If you had played 4-4-2 with Baggio in a free role behind Fontaine, Laudrup at LW and Finney at RW, I would have liked the team more. Also, keeping Hamann might have been a smart move. We're talking about a guy who won a European Cup and played in a WC final - definitely _not_ a slouch. I think he would have liberated Hoddle or Liedholm nicely. You could have went after someone like Yashin or Maldini in the bonus round. Faccheti perhaps? Redondo or Rijkaard to replace Hamann if you really wanted to? I might have voted any of these teams #1. Definitely Top 5. Yashin Cafu Ondros Nesta Krol Hoddle Hamann Finney ------------ Laudrup Baggio Fontaine Dasayev -------------- Cafu Nesta Krol Maldini(or Faccheti) Hoddle Hamann Finney ------------ Laudrup Baggio Fontaine
If someone had my team what might they have done differently in terms of the tactical set up and formation?
Kahn Alberto Chumpitaz Lucio Zambrotta Makelele ????? Best DiStefano Zidane Drogba I'd have played this setup, and then tried desperately to replaced DiCanio with a big-time box-to-box MF.
Going out soon but since I've made my team a discussion point I'll quickly reply. I understand your point about a GK (I nearly considered Banks thinking Yashin might get blocked with Campos still in nice's team) or a left-sided defender. I wanted to really make my team with a star forward - van Basten who might've replaced Fontaine just because I wouldn't want to lose others from my team, and then I more ambitiously tried Cruyff who might've forced me to change formation since I think I'd have kept Hamann in. Could've been smarter to look at defence (Baresi was available also) but I couldn't resist and I didn't have a generally accepted top-ten candidate unlike a couple of other teams. You don't think Laudrup's better as a winger - just that Baggio and Finney look better placed in those more standard formations you suggested?
I think Finney was fine on the right in a 4-2-3-1. No qualms there. But, yes, I would have had Laudrup on the left and Baggio in a "free-ish" SS role. From there, I could have imagined some tactics allowing them to closely combine and overlap each other to create space.
Yeah, I'd have voted that side higher based on the midfield. Even if you hadn't been able to land someone of the Mattheus or Rijkard ilk, even someone like Essien would have been a big improvement. Were I you, I'd have tried at least once for Varela. Basically, sometimes less is more. What your side, as set up, reminded me a lot of was the Brazil side that had their maxic box - the four great attacking players who it was hoped would win the World Cup and who instead foundered because they couldn't work well as a team. We do at least know that DiStefano liked Zidane (he has openly said so, and Don Alfredo does not give praise lightly), but I can only imagine what DiStefano would have done to Best the seventh time Georgie tried to beat 3 top class defenders on his own.
Yes, he did......but Roque Jr. won both. He's still a slouch. Hamann was a fine player, but in this draft, he's some level below the other players chosen.
A couple of points. Edwards was picked in the bonus round, as a replacement for Romeo Benetti, who was my enforcer. I think I got a lot more for my midfield from the upgrade. As far as Pipo Rossi, I think everybody in South America would consider him an all-timer. He's probably not as well known in Europe, but I'm sure among those who know the game's history he's highly rated. He's remembered as one of the most talented players of his era and considered one of the best defensive mids in Argentina's history, if not the best. And he was a great two-way player, very good passing and controlling play as well as defending. I'm not sure why you wouldn't rate him, is it because of the 58 World Cup? Of course there were special circumstances that may explain Argentina's performance at that WC, which would make for a great discussion on another thread. -Especially considering how dominant Brazil was in 58, and the fact that Argentina used to do so well against Brazil during that time- And Rossi in particular was not 100 percent in Sweden. He was 33 years old and in fact during matches he was wearing a copper wire around his waist to help him deal with some rheumatism pain that was bothering him at the time and hampered his play. As far as Boniek I think he proved playing for Poland that he can be a great wide player. As I recall, he played at the 78 WC wide on the left with Deyna in the middle, to great effect, and at the 82 WC he played on the wing as well, and he was one of the top stars of both those World Cups. I remember he could play both on the right and the left, and I envisioned his role as probing the spaces on either side and getting behind the fullbacks (as most teams have attacking fullbacks). As far as Riquelme, I'm not sure how history will remember him. He's not Maradona, but he's a skillful creator. If it wasn't for his own stubbornness he should be leading Argentina's effort to try to win the World Cup, and he should be a fixture in Champions League, and instead he's playing for a Boca Juniors that is a team in rebuilding mode right now. But having watched him play a lot, I think he's magic on the field. I think I build a team that fits his style, but he's not my only attacking option, I don't think you control my team by controlling him, because both my fullbacks are very skillful joining the attack, so are my central defenders, and my defensive mids, and Boniek and of course Sarosi can move deep and help create if necessary. The only one who is not really a skillful creative player is Batistuta, but he has his obvious clear role. As far as Liedholm or Hoddle, of course they'd be good players to have. I wouldn't touch my partnership of Rossi and Edwards, though. If I had to do a swap for one of those two players, I think the way I would utilize them, the natural substitution would be for Riquelme. (And maybe this also helps give you an idea of my philosophy for my team, the type of balance I was trying to achieve.)
