If I was making the selections, and making them today rather than after the time machine brings the players back and I get to see how they are in training lol, I think if I try to be sensible but don't discard my attacking/creative preferences (and if I pick mainly on prime form, which makes more sense for this anyway) I'd put Argentina and Brazil in very similar formations: Use this11.com for drawing your football tactics So comparing them I'd say: Fillol>=Gilmar Cafu>Zanetti Nilton Santos>=Marzolini Carlos Alberto (as centre-back)>=Ruggeri Passarella>=Domingos Da Guia (hardest player to analyse but on reputation I'd take the gamble!) Zito=Ardiles Didi=Redondo Di Stefano>Zico Pele>Messi Maradona>Ronaldinho Ronaldo>Kempes (Kempes could switch roles with Di Stefano) (Pretty even comparison, although I would favour Brazil slightly in a head to head game and a bit moreso for a tournament I think) Subs: Carizzo>Emerson Leao Aldair>Perfumo Jorginho>Sosa Falcao>Veron Kaka>Sivori Garrincha>Caniggia Romario>Batistuta (So I tend to think Brazil's depth of quality options is greater and adds to the reasons I'd favour them in a tournament).
Of course, the likes of Moreno and Pedernera would be options for Argentina too. I did the subs a bit hurridly, but perhaps one or both could/should be there - I don't think any of us can really say we can have a great idea about their games though. For Brazil, Socrates and Jairzinho would be among the other options of course.
Fine. I let you believe what you want about me being honest or not, I don't really care. I think Petit was just as guilty in that goal vs Senegal as Barthez, but since you're talking about it, Barthez made another mistake vs Israel in the WC2006 qualifiers. 2 mistakes in 87 caps, that's all. Sure you'll still jump on this to say Barthez was un unreliable keeper -and this without having a clue about how he performed in Marseille and Monaco- but whatever... Desailly, Thuram, Lizarazu, Pires, Makelele and Thuram all retired after Euro04 or nearly after. Not only Zidane. It goes both ways. Plus the come back of Thuram and Makelele was nearly as important as Zidane's one in France's rebirth during WC06 qualifiers. Anyway, it's pure logic : a Zidane-less France's team still had a world class defenive block plus some world class strikers. That was not the case with a Platini-less France.
Continuing the theme, I think the Netherlands and Germany could use Christmas Tree formations.... Find your football tactics app at this11.com Maier>Van der Sar Suurbier=Kaltz Breitner>Van Tiggelen Krol>=Sammer (as libero in a 4 man defence rather than 5 man defence anyway) Rijkaard>Forster Beckenbauer>Neeskens Gullit=Matthaus Netzer>=Van Hanegem Rummenigge>=Bergkamp Cruyff>Littbarski(probably worth >> really) Van Basten>Muller (my call - I know there would be some disagreement and I nearly went >= anyway) Subs: Kahn>Van Beveren (probably) Koeman>Schulz Israel=Vogts (?) Sneijder=Overath(?) Rensenbrink>Hassler Walter>=Wilkes(?) Klinsmann>Rep Other German options include: Schuster, Seeler Other Dutch options include: Robben, Van Nistelrooy (So again, very equal comparison I think and each team should function well in it's own way. I'm tempted to favour the Dutch slightly for the combinations up front, but if I was parting with cash would I bet on them over Germany).
edwin van der Sar arie Haan - rinus Israël - ruud Krol johan Neeskens - frank Rijkaard - wim van Hanegem ruud Gullit - johan Cruyff - rob Rensenbrink marco van Basten Alternating between a 3-4-3 and 4-3-3.
Thanks for the reps babaorum - France will follow some time in a pairing with Italy. It'll be the most complicated comparsion because: a) Finding the balance, especially for Italy, to not go against the tradition too much but also follow my preferences. b) I think there will be 14 players for each team as possible choices for a starting XI. c) I'm going to use the formation I did for Argentina/Brazil, but also a 4-2-2-2 and tbh various formations could be used for both nations I think. Meanwhile, I think I'd still have Hungary down as 8th favourites rather than Spain or anyone else. So, with no bias needed lol, I'm probably going to be having England coming out on top in the 4-1-3-2 all-time comparison with Hungary (scant consolation for 1953 maybe - not 100% but a lot of the Hungarians will be from that team of course). But, while I might have some hope that England, with their early eras stars included, could rival the other teams I think with Germany's continued success and effectiveness and considering the talent that could go into the teams of France, Argentina, Italy, Netherlands too....England might have to be 7th favourites! I think Brazil have to be my tip as number 1 team/winners of the imaginary tournament, but not with a lot of certainty even if the attacking options they can introduce could be overwhelming.
