Fantasy Tournament: World Cup All-Time All-Stars

[Balu]

Yeah, I'd actually prefer it like Annah suggests, because if we say Cruyff needs to play as a striker/false9 or whatever you want to call it then we will get into a lot of trouble with players from different decades who played in completely different formations than modern players. We know what they showed on the pitch at the world cup, and if what they showed suits different positions, then I don't think it's a problem at all.

For example, can we use someone who played sweeper at the worldcup as a centerback? Or is that equally wrong?

 

[Annahnomoss]

I don't think it makes much sense at all to "ban" players from being played in positions they provenly could and did anyhow at times in the games.

I think it is one thing if Cruyff played as a striker and never helped the build-up during the WC, but as he did he should be viable to be played in other positions. There are tactics that we would never use which some players played as.

So if someone gets a player who played in a 2-4-4 as a wide man, you can't play them as wingers? You need to play them in a 2-4-4 because that is their real position? Seems insane to me considering the tactical changes over the century.

If you get a sweeper who never played as a CB then I'd argue that would work against him if he's played as a CB. But in cases of players who could handle multiple positions with ease they shouldn't be held back to one position.

 

[crappycraperson]

You are not banning players but you are taking into account the WC performances

Playing Cryuff in a different position is akin to picking Di Stefano. Cryuff only great WC came as a false 9.

 

[Fergus' son]

Yeah, I'd actually prefer it like Annah suggests, because if we say Cruyff needs to play as a striker/false9 or whatever you want to call it then we will get into a lot of trouble with players from different decades who played in completely different formations than modern players. We know what they showed on the pitch at the world cup, and if what they showed suits different positions, then I don't think it's a problem at all.

For example, can we use someone who played sweeper at the worldcup as a centerback? Or is that equally wrong?

I'd suggest you get extra credit for playing players in positions they have excelled in at actual WC but not necessarily get penalised for not doing so, for example Cruyff as a number ten makes complete sense so should be fine.

 

[Annahnomoss]

You are not banning players but you are taking into account the WC performances

Playing Cryuff in a different position is akin to picking Di Stefano. Cryuff only great WC came as a false 9.

Yes but how do you rate a player like that. You can have 10 "false 9's" and 5 may have been more like number 10's and 5 more like strikers.

If a player has performed well in a WC where he played as a striker but efficiently worked as a midfielder - it must clearly be okay to play him like that? Because just going after starting position seems very odd.

Not saying that Cruyff was a situation like that.

 

[Fergus' son]

More than enough opportunity left for Balu to build around him as a false 9 of he wishes to do so...

 

[Polaroid]

Quick question -

So, when we are judging players, we are picking them based solely on their contribution to world cups? Or, are we picking them on their overall peak ability during the world cup (i.e. non-world cup performances also have an influence?)

Just wondering because, for example Messi and Ronaldo were obviously class players during the recent world cups, but their actual contribution in the world cups themselves weren't so brilliant.

If we are going with the former (world cup influence only), its going to be hard to ensure voters are solely considering that when they vote.

Yes WC performances only, it will be emphasized in poll question and OP of match thread

But we're still judging players on their prime, right? So one standout tournament and nothing else is better than 4 decent tournaments that make the overall contribution look pretty impressive?

Yes World Cup prime, consider quality first then quantity

 

[Balu]

You are not banning players but you are taking into account the WC performances

Playing Cryuff in a different position is akin to picking Di Stefano. Cryuff only great WC came as a false 9.

So does that mean, that a striker who only played in a classic 442 at the worldcup can't be used in a 433 or 4231, even though we all know that doesn't make sense? We all need to find some fixed formation and stick to it and hope that we find enough players from pre and post 1970 to fill it up?

 

[Balu]

More than enough opportunity left for Balu to build around him as a false 9 of he wishes to do so...

I don't mind building around him as a false 9, I actually find that interesting. I'm more worried about a few other positions in which we'll face comparable problems.