George would have quit at HT. There's no Charlton-esque "father figure" in L>G's side. Essien is Ok for this draft, but Hamann is not? Given the chance to upgrade with a Maldini at LB and move Krol to the libero. I'd have kept Hamann
Agreed on the part about Karloski's team. I was fairly surprised by Fletcher's role. I wasn't sure about the attacking pair Weah-Romario either. About the comments on my team, I noticed you said almost the same thing as ASF regarding the two. If I picked two more respected (''better'') players instead of them, would it have made a change on your ranking? Could you say more specifically what did you like? I regret a bit for throwing out Evaristo, as perhaps I could make it look better with him. Your team was picked as the first one by me, by the way. I really liked the way your defense was constructed. The centre-back pair would fit perfectly, I would say. Two different styles of playing, but which complement Figueroa's or Thuram's weaknesses. Adding to those two, two great attacking full-backs made a complete back four. Notable the huge versatility of your attacking line as well. You have no pure striker, but every attacker could be a great danger for the opponent. The only issue I had was the use of two attackers on the wings. That would be very well put up, if you had two great defensive full-backs, and solid at going forward. But considering the strengths of Junior and Leandro, have you thought of not putting up Gullit and Stoichkov wide? I told you before to not put Zico on a wide position, as he rarely operated in those parts of the field. Twenty26Six and nicephoras said it well. Considering the state of your team before the final round, picking Zico was a mistake, considering your already excellent attacking midfield. Someone like Rijkaard would considerably make your team look better. Personally, I would have not either throw out the possibility to put Di Stefano on a more deep position, just behind the other attacking midfielders, as the main link up between defence and offence, and finally pair him with Makelele. Considering his versatility, he would be great at that role as well.
Go first with what is proven to work. You got the coup of the draft by getting Di Stefano, so if I was you the first thing I would have done after that would be to try to get him Gento, or somebody who closely matches his characteristics, somebody direct and with lots of speed on the flank.
Essien and Hamann are basically on the same level (both the German side that made it to the finals and the Liverpool side that won the EC were pretty fluky, so I wouldn't give him too much credit there), but in L>G's case, Essien, or someone like him (there are better players, I was using a more recent example) would have been a vastly better choice than Zico.
With the players you had, I probably would have tried this tactic, although I definitely wouldn't have drafted Best after already picking up both Di Stefano and Zidane in the earlier rounds.
I think you have similar ideas for Boniek that I have for Finney. I think maybe your seperating out the starting positions of Sarosi and Boniek to give them clearly different roles was better regarded/better understood than what I did with Baggio and Finney. Although having said that I think I envisage Baggio and Finney's roles to be slightly more similar than Sarosi and Boniek's - I wasn't simply making my starting formation symmetrical, but Baggio would naturally have a tendency to support Fontaine. I appreciate the comments about Laudrup's role (from a few drafters) and if I'd known it would've been tempting to 'win votes' by placing him wide but honestly if the team was for real it's definately the playmaker role (equivalent to Riquelme in your team ASF but with a different style) for him. I think actually ASF I didn't have many 'problems' with your teams setup - not as much as you with mine but everyone has excellent players and maybe I didn't rate your best ones (probably Edwards and Batistuta in my view) as highly as some other drafters, while still appreciating it was a very good team and perhaps better balanced than a number of others who had players that persuaded me to rank them ahead (Lamps>Gerrard's would be an example although I saw it working well.. well enough to make good use of his stars anyway) I've seen Boniek in action for Poland during the World Cups but I was only young at the times so mostly from clips etc and while I've seen extended highlights of the 74 Poland side, not to the same extent the sides Boniek played in. In 74 they played a 4-3-3 with Deyna in the middle (creative player in line with my philosophy I think) and two players either side of him, Kasperczak and another mostly who I suppose would be termed right and left midfielder although not wingers because the wingers played further forwards and Deyna needed support. Did Boniek play in the midfield 3 or the forward 3. What formation did they use in '82 - wasn't Lato deeper? Boniek seems to be in the centre to score his goals but I think you're giving him freedom (like me with Finney) and he should perform pretty well in the role. Would you rate Nestor Rossi on a par with Fernando Redondo then? If I'd be convinced to do the same then I would've undervalued him although I do rate Redondo very much, probably because he was so skillful for an anchor midfielder, but he could handle the likes of Roy Keane without too much trouble or being intimidated too.