I like how you adapt to the Total Football theory there, and I guess Tony will appreciate it too. You could be joint managers for Holland maybe...if not for Italy lol! Since you brought Bulgarelli fully to our attention in the 'B' Draft, I think he'd be pencilled in alongside Tardelli (at least if I go with 4-2-1-2-1) so though I won't have a out-and-out destroyer (it was one of Tardelli's functions though I suppose) I'm possibly edging towards a bit of solidity in the midfield behind the skilful talents....then I'll fit in as much of that talent as possible (but as I say won't have a definitive starting XI for Italy or France).
Yes, and I didn't bother adding any arrows Can we let the Dutch win please (it is our Fantasy Tournament after-all!).
I couldn't fit arrows on when I was using the whole pitch for two teams! (not without making things more messy than normal anyway). Total Football is very conducive to excessive arrow overlap too! I think people will know that Cruyff would be all over the place, and that Cafu would get down the wing a lot (with Pele playing more inside) for my Brazil team too! And you're not thinking of a Sepp Maier own goal in injury time there are you, if the destiny of the tournament is in our hands?! (or his imaginary hands). I think we can fix it so the Dutch win vs the Germans, but I'm told we have to do the same for France vs Italy!
Here is England v Hungary (seems a bit one sided overall but I wouldn't rule out another Hungarian win in a head to head match!) Use this11.com for drawing your football tactics Banks>Grosics Walker>=Matrai Moore>Sarosi (surely as defender anyway, however good Sarosi was generally which is hard to know outside his era) Busanskzy>=Jones Pearce>=Lantos Edwards>=Bozsik (possibly, in prime which was cut short although Bozsik probably a better passer) Charlton>Hidegkuti Matthews>Albert Finney>=Czibor Lineker>=Kocsis (maybe best to just consider positively each players contribution to the team, as direct comparison with differing attributes, and indeed comparison of goal records in respective eras is hard - maybe I favour the exceptional pace and excellent movement over the exceptional aerial ability and excellent teamwork from the teams main striker) Puskas>Greaves Subs Shilton>Szabo B.Wright>=Lorant Campbell>Meszoly Robson=Detari Hoddle>Nyilasi Kubala>Barnes (Kubala should be allowed if Czechoslovakia aren't involved I think; otherwise I guess old-timers come into the fray or perhaps Fazekas) Shearer>Tichy Other England options include: Gascoigne, Keegan Other Hungary options include: Bene, Schlosser (and other old players with a great reputation like him)
Yeah, like I say if the time machine was ready and waiting right now I'd go with him lol! If I could delay it while I watch a few Jimmy Armfield games for example then who knows?? There are quite a few options - Viv Anderson is another Forest player so maybe I'd feel I'd be over-doing it with him - but he was both very adept defensively with his long legs and good at striding forwards too. Phil Neal, also from the 70's/80's. George Cohen was the right back in the 1966 team of course, and was certainly quick and athletic and I think pretty good defensively too. But yeah, Jones was a player I was very aware of from the moment he broke through with Liverpool of course. I wouldn't insist on him in a joint effort but if it's entirely my choice, I know that he was quick, marked and tackled wingers very well (Giggs etc) and was good on the ball and a good crosser/passer. Like I say, I felt that prime form could be the main factor for a task like this. I know that you were including him for one of your season reviews, so I'd say it's basically that version of the player I'm including (in the absence of convincing footage for Armfield for example). I know Gary Neville had a more illustrious career too of course, but I wouldn't necessarily think he was ever better than prime Rob Jones (or at least I myself wouldn't necessarily choose him ahead).
This article about Rob Jones is pretty good I think, for those who don't know so much about him (not so much comme or other British posters of a similar age to me): http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jan/10/rob-jones-liverpool-interview I know msioux already asked the same question in a different thread actually, but I don't think I posted an article but just my thoughts....
