Best XI and the greatest players of each football era

This midfield has no balance whatsoever. Neither Ronaldinho nor Zidane were known for putting in any defensive shifts. Pirlo in his prime (2003-07) did help defend but still relied on the presence of another pure DM (like Gattuso) in order to excel. Likewise, having two attacking fullbacks, one of which (Carlos) is very average at defending will also spell trouble. This entire team is very exposed to the counter attack.

My first team from 1997-2016:



Two other potential teams:

 

These "fantasy teams" are always a fun game to play, but honestly; Messi, Ronaldinho, Zidane, and Pirlo, with no pure (real) defensive midfielder, is more or less the textbook type of team that would get soundly outperformed by any remotely competent "super team." In other words; Messi walks a lot; Ronaldinho walks even more than Messi; Zidane was not great in terms of work-ethic (even if he wasn't a breathtaking defensive liability Ronaldinho-style). And so, only Pirlo was great in terms of work-ethic and simultaneously in terms of defensive intelligence, but (with Messi, Ronaldinho, and Zidane showing their collective defensive incompetence all over the place) Pirlo would get ripped to pieces.

This type of argument happens pretty much 90% of the time, with these "fantasy teams." For some reason, a good number of fans believe that players like Zidane and/or Ronaldinho would defend not only more but also a lot more intelligently, if need be. But of course, defensive intelligence does not work like that; it is a legitimate talent that can and often does get better with practice, but it isn't some magical "destroying is much easier than creating" quality that Zidane and/or Ronaldinho and/or Messi could "magically" or willingly just decide to be good at, if need be.

 

I couldn't agree more. It is so very uninteresting. Beyond just getting the defense/attack balance right (which already most fantasy teams fail to do) I would also like to see some tactical considerations.

For example, I'm not so sure C. Ronaldo, Ronaldo, and Zidane could all play in the same team.

Partnering Vieira with Xavi might look okay, but what kind of passing pattern will you get? Xavi possession-based style is completely different from the quick direct crisp passing style that Vieira excelled in.

What about defensively? Makelele with Iniesta doesn't look too bad, but Makelele excelled in a low block, while Iniesta plays in a high press defense for years.

We can't just make the argument that because they're great players, they can adapt to each other. That's a cop out. I think in these brain exercises, for it to be interesting at all, we need to be more sophisticated.

 

For example, a deep-block counter-attacking team using just 21st century players could look something like this:



The team is based around Chelsea 05-07, Arsenal 01-04, and Man Utd 07-09, which was the EPL's latest golden age, when fast direct football was so successful.

The front three is based on Man Utd's front three of high mobility, all-rounded forwards. Henry and Suarez are clear improvements over Rooney and Tevez.

The midfield is based on Mourinho's Chelsea. Lampard was a goal-scoring midfielder who was very comfortable defending in a deep block, and surging forward from deep positions. Vieira replaces Essien.

The left flank was recreated as best as possible to resemble the Arsenal of 01-04, by playing Henry, Vieira, and Cole on the same side, but without Pires.

The backline is led by Terry's, the best man to marshal a low block defense. Nesta is simply the best cover defender of this era. The right back is more defensive to balance the marauding leftback, and Thuram is simply the best. Much better than Wes Brown.

I don't know how good this team would be, but I'd like to see some thought being put into fantasy teams. Just my own little pet peeve.

 

Vieira + Xavi sounds like a pretty good idea, I mean, Xavi's Euro 2008 is similar to "quick direct crisp passing style." The possession oriented/obsessed tiki-taka of Pep Guardiola, started in 2008-09, and so I think that Xavi did have the skills to adjust his style so as to better complement with a defensive midfielder like Vieira. I think pretty much the same thing about Iniesta + Makelele; I think that Makelele was an extremely intelligent player who could play the defensive midfielder role in any system, and Iniesta is one of the most flexible midfielders I've ever watched. Of course, it's arguably impossible (or very close to it) to be ultra-precise about these "details within the details," but I can certainly imagine Makelele + Iniesta working out very well.

My problem (as mentioned before) is when I see teams with: Ronaldinho, Cristiano Ronaldo, Zidane, Maradona, Messi, and Pirlo. Or Zidane, Laudrup, Maradona, Pele, Ronaldo Brazil, and Redondo. Just reading it the first time, you immediately know that such teams would get demolished or heavily criticized (criticized because the results and the expectations would clash in a bad way); why can't Zidane, Maradona, and Pele deliver the expected results? Well because Zizou and Maradona don't defend, and because Pele normally doesn't play for completely unbalanced teams, and because there's no way in hell that egos that big would ever successfully coexist in any system.