 

[crappycraperson]

So does that mean, that a striker who only played in a classic 442 at the worldcup can't be used in a 433 or 4231, even though we all know that doesn't make sense? We all need to find some fixed formation and stick to it and hope that we find enough players from pre and post 1970 to fill it up?

That depends on what people perceive the difference between a striker playing with another in 442 and him playing in 4231. If that behind 3 has someone like Ronaldo, it may not be an issue if it has traditional wingers they it may be.

Same with Cryuff, will come down to if people think there is a key difference between performing as a false 9 and as AM

 

[Balu]

That depends on what people perceive the difference between a striker playing with another in 442 and him playing in 4231. If that behind 3 has someone like Ronaldo, it may not be an issue if it has traditional wingers they it may be.

Same with Cryuff, will come down to if people think there is a key difference between performing as a false 9 and as AM

Well your comparison to picking di Stefano sounded like I'm using a player that isn't eligible and not a player who's basically doing the same thing he did in reality, just in a different formation.

 

[crappycraperson]

Well your comparison to picking di Stefano sounded like I'm using a player that isn't eligible and not a player who's basically doing the same thing he did in reality, just in a different formation.

Yes that was an extreme example but you can't use Cryuff performing as an AM in club football as evidence that he will do well in that position in WC as well.

I mean how is that different from doing the same for Stefano?

 

[Balu]

Yes that was an extreme example but you can't use Cryuff performing as an AM in club football as evidence that he will do well in that position in WC as well.

I mean how is that different from doing the same for Stefano?

I'm not using that, but I can show goals, assists, general play by him from the world cup 74 that clearly shows that he's basically playing like an AM most of the time, but of course he played in a formation without a central striker, so on paper it looks like I'm playing him out of position, if I pick a central striker and change the tactics.

The problem isn't his actual position and the abilities he showed at the world cup, but Netherlands' tactics.

 

[crappycraperson]

I'm not using that, but I can show goals, assists, general play by him from the world cup 74 that clearly shows that he's basically playing like an AM most of the time, but of course he played in a formation without a central striker, so on paper it looks like I'm playing him out of position, if I pick a central striker and change the tactics.

Yeap, that's exactly what I mean. There is no point worrying about it though, bar a few most won't care that you are playing him as an AM.
May become an issue if there is very little to choose between you and your opponent.

 

[Fergus' son]

Yes that was an extreme example but you can't use Cryuff performing as an AM in club football as evidence that he will do well in that position in WC as well.

I mean how is that different from doing the same for Stefano?

The fact that he has proven to do well on that stage (the World Cup), in a fairly similar position?

I'd hate for this to turn into a stat battle but it does seem a bit inevitable.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Happy it worked out for you Balu. Wouldn't have made a lot of sense otherwise in the match-threads as people would have been whining about "out of position" about every old player.

 

[Cal?]

This is so confusing... am I right to assume that 'Inside forward' is a similar position to where Cristiano plays nowadays? or more like a no. 10 role?

 

[crappycraperson]

The fact that he has proven to do well on that stage (the World Cup), in a fairly similar position?

I'd hate for this to turn into a stat battle but it does seem a bit inevitable.

As I already said it will be down to the voter to decide the if false 9 and the AM position are fairly similar or not. I mean let's take Messi for example. Is it certain that if he were to play behind a top striker as AM, he would be as fully effective as playing as a false 9?

I know Cryuff proved himself as an AM but logically you can't take that into account.

Best way to think about is by imagining the match happening immediately after 74. Then trying to use him in a different position using his performance at WC.

 

[Balu]

Yeap, that's exactly what I mean. There is no point worrying about it though, bar a few most won't care that you are playing him as an AM.
May become an issue if there is very little to choose between you and your opponent.

I'm actually more worried if I use him as a false 9, because I have the feeling that quite a lot of people dislike that trend of playing midfielders as strikers and usually compare him with a modern player who in recent years played that position quite differently.

I should have left him to Antohan

 

[Annahnomoss]

This is so confusing... am I right to assume that 'Inside forward' is a similar position to where Cristiano plays nowadays? or more like a no. 10 role?