I'll post my rankings later, my reasons for them and what I would have done differently to those teams. Despite the low ratings, I'm still satisfied with my team but it was a shame that only ASF really understood how my team functioned. Maybe it's something to do with the players other posters know of and the teams that they like to watch. I also get the impression that most posters don't enough about these Italian teams in detail and they have a more stereotypical look at these teams. I felt that Rounds 3 and 5 were regretful in my book because that's when I felt I played it too safe, especially in drafting Burgnich and Southall. I don't regret drafting the latter though. I wanted to rep you but I have to keep spreading. I'd like to know what others thought of my team too. I've only seen PDG1978's opinion and yours. The impression I got is that most people didn't know enough about my players. That's great that you noticed the Italy 82 structure! It's also pretty similar to Italy 70 on the basis that I've got 2 players from 1970 and only Scirea from 82. I was thinking of drafting Conti, Gentile, Antognoni, Cabrini and P Rossi but I either had better players or they didn't fit into the criteria. I'll compare the three teams just so people can get more insight. dor02's Sheep Draft Team ---------------- Southall ---------------- Scirea Burgnich ----- Costacurta ------------------------------- Briegel --- D Blanchflower --- Bremner Hamrin ---------- Hagi ---------- Altafini ---- Riva NOTE: this was how the team would look like if Valcareggi or Bearzot had these players. My set-up was on the tactics thread Italy 70 --------------- Albertosi ---------------- Cera Burgnich ------- Rosato --------------------------- Facchetti ----------- Bertini --- De Sisti Domenghini --- S Mazzola/Rivera ------- Boninsegna --- Riva Italy 82 -------------- Zoff -------------- Scirea Gentile ------ Collovati ------------------------- Cabrini -------- Tardelli --- Oriali Conti ------ Antognoni ------- P Rossi --- Graziani The set-up on my post shows what my team would look like if Valcareggi or Bearzot had these players. My set-up was on the tactics thread. One part in which my team differs from the two Italian sides that Hamrin wasn't an ala tornante or returning winger. A returning winger is like a modern day RM. Hamrin was a classical winger with great dribbling ability and he even had the goal-scoring rate of an out-and-out striker. Briegel too differs from the likes of Facchetti and Cabrini. Briegel was more forceful and possessed greater strength and stamina than the two Italian LBs. He wasn't as techincally gifted on the ball as the other two. I feel that although I used Italy 82 as a model, I feel that my team probably has a bit more similarity to Italy 70. Burgnich and Riva are present but it's also something to do with the midfield. Giancarlo De Sisti wasn't as highly-regarded as Danny Blanchflower but he was an excellent player in his own right. He was that CM with good tackling and great ball distribution. Mario Bertini was a DM and he had a better goal-scoring record than Bremner at club level. Bertini didn't possess Bremner's toughness or leadership characteristics though. Cera was a fine player but he was really a defensive midfielder with great long-passing and in truth, he was no Scirea. In the 1982 Final, Antognoni was injured so Bergomi played in defence and Gentile and Bergomi played man-marking roles in a 5-3-2. Bearzot didn't have enough faith in Giuseppe Dossena and a young Daniele Massaro play in such a big game. He could have played the veteran Franco Causio in the AM role but he was best known for being a right-winger. The difference between this team and mine is that Tardelli was a box-to-box midfielder and Blanchflower wasn't that type of player. Going back to drafting the 1982 players, I wasn't fazed about getting Zoff because there were other great keepers to get. I should have drafted Scirea instead of Bremner. I reckon I played it too safe in Round 3, especially since Triton failed on his Scirea pick on his second attempt. Cabrini didn't match the criteria at times that I wanted to draft him but LB was covered early anyway. I would have been wrapped if I got him and Breitner (I'll explain more in my response to PDG1978). Antognoni didn't match the criteria and I thought of drafting him late because I've never seen him being drafted in any BS drafts. I wanted him in midfield but my team would have been too offensive-minded and Bremner would have needed to do all the DM work. I didn't get Conti because I wanted a more prolific scorer than him. He wasn't a bad scorer but he was no Hamrin. Rossi is my favourite player ever but BS posters don't rate him highly and possess little knowledge on him aside from his 1982 exploits. It seems that most BS posters look at him as another