 

I think your team with Henry, Ronaldinho, Nedved...is even stronger than your first team, at least it is more balanced and practical and has the flexbility to play much more variable tactics. Henry and Ronaldiniho's Attacking Prowess, Zidane's Ball Control and Dribbling, Nedved's Physical Strength and Athleticism, Pirlo's Passing and Vision combines with Redondo's All-Round ability, this is a team that consists of Technical Quality, Physical Strength and Talent all in one.

With your first team, theoretically, you could put CR , Ronaldo and Messi in the same team, but with Xavi-Iniesta-Busquets in the midfield, it is almost certain you have to stick to the slow and patient build-up Tika-Taka with a high defensive line(which is a MUST to ensure the dominance in possession against the opponent) and it is very likely you won't have other choices, because that is the only way to get the best out of them and that is the only way they could even SURVIVE. If Xavi-Iniesta-Busquets don't have the possession of the ball, and EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, if Xavi and Busquets can't make these forward penetrating passes to Messi and Iniesta effectively, they will be ripped into pieces easily by opponent's counters due to their high defensive line.

But now comes the questions, in a Tika-Taka system, the TIMING, the POSITION and the ABILITY to win the possession is too critical. On the defensive side, I highly doubt how effective it will be for a trio consists of Messi, C Ronaldo and Ronaldo to recover the possession of the ball as soon as they loose it. Remember, in Pep's Prime Barcelona, he chose Pedro, Villa, and Messi as the top three, while they maybe weaker than the Messi-Suarez-Neymar trio you see today in an attacking sense, but what was special about them(Henry and Eto'o as well in 2008-09) was their work ethics and work rate in winning the ball back as soon as the team lost it, the way they excuted this tactics under Tika-Taka was so exemplary that I think perhaps no other players could have played their roles as well, they were always fighting for the ball and fighting for every inch of space on the pitch. I highly doubt how effective C Ronaldo and Ronaldo in this regard. Also, if you play Tika-Taka, the Nesta-Cannavaro combo may not be very suitable. Although, Nesta and Cannavaro were two of the best defenders we have ever seen defensively, but neither of them was known to have the playmaking ability at the back. To play Tika-Taka, you need a CB like Pique or Boateng that can participate in the build up play at the back and at the time serve as the ball reception points for Xavi-Busquets to ease their pressure in playmaking to ensure the effectiveness in bringing the ball forward.

On the attacking side, given a trio consists of Ronaldo, CR and Messi, how would you split the roles between them? How would you split their possession of the ball? It will be very very difficult.

 

I can name at least a dozen midfield duos that would eat Redondo/Pirlo alive.

 

It is always better to respect and appreciate the uniqueness and talent of each player and their role in the respective system rather than purely making up brainless insults against them. I highly doubt if a Prime Pirlo and a Prime Redondo would be any weaker than any midfield I have seen over the last 15-20years, if you know and have watched these two players long enough and not just highlights.

 

You seem to misunderstand that I don't rate either Pirlo or Redondo. I do, very highly. I just don't see how anyone can make a case that a Redondo, Pirlo, Zidane midfield can be well functioning.

It is you have shown a complete disregard to the context in which these two players excelled in. Pirlo did not excel in a 3 man midfield of 3 playmakers. Neither did Redondo. They've benefited greatly from the running power of the likes of Seedorf and Gattuso and Vidal.

Even Zidane needed Davids at Juventus and Makelele at Madrid to play his best football.

 

I think I agree with you more on Pirlo than Redondo. For example Redondo plays in a central midfield consisting of him and McManaman (the caption is incorrect as it turned out and you can see Helguera lining up in central defence early on) in this game in which he turned in a famous performance (I know there is the argument that this game and the Final, in a similar line-up btw, really made his year in terms of him standing out among the crowd and that maybe without those games he isn't mentioned much at all):

Although since you've said running power rather than defensive capabilities then I'd agree McManaman has more in the way of energy and running ability than Pirlo so if Pirlo was in his place then yeah it'd be a different situation albeit him and Redondo would at least be very good in possession ofc - maybe when a team has 3 centre-backs the onus to defend is mostly on those players anyway but yeah I know getting over-run in midfield despite having good ball players who are at least trying to track back is a real-life concept.

 

I think Redondo was at his best with someone next to him (like Pirlo). This is different to for ex. Busquets, who is more static. Redondo has regular problems with his positioning and focus imho.

Remember also that the win against ManUnited was a surprise result, especially how they lost it within 20-30 minutes.

 

Yeah, it can also be a matter of preferences I guess. Maybe a midfield lacking in creativity feels more 'unacceptable' to me than one lacking ball winners wheras I can completely understand people (to some extent Poetgooner, and you too maybe - you feel the same about Vieira even I think and with some justification when considering he was rarely the sole DM or without a partner in midfield; although I know you've also said before, as in close to when you first signed up, you really generally prefer to watch at least the creative midfielders and deep-lying forwards ahead of the destroyers or even the all-action Matthaus/Neeskens types) feeling different.