Depends completely from which era you mean. It would be better if you take the actual formation they played in and show it. 2-4-4 has been an actual popular tactic and you can imagine the "midfielders" in that formation being highly defensive and the offensive wingers being wider versions of Ronaldo of today.

 

[crappycraperson]

I'm actually more worried if I use him as a false 9, because I have the feeling that quite a lot of people dislike that trend of playing midfielders as strikers and usually compare him with a modern player who in recent years played that position quite differently.

I should have left him to Antohan

Hah.. from what I have seen in recent drafts, if you can replicate a perfect false 9 formation you are certain to win it or come very close.

Since Cryuff played in that position it won't be an issue, it becomes an issue if you are try to play someone like Gotze there who has not really proven himself at that position.

 

[Cal?]

Depends completely from which era you mean. It would be better if you take the actual formation they played in and show it. 2-4-4 has been an actual popular tactic and you can imagine the "midfielders" in that formation being highly defensive and the offensive wingers being wider versions of Ronaldo of today.

I just need to work out where to put Pele, everything I've read says he played most the time as an "inside forward", ie not the out and out striker.

But I'm clearly not going to play 244 or 235.

 

[crappycraperson]

I just need to work out where to put Pele, everything I've read says he played most the time as an "inside forward", ie not the out and out striker.

But I'm clearly not going to play 244 or 235.

I think Pele was verstaile enough to play anywhere across the front line.

 

[Cal?]

I think Pele was verstaile enough to play anywhere across the front line.

I would have thought so, but then I thought the same about Cruyff and there's a whole page of arguing where he should be played.

 

[Moby]

For me it completely depends on the player and how flexible his role was during the WC. I really don't see an issue with Cruyff, Balu should in fact be happier he has such a flexible and complete attacking player rather than overcomplicating it. He can start him as a support striker or a false 9 or a number 10, personally I don't have any issue as from the footage I've seen he attacked from multiple areas on the pitch and never was confined to one single position.

I can't give examples without naming players so if we see some player who largely played in only one position, like most of them did, in his WC prime, then there's a bigger issue. With Cruyff, it's really no problem at all for me.

 

[Moby]

I just need to work out where to put Pele, everything I've read says he played most the time as an "inside forward", ie not the out and out striker.

But I'm clearly not going to play 244 or 235.

IMO you can simply narrow him down to two positions, either up front or alongside/behind a striker and I don't think it would be an issue. But I would prefer to see him centrally.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Pele was incredibly versatile but as he is the best player in the draft you should build your team around him. Which would put him as a Second striker IMO, I know some would say more like a number 10 but I think Maradona is better in that position.

 

[Cal?]

IMO you can simply narrow him down to two positions, either up front or alongside/behind a striker and I don't think it would be an issue. But I would prefer to see him centrally.

Fair enough, more no. 10 or 4231 than out wide of 4231...

 

[crappycraperson]

Fair enough, more no. 10 or 4231 than out wide of 4231...

Yes either no.10 or the front man

 

[Balu]

For me it completely depends on the player and how flexible his role was during the WC. I really don't see an issue with Cruyff, Balu should in fact be happier he has such a flexible and complete attacking player rather than overcomplicating it. He can start him as a support striker or a false 9 or a number 10, personally I don't have any issue as from the footage I've seen he attacked from multiple areas on the pitch and never was confined to one single position.

I can't give examples without naming players so if we see some player who largely played in only one position, like most of them did, in his WC prime, then there's a bigger issue. With Cruyff, it's really no problem at all for me.

I really didn't want to complicate things and I completely agree with all of what you wrote here, but your first post sounded a bit different:

It will be safer to keep the positions and tactics used for the player in tact from his best world cup.

At least to me, that sounded like I can't use him as flexible as you say now. Maybe I missunderstood?

 

[Moby]

I really didn't want to complicate things and I completely agree with all of what you wrote here, but your first post sounded a bit different:

At least to me, that sounded like I can't use him as flexible as you say now. Maybe I missunderstood?