Salvatore Schillaci, which he really wasn't. Gentile was one defender I wanted the most because he is my fave defender. There has never been a man-marker like him and I would take him over Burgnich anyday. Burgnich fits into my tactics well but watch Italy v Brazil from 1970 and Italy v Argentina from 1982 to see why I prefer Gentile. Check out these two quotes too. "I told myself before the game, 'he is made of skin and bones just like everyone else' — but I was wrong." - Tarcisio Burgnich "Football is not a game for prima donnas." - Claudio Gentile Other Italian players I thought of drafting were Giampiero Boniperti and Silvio Piola. Boniperti could have been drafted because he played over 400 Serie A games for Juve. He could have played as a RW, AM or CF so the versatility, not to mention the talent, was there. Piola could have been drafted in the same round as Hamrin but I already had Altafini. I didn't have many "legends" who were #1 in their own position. I also felt that I played it too safe in the draft. Only Yashin was one player I tried to block during the drafting process and there was no way I was going to bother with drafting Maradona, Pele or Cryuff. Scirea is rated as one of the greatest sweepers ever though. Baresi was better defensively, Koeman and Passarella took free-kicks and only Beckenbauer was better at going forward, IMHO. Otherwise he is still one of the greatest defenders to have played the game and since the Italians are the so-called "masters of defence", Scirea would make most Italy All-Time XIs. Southall is considered to be one of the greatest goalkeepers in the English game and starred in Everton's team of the 80s. In that era, only Juve and Liverpool were better and then Milan came back onto the European scene in the late 80s. To me, he wasn't a Peter Schmeichel, Pat Jennings, Harry Gregg, Gordon Banks or Peter Shilton but still better than Ray Clemence, Bert Trautmann or David Seaman. I don't know enough about Frank Swift and I'd rather die than draft Edwin van der Sar. I wanted Paul Breitner initially at LB but he got blocked. If I got him, I would have that option of using as either an LB or AM, I could have used Hagi as an LM and I might have worked out a way to draft Antonio Cabrini. Maldini was going to be blocked, Nilton Santos was on my mind but I couldn't work out how many of his Botofogo games were official. I was never going to draft Roberto Carlos because I've never seen him defend well. Danny Blanchflower and Bremner are legends in their own nations and in the English game. I drafted Blanchflower because I didn't get a box-to-box midfielder so I thought a withdrawn playmaker was the way to go and Blanchflower was one of the greatest in that role. He would play a creative part too, not just Hagi but the Romanian was always going to be the main creative force in midfield. Bremner was a destroyer and that was his role in my team. Sometimes he would go up for set-pieces though and occassionally played as a box-to-box player. From what I've seen of him, he was a destroyer like you said and if we are talking about Scots, only Souness was better (some will also say Dave Mackay too). In the English game, Roy Keane too was better than Bremner. Stanley Matthews was considered (nicephoras considered him too) but I didn't draft him because I was looking too much at my defence in that part of the draft. Hamrin though is one of the greatest right-wingers ever and IMO, only Garrincha and Matthews were better. He is also one of the greatest ever goal-scorers in the Serie A's history (he's in the Top 10 and he's scored over 200 goals) and he starred at Sweden 58 for the home nation. Only Nils Liedholm and maybe Gunnar Nordahl were better Swedish players and if I'm certain on one thing, Zlatan Ibrahimovic is not worthy of cleaning Hamrin's shoes. Altafini for many years had the record of scoring 14 goals in one European Cup tornament (1962/63) before Jurgen Klinsmann scored 15 for Bayern in the 1995/96 UEFA Cup. If I recall correctly, he is the highest scoring foreigner in Serie A history (216 goals) and he might have gained greater recognition if he did much better at Sweden 58. If Altafini (known as Mazzola at that time) did well in the group stages for Brazil in that tornament, one could wonder how Pele's career turned out. I don't know what exactly made you think that Riva was going to be a creator. I had stated in my tactics that Riva was going to be a goal-scoring winger and not necessarily a supplier because it wasn't in his game. He started his career as a left-winger but in my team, he was more about scoring goals. Hamrin was either going to create chances for Altafini or score himself. Riva didn't have to worry about supplying Altafini. Not only that, when Briegel would attack, Riva would move into more of a striker's position anyway.