They did also win the game because they scored 3 goals ofc, as they did concede 2. So it's not necessarily that I'm saying having Redondo as defensive shield is the best way to strangle a match, but more that he has been known to thrive in general in quite an open midfield (albeit with 5 defenders behind if including the wing-backs which I think is fair given they normally played as full-backs otherwise).

But I feel Redondo can at least function in an otherwise 'lightweight' and 'immobile' central midfield (McManaman wasn't exactly the latter and Savio was playing a bit infield while R.Carlos overlapped as wing-back too ofc - Savio not being very defensively adept or aware but at least a good runner too) wheras Pirlo is maybe just too lightweight and immobile himself and while leadleader is right I think to point out he did have some decent defensive awareness/intelligence etc, I think it's a bit more imperative for him to have help deep in the midfield if that makes sense?

 

The thing with Redondo is he'd be wasting himself if he played in a disciplined manner a la Busquets all the time I suppose too. Wheras Busquets's best skills can largely be shown effectively in a sort of 'technical Deschamps' role I think which fits well with Tika Taka.

 

Pirlo at Milan gives us a very clear example of how Ancelotti always surrounded him with running power.

When they won the UCL in 2003, he was flanked by Gattuso and Seedorf.

When Rui Costa and Shevchenko left, Seedorf was pushed up, but Ancelotti made sure Pirlo was still flanked by runners, by adding Ambrosini to his side. Having lost two offensive players, Ancelotti also used attacking wingbacks in Jankulovski and Cafu in the UCL victory of 2007, compared to the more conservative Costacurta in 2003.

At Juventus, he was played behind three runners in Pogba, Vidal, and Marchisio.

It surely isn't a coincidence that the club managers have always chosen to play Pirlo with runners. So it doesn't make sense that he'll suddenly play well next to a Redondo.

 

Yes, and as you indicate busquets always plays with four defenders behind, not five.

 

Yeah, I think what I was trying to say was that Pirlo was being basically played out of position (he isn't a holding midfielder or even really an anchor player) because a system was designed for that purpose. Redondo was more of a natural anchor player, so doesn't necessarily need a more accomplished defensive player alongside although I do take on board what Puck says and do think he's a different case to say Busquets indeed (and like Yaya Toure was, Redondo could be a bit wasted in that sort of Tika Taka team where he is expected to sit deep - although maybe his defensive game would improve if that was his main job and I'm sure he'd be good enough on the ball ofc at least on his best days, and use the ball intelligently etc, whether or not he'd be indulging in dribbling or one-twos, holding the ball more than a Xavi would want).

But yeah I wasn't trying to say a 2 man midfield of Pirlo and Redondo seems ideal, or invulnerable, by any means.

 

To be fair, though (and correct me if I'm wrong, by all means), but aren't deep-lying playmakers always "flanked" or "helped" deep in the midfield?

As for Redondo; not to disrespect him out of spite, but I largely fail to see the hype about him. I've watched a good number of games of his from 1993-1995, and essentially what I see is an elegant player with a gorgeous technique on the ball, but a player who wasn't particularly impressive in terms of "end product" relative to his role. His youtube moments were great, but don't fully compensate for his deficiencies, in my opinion. I prefer Pirlo over Redondo; better passer, better shooter, better free-kicks, better stationary ball retention (which happens a lot in that position/role, and which Redondo's distinctively long lower body wasn't suited for), better intelligence, and better end product relative to his role.

But to be fair, perhaps my impression of Pirlo being the better player, is largely the result of Pirlo enjoying better (more evolved) tactics, conditioning, preparation, etc.

 

Yes, I think it is often the case anyway and not specific to Pirlo (if he's a commonly used example maybe it's because he was so good in the role). I suppose someone like Xabi Alonso is a bit different but then maybe he just evolved from being an outright playmaker/deep-lying playmaker into a sort of DM albeit a creative and intelligent one with the ball.

