did you two used to date or something? ;^)

[Dark Savante]

Up to this point, DS, strategic disagreements, questionable picks, differences of opinion regarding players or formations, etc., have been handled with reasoned responses and class. All of a sudden, you are simply attacking the poster - I didn't read his posts as spam, only his opinion of how the teams worked out and his reasons for choosing one team over another. Others have posted their opinions without getting hammered, why the change?

My bad for lowering the tone. Opinions are all well and good, but at least make educated evaluations rather than antagonistic comments. Others (unfancied teams) took the bait were I did not, more power to them to respond in the manner that they did. I don't think I should make further comment with regard to what I believe Kold krushes intentions were as this has been one of the best threads I've ever seen on Big Soccer and I'd be doing it a disservice by entangling myself further in something that has nothing to do with the thread.

I always welcome peoples opinions, but I do get annoyed if it seems to be an ill researched reply and tend to speak up where perhaps I should not. Please accept my apologies if you feel I've been abrasive with my words.

If you want to know how debates and arguements usually end up just ask anyone from team D, lol, we've been going at it for over a month or so now, whilst being in total disagreement regarding our last few selections and formation.


Evidently, his ideas rubbed you the wrong way - I, for one, would be interested in hearing your rebuttal to his summation. For me, it's a learning experience, and I enjoy reading the opinions, no matter how diverse, of people who know far more about these players and the game than I.

Not the ideas, but the way they were put across. If you don't know about a player like Bozsik then how can you just dismiss him? :confused: If those same views were put across with full acknowledgement of the player(s) and his/their ability I'd have no problem with it at all.


Did you two used to date or something? ;^)

Not that I know of.. maybe it's an ex under an alias :D

[comme]

How can it be a key indicator when Fontained was not even picked? I mean, there were teams that copuld have used him. Besides no WC is the same, location, climate, players, styles all change. I mean it is every four years. A player may bever experience a WC at this peak. Who is to say that if a WC had been played in '88 that Van Basten may not have had a better showing? It's at best a supplemental stat in an already subjective argument.



There were also talks of using other formations and I never heard a strong opposition to this.



I used my comments based on you previous post where u listed your midfield as such...
Best Beckenbauer Boszik Zidane
To me it mattered specifically where Zidane would play and if Beckenbauer would be used to that side to cover for Carlos' runs.

Like I said RR cleared up a lot by posting a more exact formation.

Fontaine may have scored 13 in one world cup, but he only played 21 internationals, that is what let him down.

The only striker picked with a realtively poor international strike rate is Van Basten, he also never scored in the WC. That clearly counts against him. It has to. What partially redeems this is his performance in the 88 Euro Champs, with 5 in 5.

There was never any talk of playing anything but 4 at the back as this was outlined at the very start by tpmazembe.

[comme]

BTW has anyone seen the BBC poll of the greatest European ever?

Zidane,Best, Beckenbauer and Puskas all in the top 10.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/3764063.stm

[Spartak]

BTW has anyone seen the BBC poll of the greatest European ever?

Zidane,Best, Beckenbauer and Puskas all in the top 10.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/3764063.stm
Why do people keep posting lists to prove thier point. The whole point of this draft was for us to give OUR opinion of who was best. I don't care what BBC or UEFA tell me because I know thier full of ********. There is no way Zidane has influenced his era the same way Cruyff, Beckenbauer, or DiStefano did. But I will at least give the BBC some credit for not including Beckham in the list ;)

IMO, this draft didn't turn out the way it should have. I applaud tpmazembe for trying to get some educated posters in on this draft but unfortunately alot of members in this draft rely too heavily on the world cup or on recent era players to determine thier picks.