Dor02 - I'm replying to your post above (not copied it again as it's pretty long, even the part addressing my points). I think it shows the potential quality of all teams that there can be such differing positions voted for a team. If your team played a match against Lamps>Gerrard's I wouldn't see it as a huge shock if you won, despite voting his team 1st. The same would apply to Excape Goat's team and if my team was to play yours I'd feel you were well capable of getting a result. So it's definately a case of fine margins - although I genuinely saw my own team in a very positive way, I probably shouldn't be so miffed about being voted near the bottom - I do disagree but I can see all teams are very capable. I wouldn't disagree with your analysis of your players. I certainly don't think you over-rated Southall - in the mid-80's he was one of the best in the world I think. Altafini was certainly a sharp goalscorer - I watched a Youtube compilation of him I'd not seen before when I was considering your team. I didn't think you were using Riva as a creative player - my observation was just that because he wasn't great at that, it could leave your team reliant on Hagi although I'm sure Riva was skillful enough to join in with the build-up. Hamrin was a very tricky player who could be inventive although I get the impression more through tricks on the ball, twisting and turning etc than by playing great passes. I notice you rate Liedholm very highly - I don't know how you feel about his role in my team, perhaps you're thinking Hoddle's not his ideal partner like a few others seem to? Going back to Altafini I think you'd be more qualified than me to say, and I'd be interested to know whether you consider him on a par with or even better than Nordahl. I'll admit to assuming the Swede had an edge when looking at KyleP's team. As for Paolo Rossi, I do rate him certainly as a top 100 ever candidate and one of the sharpest finishers. With the decisions so close, I may have moved your team up a little just on the basis of him being in it although without a system change he could only really have been in instead of Altafini I guess?
I agree on Hamrin being one of the best players ever in his position. I recently watched the 1968 European Cup Winners Cup final (Milan vs. Hamburg). Great stuff by Milan (very technical side with a fluent passing game and creativity) and two great goals by Hamrin.
Hamrin was still a great player at Milan. His best days were at Fiorentina but he even proved that he was still a wonderful player in the twilight of his career. Come to think of it, Altafini and Hamrin were teammates at Napoli. They even had Dino Zoff in goal too! They were both left-footers so maybe in that regard, they could have had a better understanding on the field than some other AMs. I was thinking of rating your team first or second with the players you had (within the first 7 or 8 rounds) but once the drafting and tactics were done, I wasn't as satisfied. I'll post more in my next post, which gives my take on things. I wouldn't rate Altafini higher and I made a mistake in my previous post. Nordahl is the highest-scoring foreigner in Italy. Altafini seemed to be more mobile and a better dribbler, IMO. Nordahl was great in his positioning, aerial ability and I think he had a more powerful shot. Nordahl had a better goal average than Altafini. At one stage, I think he was getting over a goal a game but then he retired with 225 in 257 matches. That's good to hear. Aside from Spain 82, he was a star at Argentina 78 and he was a great striker at Vicenza (he nearly won them a Serie A title single-handedly). At Juve, he wasn't as prolific as in his Vicenza days but he was a big game player. I don't think lanman rates him too highly. Having said that, I think he was looking at an All-Time list and Rossi made the Top 30 so I think compared to other strikers, he probably there were a few who were more worthy of that ranking. Nordahl or Rossi? Rossi could be in there instead of Altafini or even Hamrin. He started as a right-winger but once Vicenza bought him in 1976, he became the striker we know about. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting Rossi on the wing, especially since he was such a great finisher in big matches. In the round I drafted Altafini, I nearly picked Sivori but he got blocked anyway. Thanks for your opinions, PDG1978. I've only read your opinion and ASF's so far. I'll have to look back for more if they have been posted.
