Fantasy Tournament: World Cup All-Time All-Stars

[antohan]

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

Where to play Pelé strikes again.

Get over it guys, almost every player until the last few World Cups did NOT play in a 4-2-3-1. I'd say at No.10 you have Pelé 70 and as a 9 you have Pelé 58, although he wasn't a pure 9 or 10 in either, more a free-roaming support striker. I wouldn't play him wide but either central attacking role should be fine.

 

[crappycraperson]

Stop teasing your pick Anto

 

[Balu]

Stop teasing your pick Anto

I'm refreshing for 10 minutes now, ffs. I really hope he at least posts a great story about the player to make up for his delay.

 

[antohan]

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

In context, 1958. 1970 was a fecking ridiculous side which had been winning stuff for years. 1958 was a side with the weight of expectation, a chip on their shoulder, not doing particularly well and Pelé and Mané turned it around. He was a more accomplished player in 1970 of course, that goes without saying, but 1958 was as good a fairy tale as you will ever come across.

 

[Annahnomoss]

In context, 1958. 1970 was a fecking ridiculous side which had been winning stuff for years. 1958 was a side with the weight of expectation, a chip on their shoulder, not doing particularly well and Pelé and Mané turned it around. He was a more accomplished player in 1970 of course, that goes without saying, but 1958 was as good a fairy tale as you will ever come across.

Didi un poco tambien por favor. Player of the tournament ahead of Pele.

 

[Cal?]

Where to play Pelé strikes again.

Get over it guys, almost every player until the last few World Cups did NOT play in a 4-2-3-1. I'd say at No.10 you have Pelé 70 and as a 9 you have Pelé 58, although he wasn't a pure 9 or 10 in either, more a free-roaming support striker. I wouldn't play him wide but either central attacking role should be fine.

But I don't think trying one of those 2-4-4 or 2-3-5 or WM formations is going to get you anywhere in this draft. 4-2-3-1 or a variation thereof seems to be the general consensus on the only way a football team should play nowadays.

 

[antohan]

I pick Ferenc fecking Puskas

"I was with XXX, YYY and Puskás, we were coaching in a football academy in Australia. The youngsters we were coaching did not respect him including making fun of his weight and age...We decided to let the guys challenge a coach to hit the crossbar 10 times in a row, obviously they picked the old fat one. YYY asked the kids how many they thought the old fat coach would get out of ten. Most said less than five. Best said ten. The old fat coach stepped up and hit nine in a row. For the tenth shot he scooped the ball in the air, bounced it off both shoulders and his head, then flicked it over with his heel and cannoned the ball off the crossbar on the volley. They all stood in silence then one kid asked who he was, I replied, To you, his name is Mr. Puskás." – George Best

Pol 1. Maradona
Cal 1. Pele
Aldo 1. Garrincha
Theon 1. Beckenbauer
Rpitroda 1. Zidane
Paceme 1. Platini
Jayvin 1. Ronaldo
Desert 1.Moore
Annah 1. Didi
Crappy/Pippa 1. Fontaine
Fergus 1. Matthäus
Balu/NM 1. Cruyff
Anto 1. Puskas
Gio
Cutch
TITO

 

[crappycraperson]

I knew it. It was going to be him or another I will name later.

 

[Cal?]

To be honest, nothing surprising at all so far...

No one picked Messi or Cristiano yet.

 

[Balu]

Was always him, imo. I would have picked him, if Cruyff wasn't available.

 

[Theon]

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?

Precisely, that would be absolutely ridiculous. You're supposed to be the manager in these drafts and should be able to use the players how you want to.

Keane for example was extremely dominant in a 4-4-2, so would moving him to a 4-3-3 count against him? In reality there is no reason why it should at all.

 

[antohan]

Didi un poco tambien por favor. Player of the tournament ahead of Pele.

He pulled the strings but the attack was going to shit without those two. Pointless to pull the strings well behind Heskey and Ashley Young.

 

[Cal?]

Precisely, that would be absolutely ridiculous. You're supposed to be the manager in these drafts and should be able to use the players how you want to.

Keane for example was extremely dominant in a 4-4-2, so would moving him to a 4-3-3 count against him? In reality there is no reason why it should at all.

Actually that Keane thing happened to me for one of the drafts a few years back...

Anyway, there's nothing in the rules against other formations, but I seriously doubt any formation that deviates too much from 4231 will get you anywhere, it's upto you to try convincing people of the virtues of a 235 or something.

 

[antohan]

But I don't think trying one of those 2-4-4 or 2-3-5 or WM formations is going to get you anywhere in this draft. 4-2-3-1 or a variation thereof seems to be the general consensus on the only way a football team should play nowadays.

I disagree that's the only valid formation but that was my point, most players did not play 4-2-3-1 so some latitude is obviously to be expected. Like Pelé, Puskas played inside forward in a five man frontline, do I think that translates into either striker or #10? of course I do, otherwise the entire thing is flawed by design.

As said, my issue would be with someone like Matthaus being played at CB, his best WC exploits were as a dominant box-to-box operator.

 

[Annahnomoss]

He pulled the strings but the attack was going to shit without those two. Pointless to pull the strings well behind Heskey and Ashley Young.

Don't disagree with that. Just think that you were very harsh on Didi who was considered the player of the tournament by saying "not doing particularly well and Pelé and Mané turned it around."