@comme G.Neville-D.Beckham would be working their magical wing-play on the England 'B' team. Finney, Matthews, Greaves and Charlton What an impressive front four. Some outstanding finishers on the bench too: Shearer, Lofthouse, Rooney, Lawton, Wright, Dean, Hunt, Hurst, Owen... not bad! @PDG1978 - how do your rank Robson, Gerrard, Lampard and Scholes? I feel all four are criminally underrated due to their NT's lack of 'success'.
I think Robson is the best fit of those for an all-star, all-time, squad as he was a box to box player who was as good going back towards his own goal as going forwards and scoring goals in his opponents. But is he the best player out of those 4? It's a difficult call I think and each have their own attributes that helped them contribute to some great success, as you say, moreso at Club level. Gerrard probably the second most complete of the 4, and also the best in the hole behind one striker. Lampard the best box to box goalscorer. Scholes the best passer, and early in his career the best at breaking into the box. Compared to other England midfielders, perhaps I'm under-rating them I dunno. I feel Gerrard and Lampard didn't have great guile, and while that can be a preference in terms of style of play it is also an asset to have plenty of that especially in International football I think. Scholes was not massively athletic and wasn't the best tackler of course. But those 3 are among the Premier League legends people will talk about for many years I think, and Robson still gets talked about similarly in terms of 80's football. Here is a Rob Jones video btw (I wonder if G.Neville has seen what Carragher said - although I remember him deliberately saying something detrimental about Neville as a joke earlier this season or last season):
As far as I know, Hapgood should be better categorized as CB in a 4-men defensive line, Mackay maybe a bit better option than Souness and Greaves better than Dalglish in the ST role.
Domingos is described as a SW who constantly went to the attack, how we can put him as lonely CB in a 3-men defensive line and none true DM ahead of him? Zico and Pelé were trequartistas who operated in the same área. I think that would be a weak formation (just only a strong one in PES Classics).
Falcao was a CM (a type of box-to-box playmaker) who can help to the defense but evidently a better offensive player from a deep position.
Luís Pereira is a legendary CB for Brazil and was one of the best in the world in the 70's. What makes him a laughable choice?
Tardelli was a great box-to-box midfielder, but if you put him ahead of him 5 other creative attacking-players you force him to be a pure DM, what would a be a waste of talent because he shone for his mixed role. Normally, he played alongside or ahead of a DM in his teams.
I think Benbarek should be there anywhere. I also think Ribéry and Piantoni were better choices than Barthez and Djorkaeff.
I don't think they're all-timers, but Scarone was probably the best player of the best Uruguayan era and perhaps the best player in the world at 20's.
Barthez made more than just two mistakes in all his appearances for France, just two of them resulted in goals because he had a strong defense to bail him out usually. My argument was based on not just logic but also reality, France for all its depth struggled without Zidane and Thuram. We cannot make a comparison with a France sans Platini and Tigana, since they stayed around throughout the entire run of that generation, but based on their level I would find it difficult to believe they would struggle as much. Rocha is an all-time great, had great WC, Copa America and an integral part of the great Penarol of the 70s. Also Suarez may reach that status, and I would say is on his way there.
Just to clarify Peru, I think you've quoted a post by Tony here. Not by myself anyway, although what you said about Hapgood is interesting to consider (I would have thought that about De Vecchi for example but I hadn't considered it re: Hapgood).
I can see Tony's point on this one (although La Maquina will be relieved I have Bulgarelli in my team too at least perhaps lol!). Because I'm not sure it's a waste of talent if another talent is included in midfield instead of a destroyer. Either the defensive side is less stable, or as you say Tardelli plays more restricted, but in return another great CM/AM is in the team (which actually enhances the talent much more than Tardelli being restricted takes away from it). I think I am gradually moving towards slightly more conservative teams, but I still think there are advantages to having many skilful players (but indeed the Italian tradition does favour a more reserved approach, letting one or two talents loose ahead of more combative/conservative midfielders - Pirlo has of course played as a deep lying playmaker though in recent times, but sometimes surrounded by more robust players). I can see the point of you and La Maquina too btw - the creative Italian players are not known for being CM's but more like AM's (perhaps not the case so much for an Antognoni or Giannini? - but they wouldn't be first choice picks probably in an all-time XI) and if the team has just two main midfielders, or is in a diamond, then I can see the case for the deepest midfielders not being very expansive and letting those ahead create. Maybe it's similar for Vieira and France....(though the French tradition, until the late 90's anyway, wasn't as cautious/defensive).