Here are my rankings: 1. 26 - I felt that 26 had the right blend of tactics and personnel. His wide forwards were great in support stiker roles too, Albert could be more withdrawn, two attacking full-backs, a great CB, a great sweeper and a balanced MD. Dunga as the anchorman, Tardelli is the box-to-box MD and Netzer providing the creativity, I felt his team would link-up better than the rest. Defensively, 26 could rely on Gullit to run back and he played in defence for Feyenoord. 2. billyireland - a very balanced side but I think most people didn't rate it highly due to its players. Maybe second was too high but when doing my rankings, I wasn't going to rate it lower than 6th. Schmeichel is one of the greatest keepers ever, Rijkaard is one of the best CMs ever and Johnstone was a great RW. Loved his description of Inter's 1967 team too! Ferdinand can play the ball out of defence and Materazzi is a hack but he is great at set-pieces. At Perugia, he took their free-kicks and penalties and he scored 12 goals in 2000-01 for them (a record for a defender in the Serie A). Before that, Passarella scored 11 in 1985-86 for Fiorentina. IMHO, only Lippi at World Cup 06 could bring the best out of him post-Perugia but he did score 9 goals in the 06-07 Serie A season. Samitier isn't a player I know much about but he sounded like a great player. I reckon some people were put off by Papin because he didn't have a great NT record. He was at his best at Marseille but he wasn't near his peak at Mexico 86 and he didn't have enough support at Euro 92. The ironic thing for him was that Marseille won the CL after he left. billy created very good 4-2-3-1 side and pretty much everyone was in position. Only Crompton seemed to be moved wider and Samitier more withdrawn 3. comme - looking back on it, I probably should have placed him first. I think his positioning of James in the formation put me off. He did play as an inside-left in the Wembley Wizards game but at the Gunners, he was an inside-right. I felt that Bozsik might have been doing too much defensively with the players around him and Andrade is probably too far back for my liking. Andrade did play in Uruguay's 1950 win with a system similar to the Swiss Bolt (if not a Uruguayan take on it) and he essentially was a right-back instead of right-half. Other than that, Greaves is one of the greatest finishers ever, Morton was a star in the 10s and 20s and another Wembley Wizard, Garrincha is the greatest winger ever and in Meazza, a player who might have been the greatest player before Matthews and Di Stefano. My dad believes he was the greatest until Pele played. Some people would still rate Meazza higher than Gianni Rivera and Roberto Baggio when discussing Italy's best offensive talents 4. Excape Goat - he did a very good job in placing great players in the most modern and conventional formation of them all, the 4-4-2. Despite the greatness of the wide players, I felt that his team would be too predictable in its attacking play, especially against tall defenders. For DMs/CMs, Monti and Neeskens were very good in attacking but I would have opted for an MD which offered more on the ball that them. Since most people know the 4-4-2 system and those CMs fit the system in its conventional sense, I suppose that's why he won. I wouldn't have rated it higher than second but he's still a worthy winner and EG is a top bloke anyway 5. Triton - the problem I had with his team was his attacking set-up and I might of rated it higher with better attackers. Triton still drafted some great forwards though and I don't think Stojkovic was rated higher than what he should. It would have helped if he had a better career at Marseille and Verona or stayed at Red Star for one more season. I would have lined them up in a 4-3-1-2: -------------------- Stojkovic ---------- Rummenigge ----- Suker I like the rest of the team though. I like his midfield, he has great full-backs and needless to say, having Buffon and Gentile there gives the defence more security 6. ASF - ASF's team was in the 3-6 range, IMO. Boniek's role was the most interesting and I reckon he could do his role better than Sarosi. Sarosi's roving role is hard to visualise for me. Clever, versatile, technically gifted and a great leader, IMO he should have been used in a nominal position though. Maybe I need to refreshen my info on Sarosi but I personally wouldn't have used him in an SS role (CM or CF) or I'd draft someone else. If you got Sivori, he would have been more ideal. A great Argentine defence bar Julio Cesar, who's Brazilian, is the main strength of this team. Nestor Rossi is legend in SA, Edwards was the best Busby Babe (he had to be good to keep out Bobby Charlton), Riquelme carried Villarreal to a CL semi-final, Bati is the best Argentine out-and-out forward ever and Boniek is the best Pole ever (only Lato can claim to be better). With great attacking full-backs like his and Boniek as an ala tornante (he even played as a sweeper for Roma), his team was better than most teams that packed their team with CMs 7. frasermc - the thing that put me off was the usage of Bergkamp and Mazzola. I personally would have used them in the tactical roles they were given. My placing of them: ------------- S Mazzola ------ Bergkamp ----- McGrory Instead of drafting S Mazzola, he coul have got a left-winger in the final round and set-up his attack like this: Bergkamp --- McGrory --- LW His CB pairing is great and a very good midfield. 