I thought about setting up a 4-3-1-2 strategy as well, but didn't think Rummenigge would fit as a striker along with Šuker. Being positioned more deeply along with a playmaker like Stojković would use his skills to a greater effect, I thought. Either way, the two strategies are pretty similar with few marginal differences. As for your team, I ranked it on the seventh place on pair with a few others that came ahead of yours due to small differences. I liked the balance, especially the way you constructed the back line with Scirea as the main man of it (he was my first wanted player ahead of Vasovic). The issue I had was putting Riva at the wing in your main formation (I didn't know he was a winger in his early days though), but I thought putting him in a support striker position would have been more suited for him. The midfield had good thoughts behind surely, it's just that I didn't think it would have been able to provide the wanted number of balls for the attack.
Fair point. This goes to you comme as well. After the formations were put up, I thought Evaristo would fit better instead of Rummenigge as his more dynamic style would provide a more effective firepower and eventually more danger for the opponents. He was very prolific as well. In the final round, as you said, I could pick a more polished striker than Šuker. That would have made my attack more good to watch. This is the only thing I regret a bit in this great draft. With the other parts of my team I'm very satisfied.
Hmm, I have to say I don't really agree with your assessment on the layout of my midfield. Van Hanegem could most definitely play as a defensive midfielder, though he was more of an Essien type than a Redondo or Mascherano for example, and Neeskens was certainly the most attack minded of the three. I don't really see the problem with playing Masopust on the right side of central midfield either, sure he played as a left half back and inside forward, but he was right footed and Ceulemans, a predominantly left sided player who liked to utilise the left wing on occasions, would be far more suited to playing on the other side of the pitch. I really don't think support striker was Ceulemans' best position either, he was an attacking midfielder but far more all action than someone like Platini or Zico. I'd compare him more to someone like Gerrard today. C. Ronaldo - Nordahl - Ceulemans - Henry all upfront I think simply wouldn't have worked, it would have been overload and not aloud me to exploit Ceulemans' physical presence or workrate in midfield, which would have been lacking slightly, with only van Hanegem and Masopust for support. Essentially, I was playing the 4-3-3 of the current Barce team, which I thought was the formation which suited my 11 the best. There were perhaps better role players available out there, who would have slotted in better in certain positions so perhaps I should have drafted differently, but I think 4-3-3 was the best system for the players I had.
Some great write-ups. I'm working away in Newcastle all this week and don't have my notes with me but I will supply an overview of my thinking for my final positions when I return to Glasgow. A quick question for ASF. You mentioned that you weren't sure how well Desailly, Beckenbauer and Rattin would have worked together. Could you elaborate a little more on that please? I was very pleased with my CB pairing. Desailly dovetails well with Beckenbauer for me. The elegance of Beckenbauer coupled with the physical presence of Desailly(who was also comfortable on the ball). I think he'd have been happy to sit and allow Der Kaiser the opportunity to become the extra man in midfield for us when required. Rattin would have been asked to cover for Beckenbauer when he raided forward.
For you, Fraser. I was really concerned more with your lack of width. IIRC, you had Rattin, Xavi, Robson, Bergkamp, and Mazzola as attackers behind McGrory. I didn't see any of those 6 players really providing any width for the team. I think that the width would have been too dependent on your FBs. Forcing your FBs to get into the attacking third on every possession would have been a big weakness in this draft. They'd be up against big-time wing attackers from almost every team. McGrory was also at a disadvantage. A stocky 5'6'' player up against some modern defenders would have struggled. Scoring with his head in his era would have been much easier than in this draft. Plus, the lack of width would not have allowed many chances for that anyway.
I know that you said I was missing an out-and-out striker. Then, how do you account for some of the best teams in the history of the game also having this same "problem"? Also, just for Billy's sake, I really have to hear the reasoning behind ranking Nice _and_ myself behind Billy.
Beckenbauer being a very strong and vocal defensive leader as a sweeper who pushes up, and Rattin primarily a defensive player right in front of the defense also being a strong character who likes to call the shots and who goes for every ball, I thought maybe they might get on each other's way. I don't see as much of a problem with Desailly, but looking at all three together, you have three strong characters. I was questioning how it would work out. I saw it as one of those things that might work very well but are risky. I love Rattin, but if I had Beckenbauer I don't think I would have chosen him.
* Well, the Hungarian teams that featured Florian Albert and Ferenc Bene would be the most obvious example. * The Magyars with Hidegkuti, Puskas, and Kocsis could be compared (in playing shape) to how I envisioned Albert, Stoickhov, and Gullit. * Then, there is the Austrian Wunderteam with Sindelar. * Cruyff's Barcelona paired Romario and Stoichkov. And, I don't consider Romario an "out-and-out" striker. But, maybe that's a debatable argument. * Liverpool with David Johnson and Kenny Dalglish could be seen as missing an "out-and-out" striker. Dalglish later become an almost completely withdrawn SS. * Dutch National Team with Cruyff, Rensenbrink, etc. Do you want me to keep going?
But that was a team that reached one quarter-final at one World Cup. They were also beaten in the group stages by Portugal. That team had two of the most prolific strikers of all-time in it. Who in your team is the Kocsis? In which Anton Schall scored 27 goals in 28 games and Hans Horvath scored 29 in 46. Then Pepi Bican scored 19 in 19 games. Romario is one of the top goalscoring strikers of all time! I know he was creative, but he was a hugely prolific scorer. He became a withdrawn CF when they signed Ian Rush, one of the great strikers of the era. And that team failed in their biggest match against a team with an out and out goalscorer in Muller. Seriously against this sort of opposition a top striker is (I feel) a necessity.