Which maybe brings us to that question of whether Redondo was a real deep-lying playmaker or just an elegant and progressive DM/CM. I suppose it's easy to be impressed with a supposed DM who is so technical and who on his best days could handle the tackling, tracking back and shielding job, while also dribbling and passing his way through midfield and putting his team in a lot of good positions by doing that. It's no problem if I'm more impressed by you or for another player someone else is more impressed than someone else. But when it comes to subjectively ranking players it's probably tough to make judgement calls even when players are seen fairly similarly. I think Pirlo was better at all or most of those things (certainly mid-range passing is an obvious one I think even if Redondo's use of the ball and timing of passes etc was also very good I think). If it's true, as I'm suggesting I guess, that Redondo could cope better and still thrive without quite the same help in terms of runners and tacklers etc then I guess that's an advantage the other way isn't it (so less spots have to be taken by 'limited' Gattuso types or 'rare' Neeskens types as a necessity) and your point about stationary ball retention is interesting and I know that's an area you look at quite a lot so I'm probably best to defer to your observations there, but I think for sure Redondo's in-movement ball retention and dribbling was superior on his best days and probably generally.

It's an interesting comparison certainly, but maybe not like-for-like very much even if the label of 'deep-lying playmaker' could widely be applied to both (it just describes Pirlo better or 'perfectly/completely' I guess). Maybe a Busquets/Redondo comparison is also feasible indeed if you know what I mean (despite also some notable differences in how the role was played, and the fact that often Redondo did have a 'solid' partner at the same tier in midfield such as Simeone) wheras Busquets and Pirlo doesn't seem a very apt comparison. Maybe likewise, if the differences are acknowledged then Pirlo and Xavi seems a reasonably like-for-like comparison in terms of cross-over between roles and attributes. Wheras Redondo and Xavi are quite different in a lot of ways I think.

 

Why is a long lower body not suited for retaining the ball?

Maybe the sport was different 20 - 30 years ago in terms of which properties were better suited?

 

Well, Redondo was great I terms of non-stationary ball retention, but players with long lower bodies by and large tend to not be as good in terms of stationary ball retention. Riquelme stands out as one of the very few "long lower body" stationary experts. Rivaldo was another "long player" who was very good in terms of stationary ability. But by and large, it's players like Francesco Totti, Carlos Valderrama, Andrea Pirlo, Andres Iniesta, and so on, whom are great in terms of stationary ball retention. Perhaps to define Redondo as "not suited" (purely because of his long lower body) is an exaggeration, but by and large, that definitely is something of a rule, even if there are exceptions to the rule (i.e. Riquelme, Rivaldo, and so on).

Redondo and Zidane routinely looked uncomfortable when "forced" into a stationary skill/situation. I think their type of mobility (and not a lack of ball retention ability) is the main reason for that; again, such is the case for the vast majority of players who possess a similar type of mobility. Most of those players know how to avoid falling into situations where their bodies can and often will perform rather poorly; the problem is that in Redondo's position, it's arguably impossible to actively avoid such type of situations (and thus, the lack of stationary ability becomes more clear, more measurable).

As for your question; I think the sport hasn't changed much in that highly specific regard; mobility is something that you have or you don't, and most "long players" remain average or below-average in terms of stationary ability.

 

Redondo was impressive, I just don't think him being impressive, added much to his teams (besides the odd youtube moment). Legendary player by all means, but for my liking, I'll take Gattuso/Makelele + Pirlo, any day of the week, over any variation that includes Redondo.

To be honest; I'm not really a fan of Redondo's "brand" of defending; he could attack in an impressive manner, but then he was clearly uncomfortable when forced into stationary situations (which happens a lot in that area of the pitch). His numerous "match ups" against Valderrama, are a good example of what I mean -- Valderrama forced him into playing "on the inside" (very similar to how a boxer whom is specialized "on the inside," will tend or attempt to force his opponent into boxing on the inside), and Redondo invariably failed to respond as should be expected from a legendary defensive midfielder. At the same time, players whom are specialists at stationary ball retention, are rather rare, but I'm just saying: Pirlo nor Busquets would have that problem against a player like Valderrama or Iniesta.

Overall; in that area of the pitch (read: defensive midfielders or deep-lying playmakers), I prefer athletes whom are naturally comfortable when that congested area of the pitch forces them into stationary situations. I'd be the type of coach who would try to play Redondo as a box-to-box CM, rather than as a DM.

 

Ok mate, thanks for the post and interesting thoughts on where you feel he'd be best played. I do think in some ways playing Redondo as a DM is a partial fallacy as the way he played arguably meant that no DM was really playing (which I'm ok with and even think can work very well at the highest level, but I know some people very much want at least one proper DM - modern thinking especially goes in that direction as did 'ancient' thinking I guess but in that case because there were less outright defenders in the formations).

I guess if you ever drafed him on Big Soccer (maybe unlikely as others might think they'd like to do so before you do I guess) you'd put him in such a box to box role. I do think, however deep his starting position, he was best employed being allowed to play box to box indeed, but not in a typical British-type b2b role but more of a gradual dribble+pass manner more associated with playmakers I suppose (he could run past the player in possession to receive a pass at times, but wasn't one for surging runs from deep off the ball of course).