8. PDG1978 - for many rounds, I thought that he would win but I felt tha he drafted too many offensive players. He does have more balance than Lamps > Gerrard and Dark Savante though and a better system too. I have no problems with the defence except that Nesta could have had a better partner in defence. I'll give Ondrus credit in that he is one of the former Czechoslovakia's best defenders and played in their Euro 76 win. I felt that Baggio's positioning was the main problem for me becausehe was never an LW. He was a right-winger in a 4-3-3 for Bologna in 1997-98 and scored a career high 22 goals for the season. Bologna's attack was like this from memory: R Baggio --- K Andersson --- Kolyvanov OR R Baggio --- Kolyvanov ---- Nervo With the players he had, he could have swapped Baggio and Finney around and play a 4-3-3. I liked the idea of Hoddle being withdrawn because of his great passing range but I would have opted for a better DM. Liedholm was very versatile and he was a great defensive player but he was best used offensively. Great distribution and a great scorer. As his career in Italy progressed, he played in more withdrawn positions. He was an inside-left in a WM formation so I'd use him as either an AM or SS. He could be a sweeper or DM but I prefer him in offensive roles. It was once claimed that he wasted no passes for 45 matches with Milan and once he did, his own fans clapped. Liedholm was drafted in the final round so in order to support Hoddle, maybe a more conventional or regular DM would have been better. I nominated him for the final round and if I drafted him, he would be used offensively. In terms of rosters, this was one of the best. In terms of tactical set-up, it need more solidarity in midfield for it to be first or close to it. 9. Lamps>Gerrard - very good defence and lots of attacking talent. Midfield structure was poor (Makelele as the only DM) and there are too many #10s. This is how I'd line-up the midfield and attack: ----- Makelele --- Di Stefano Best ----------------------- Zidane ------- Drogba --- Zico Di Stefano is the anti-Drogba in the sense that he doesn't like aerial play. You would have been better off drafting Lampard instead of Drogba. Di Stefano said something like "Cows eat grass and that's where the football should be. If God wanted the ball in the air, he would have put the grass in the sky." 10. Dark Savante - I nearly rated this team as low as 14th. Sammer is the only pure midfielder and he could play as sweeper. The rest of the team is dominated by star forwards and the best thing to do is kick the ball down to them and send the ball down the wings. Sammer would be shut-down if he was relied upon to play the ball from midfield. It's a great shame because there are so many great attackers but there's hardly a midfield to really provide them the ball and the players aren't right for a 4-2-4 midfield. Zizinho and Rivaldo would have to drop back too often for my liking. 11. schwuppe - the personnel counted against his team. Not enough greats for my liking and too many underrated guys. Moreno was an inside-right, meaning that he was an AM in the WM formation. Some old Argentines do rate him better than Maradona though. Tactically, schwuppe had one of the very best teams though and if I based this on tactics only, he would be in the Top Three 12. nicephoras - probably harsh to rate his team in 12th but I didn't like the midfield set-up. I felt he tried to fit those guys in a standard 4-4-2 and he lacks a true DM. Coluna was a CM and I'd use him as more of a box-to-box MD. I would prefer Suarez in the hole and Loustau is too withdrawn. Eusebio and Sheva would have made a great attack though. If he got Matthews, he would have had an excellent 4-2-4 team 13. Peru FC - he had many greats but I felt too many players weren't playing in their natural positions. Schiaffino as an LW doesn't sound very good because he was either an inside-left or CF. In modern terms, either an AM, support striker or out-and-out striker. Kopa was a right-winger at Real but he was best as a withdrawn centre-forward. Nasazzi and De Vecchi were full-backs in a 2-3-5. I would have opted to have placed them in the centre of defence but looking at their characteristics properly, they would have the talent to adapt to the modern versions of their respective positions. I didn't like Moore and Hierro at first but the former would be good as a stopper CB and Hierro as an attacking sweeper. Puskas as a #9 would have looked better if he had pure wingers to support him. Aside from the CBs, Mackay, Didi and Rivera were placed in positions they can fit into naturally. I felt I was too harsh on him too, more so than the rest. I still wouldn't have rated this team as highly than the rest but 7th or 8th might have been better ranking, IMO. He managed to fit players from the old 2-3-5 and WM formations into something modern and that's where I give him credit. 14. Kyle P - He has a big guy-little guy defence like Lamps>Gerrard, two great german full-backs and Zoff in goal. The forward line is good but this team team could have done with a ball-playing defender and a much better midfield structure. It's a missing a DM and I checked Van Hanegem's Wiki page but that's an error. In the Holland 74 midfield, he was the least defensive-minded. The others did more: Neeskens --- Van Hanegem --- Jansen Masopust was an attacking left-half so LCM would have been the best place for him. I'm not a fan of Ceulemans as a midfielder, even though his Wiki page says that he was a midfielder. He was best used as a support striker. Kyle P's team could have been like this. It would have suited Masopust better: ---------------- Zoff Vogts --- Canna --- Stam --- Brehme ----- Van Hanegem --- Masopust C Ronaldo - Nordahl - Ceulemans - Henry C Ronaldo, Nordahl and Henry sound great in attack but the midfield could have been better. 15. Karloski - his alternative formation was better than his first but what was with the Fletcher fetish? I might sound like a jerk but that was the reason this team was rated so lowly. He should have looked for a great attacking right-back or another excellent CB (depending on the usage of Bergomi). If he looked more for some more natural wide players for the right, this team might have been rated higher. Weah and Romario up front is a good duo, Maier was a great goalie, Lizarazu and Nedved are great on the left, especially the latter and he has three great CMs. This draft showed that the smallest errors can rely mess your team up and looking at some of the players drafted, they are too good for a side at the bottom I'm probably rather negative sounding about this but don't take it personally. Maybe it's just my Italian blood and how we look at tactics. I also preferred players to be used in their best positions. I'll give lanman two thumbs up for a great concept. I doubt there has been a better draft on his BS.