Do you mean scorer or striker? Because all three of my "front-line" attackers were goalscorers. * Stoichkov is clearly a top scorer. He scored 76 goals in 151 games for Barca from '90-'95. 37 in 83 for Bulgaria. * For PSV, Milan, and Sampdoria between 1985 and 1994, Gullit scored 118 goals in 270 games. For Holland, 17 in 66. * Albert scored 245 in 339 for Ferencvaros and 31 in 75 for Hungary.
While impressive as forwards though there is nobody who is genuinely prolific. None of them average a goal every other game at international level for instance. Now compare that against some of the other teams and I feel there is probably a bit more firepower in them.
Florian Albert scored 31 in 75 for Hungary. That's 1 for every 2.5 games. He's also scored 20+ in 4 straight years from '65-'68. And, he was joint-topscorer at the 1962 WC. In addition Albert's club stats are comparably impressive in 50s/60s Hungary. Albert had 245 from 339. That's _more_ than 2 in every 3 games! IIRC, you ranked Fraser 9th and he has Bergkamp, Mazzola, and McGrory. * McGrory barely plaid _any_ international football. How does he get a pass? * Bergkamp scored 37 in 79 - which is marginally better than Stoichkov. Except, Stoichkov has a much better strike rate with his club, is a Ballon d'Or, a FIFA and World Cup AllStar. Stoichkov has also led his side to a Champions League title. Bergkamp has never done these things. * Mazzola had 22 in 70. That's basically the same as Gullit - except Mazzola's clearly an inferior player to Gullit also.
Yes, but it is relative. 20 does seem a lot, but it was in Hungary (which has always had a lot of goals scored) and at the same time Antal Dunai (who is not considered by anybody to be an uber great) was scoring 36 and 31. I mean in and around Albert's era you had Puskas, Kocsis, Szilagyai, Deak, Bene, Fazekas, Hidegkuti, Szusza, Dunai. All playing in Hungary all massively prolific. Now a number of these players were unquestionably uber greats (and so was Albert), but it also does suggest a league which was open for goalscoring. I think we've covered McGrory's international situation. His domestic performances are beyond doubt. The lack of an internationally proven striker hindered Fraser's team as well.
If my memory serves me correctly, Albert was also one of the leading scorers in the history of the Fairs Cup, so he was also a proven goalscorer against other top European club teams of that time. I certainly rated him very highly but thought he just lacked something in comparison to some other strikers taken in the draft. If you'd had a Puskas, Muller, or Eusebio as your front man then I probably would have had you ranked as my number one team.
Ooooh......it's getting a bit serious around here. I put you as number 1, twenty26six....if it makes you feel any better.
I certainly agree. But, I'm not wanting to be Comme's #1 team. I just thought it was a big strange I was his 14th team and would have liked to hear a better explanation. The reasoning for it doesn't really hold up considering Nice is 13th last with Eusebio. DS is 10th with Ronaldo. And, like I said, Fraser is 9th with McGrory. It had crossed my mind to go for someone more prolific. But, once I had picked Albert, I had little other choice. This is why I was upset when I was forced to pick Albert instead of Gzegorz Lato. With Lato, I could have gone for a striker in the 9th and 10th rounds if needed. There were a lot more strikers left than right wingers that could have fit my team.
It's not upsetting. I clearly lacked a bit of the "starpower" needed to take 1st-3rd in this draft. But, that doesn't mean the team is the second worst. I just think Comme should have a bit better reasoning than that. It's like he was looking for a reason to place it low - considering his criteria for making it a lower rank doesn't apply to the rest of his rankings.
How so? You are questioning the goalscoring of McGrory who scored 410 goals in 408 league games, but you don't recognise the fact that Albert scored goals in the Hungarian league which had many more prolific strikers? Your team is the one that lacks a really prolific scorer out of all the teams. That was, IMO, what held you back. Clearly others did not necessarily feel the same.
Personally I voted you the way I did (though higher, obviously) for much the same reasons as comme. And while the numbers above are correct, they're not the whole picture. Although you have players who scored goals, none were out and out strikers, which reminds me of the way Arsenal play now when Bendtner (chortle) isn't in the lineup. Yes, players like Arshavin and Fabregas score goals, but in my mind, there's no doubt that team would be considerably better if they actually had a striker who was a striker rather than a "player who scores goals". The two are not the same thing. Besides, while Stoichkov and Gullit scored goals from their positions, they didn't play as strikers. There's no reason to think they'd score more goals if they did play up front, to be honest, and you'd likely lost more by having them there. And as far as numbers go, at the apex of his club career, Ronald Koeman scored 51 goals in 98 games for PSV (really) and 67 in 192 for Barca. He also had 14 in 78 for Holland (almost the same as Gullitt!). That doesn't mean I don't need a striker though.
How is it not consistent? The teams at the bottom I felt had an obvious weakness. So: Karloski's right-back, your lack of a striker, Billy's Matrix pick, nice's goalkeeper.
Yeah, lets try and avoid that. As wrong as Peru was for putting me last (I'm genuinely shocked by that one), it is his prerogative Greatest freudian slip.........ever.
Yeah.......I'd have to take you to task here. I understand that you weighed sheep very heavily, which is a completely valid point of view. It explains your selection of my team, and billy's and Karloski's right back. But then how does DS with his abysmal fullback pairing make it to tenth? Especially for a side that's going to have no width covering the fullbacks at all? And no, I'm not remotely willing to accept "you can hide bad fullbacks" considering not only are there two of them, but its also vastly easier to hide a bad keeper behind a good defense. Brazil did it all the time!