I wasn't really talking about someone like Johan in that one. It was more to say, for example if you have a player who has played DM and CB over his career and known to be world class in both positions but played say, DM in the WC, then it could be risky playing him as CB for he was known well but not in the WC.

That's not the same case as someone like Cruyff as he did occupy multiple positions and still kept up the level.

 

[Balu]

I wasn't really talking about someone like Johan in that one. It was more to say, for example if you have a player who has played DM and CB over his career and known to be world class in both positions but played say, DM in the WC, then it could be risky playing him as CB for he was known well but not in the WC.

That's not the same case as someone like Cruyff as he did occupy multiple positions and still kept up the level.

Well you should have made that clearer You posted that directly after my question about Cruyff and I'm sure Annah also reacted to that post. Good to know we all agree then.

 

[Fergus' son]

I really didn't want to complicate things and I completely agree with all of what you wrote here, but your first post sounded a bit different:

At least to me, that sounded like I can't use him as flexible as you say now. Maybe I missunderstood?

Of course it would be 'safer' but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a huge problem if you don't. I agree with Aldo that Cruyff is the last player you need to be worried about, the epitome of the 'total footballer'. You'll have no problems selling his position to me, more important is getting the right balance of players around him IMO.


Cal? - Pele as a number ten or main striker for me, ideally the former.

 

[Cal?]

I wasn't really talking about someone like Johan in that one. It was more to say, for example if you have a player who has played DM and CB over his career and known to be world class in both positions but played say, DM in the WC, then it could be risky playing him as CB for he was known well but not in the WC.

That's not the same case as someone like Cruyff as he did occupy multiple positions and still kept up the level.

So don't play Messi as false 9 if someone picks him?

 

[Moby]

Well you should have made that clearer You posted that directly after my question about Cruyff and I'm sure Annah also reacted to that post. Good to know we all agree then.

Sorry about that, I was on phone while standing in a busy queue so I just made a general point without realizing it would come across as an answer to your question.

 

[Cal?]

Of course it would be 'safer' but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a huge problem if you don't. I agree with Aldo that Cruyff is the last player you need to be worried about, the epitome of the 'total footballer'. You'll have no problems selling his position to me, more important is getting the right balance of players around him IMO.


Cal? - Pele as a number ten or main striker for me, ideally the former.

Okay, so nothing too complicated with this inside forward thing. I've only ever seen him in highlights and thought he was a striker, but then did a bit of research after seeing all that Cruyff argument.

 

[Moby]

So don't play Messi as false 9 if someone picks him?

I wouldn't. He's known to have played a deeper role in that WC, with other strikers occupying the regular number 9 spot. I'd rather have him as a #10 from that WC.

 

[antohan]

Okay, just to clarify. Do I have to play him in exact the same position and formation, he played in at the worldcup 74? Does using him as a more usual AM mean I loose some of your votes? I'm not sure yet, what to do next and I don't mind if someone thinks it's necessary to rebuild that Netherlands team to get the best out of him and that's why they didn't pick him. I just like to know, what you guys think, before my next pick.

Did he have one though? There obviously needs to be some room for manoeuvre between old and modern formations, otherwise you would struggle to pick a 30s player.

What I would have an issue with is, say, playing Matthaus at CB and expecting me to assign the same level of performance as he ahd in 1990. Terrible example as no one would do that, but there are a few obvious cases which I can't mention.

Great pick, thought he would go earlier. I'm surprised my planned pick hasn't. Wahey!

 

[Balu]

Okay, so nothing too complicated with this inside forward thing. I've only ever seen him in highlights and thought he was a striker, but then did a bit of research after seeing all that Cruyff argument.

Pele is really easy to integrate as long as you play him in a central role. There are full games of the 1970 worldcup on youtube, I think it's really worth to watch some of them. Not only for this draft, but in general. After all it's one of the most exciting football teams to ever grace the sport.

 

[Moby]

What do you guys consider as Pele's best WC? 1970 for me.