I'm really surprise, not because of the ranking but rather the reasoning behind it. I always thought if someone would vote me that low it sure is because of tactics and my lack of understanding/knowledge in that area. My impression always was that my attack + midfield are ~top 3-5 in this draft JUST GOING BY BIG NAMES and GREATNESS. (I'd say Ocwirk and Gerson are Top 10 - 15 CM ever, same goes for Socrates and Rivelino on the AM position and Kocsis makes a good case for beeing the 6th -7th best striker) Defense and Goaltending are somewhere in the middle though. Well you just seem to have a different idea on judging player as you rated billie's squad #2, which in my mind had the draft's weakest overall squad (sorry dude I'm sure you'll have more luck next time ) No offence here again I'm just a bit upset.
First of all, congratulations to Excape Goat, a deserved victory in my opinion. Also thank to lanman for organizing this draft that has seemed the best I've played in this forum, pure nerves! I'm satisfied to finish in second place , I knew the competence would be hard and the difference of criteria would fluctuate a lot, but, in spite of that, suprised me seems me was certain consensus revising the points obtained: 1. Excape Goat - 189 2. Perú FC - 163 3. comme - 151 4. argentine soccer fan - 146 5. Twenty26Six - 139 Being Excape Goat a clear winner with 26 points of difference and me a clear second position with 12 points of difference. comme, argentine soccer fan and Twenty26Six the most notable group behind, and 15 points then schwuppe, frasermc, nicephoras and Lamps>Gerrard surpassing the 100 points. Finally being Karloski in the last position with 40 points of difference, marking an interesting tendency in spite we all coincided all had strong teams. Thanks comme, coming from you is a great praise due to your knowledge. And you was my top team . My ranking was: 1. Excape Goat 2. frasermc 3. Lamps>Gerrard 4. KyleP 5. Twenty26Six 6. argentine soccer fan 7. comme 8. billyireland 9. dor02 10. Triton 11. PDG1978 12. schwuppe 13. Karloski 14. Dark Savante 15. nicephoras
If you look at the highest rated defensive mids in Argentine history - Monti, Rossi, Rattin Redondo - I'd say Rossi is the closest to Redondo in terms of style. (Some would add Ardiles to the list, but with Ossie you give away some of the physical intimidating factor that the other four have, although you do get creativity and hard work in recovery.) Monti was more of an old fashioned overpowering player, and Rattin more of a pure destroyer sitting in front of the defenders. I'd say Rossi was physically and in terms of skill closer to Redondo. He might have the edge in that he's remembered more than Redondo for his leadership qualities, his talking and organizing on the field. His nickname was "la voz" (the voice) because he had a deep voice and during a match was constantly talking, directing his teammates and messing with his opponents. On the negative side, maybe Rossi more physical and more likely to get red carded than Redondo, who was remarkably disciplined for a tough guy. I did try to get Redondo for my team, before I went for Pipo. Of course Redondo being a modern player, picking him would have been an advantage in that I've seen him play and I know more in terms of the specifics about his game, and so would everybody else who's judging my team.
Of course Stojkovic and Suker are among the all-time great, and it's very difficult to find an upgrade. But, at the highest level, looking at some of the teams I picked ahead of yours, they had players like Eusebio, Muller, Puskas, Kocsis. Really the margins of difference were very small, so when it came time for placement, maybe an Eusebio over a Suker can make the difference. Looking at the unpicked players, maybe to add firepower, in the bonus round you could have gone for Van Basten, or you could have picked a legendary old timer like Bican. Still, your team was one that I liked.
Like ASF said, if you'd been able to upgrade to an all-timer (I mean say a top 5-10 player in those positions) in each of those positions it would have done you a fair bit of good. I thought you had a very well balanced side. Like I said those particular two were real favourites of mine. I thought Stoijkovic in particular was a brilliant player, but if you'd been able to get, say, a Rivera or a Kopa it would have helped.