I think the three of them all turned that Brazil side around with Didi as the main orchestrator and probably fairly the best player that tournament.

 

[antohan]

Was always him, imo. I would have picked him, if Cruyff wasn't available.

I knew telling Aldo to shut up would invariably create an expectation around Cruyff. Wanted Puskas all along

 

[antohan]

Precisely, that would be absolutely ridiculous. You're supposed to be the manager in these drafts and should be able to use the players how you want to.

Keane for example was extremely dominant in a 4-4-2, so would moving him to a 4-3-3 count against him? In reality there is no reason why it should at all.

Mmmmhhhh, far too many times he has been wasted as the DM/holding midfielder in these drafts, so disagree there. Also disagree in that the only thing he set alight in a WC was the internal politics in the Irish camp. Shit player in this context (and, conversely, I rate Cruyff more highly in this context, in others I tend to consider his entire body of work and arrogance far more).

 

[antohan]

Anyway, there's nothing in the rules against other formations, but I seriously doubt any formation that deviates too much from 4231 will get you anywhere, it's upto you to try convincing people of the virtues of a 235 or something.

I've actually been very tempted to try a homage WM thing but run into the opposite problem, the modern players would be all over the shop

 

[Balu]

I knew telling Aldo to shut up would invariably create an expectation around Cruyff. Wanted Puskas all along

If both were still available, would you really have taken Puskas? I really thought about it, never expected Cruyff to last till me and already had a few plans for a team around Puskas, but in the end Cruyff is imo the better player and had the better world cup. After all Puskas only played 3 games and didn't take part in the important wins in the quarter and semi finals.

 

[Fergus' son]

I spent like two and a half minutes thinking of and making my pick!

 

[Moby]

If both were still available, would you really have taken Puskas? I really thought about it, never expected Cruyff to last till me and already had a few plans for a team around Puskas, but in the end Cruyff is imo the better player and had the better world cup. After all Puskas only played 3 games and didn't take part in the important wins in the quarter and semi finals.

Yeah that's the only issue with Puskas, as far as I know he wasn't at his 100% in that WC.

It's a bit of a no brainer between him and Cruyff. Cruyff definitely the better performer and made a bigger impact.

 

[Theon]

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.

This is basically where I'm unsure of things.

Say Cruyff played every game for Holland as a false 9 and never deviated from that, do we just completely ignore the huge amount of data that proves he can play a number 10 role? Basically are we pretending for the sake of the draft that these players are just narrow/restricted versions who can only play where they played in world cup games.

There's a few reasons I disagree with this but the biggest is that I have a few players in my head who actually played out of their best positions when they played internationally.. So do we have to do the same and play them out of position

 

[antohan]

Don't disagree with that. Just think that you were very harsh on Didi who was considered the player of the tournament by saying "not doing particularly well and Pelé and Mané turned it around."

I think the three of them all turned that Brazil side around with Didi as the main orchestrator and probably fairly the best player that tournament.

No, wasn't belittling him. It's just a fact Didi was a nailed on starter since way before the WC. Once it started they weren't doing well and it was the manager bending over to some senior players that got Pelé and Garrincha on the pitch. That was the turning point, nothing to do with Didi. Would they have won it without Didi? Maybe not. If anything what two kids needed was someone else orchestrating and unleashing them to devastating effect. They had the raw skill, endeavour and carefree approach the team needed. Organising, dictating the tempo, running the game, that's exactly what they wouldn't have been able to produce (yet) and that's where Didi was crucial.

 

[Theon]

Mmmmhhhh, far too many times he has been wasted as the DM/holding midfielder in these drafts, so disagree there. Also disagree in that the only thing he set alight in a WC was the internal politics in the Irish camp. Shit player in this context (and, conversely, I rate Cruyff more highly in this context, in others I tend to consider his entire body of work and arrogance far more).

No I meant still as a central midfielder, I agree he is completely wasted as a DM. So it would be like below. This isn't actually a good example, its more extreme because he never really proved he could thrive in it, the less extreme example is the players who we know can and did thrive in certain positions but just didn't play them in world cup games

--- CM -- KEANE ---
------- DM ------

 

[Annahnomoss]

No, wasn't belittling him. It's just a fact Didi was a nailed on starter since way before the WC. Once it started they weren't doing well and it was the manager bending over to some senior players that got Pelé and Garrincha on the pitch. That was the turning point, nothing to do with Didi. Would they have won it without Didi? Maybe not. If anything what two kids needed was someone else orchestrating and unleashing them to devastating effect. They had the raw skill, endeavour and carefree approach the team needed. Organising, dictating the tempo, running the game, that's exactly what they wouldn't have been able to produce (yet) and that's where Didi was crucial.

I get you mate. Didn't actually think you had a negative view of Didi I know you don't. Just think that it is interesting that many consider Pele´s best WC to be 58 where Didi was actually still the better performer as it is the entire selling point of Didi.

Just wanted to hear your more elaborated opinion on it.

 

[antohan]

If both were still available, would you really have taken Puskas? I really thought about it, never expected Cruyff to last till me and already had a few plans for a team around Puskas, but in the end Cruyff is imo the better player and had the better world cup. After all Puskas only played 3 games and didn't take part in the important wins in the quarter and semi finals.

Vote-wise Cruyff was a far better pick, and I mean no slight with that. He is also more flexible, people expect some sort of Superman who will do whatever it takes to make the team run smoothly. Personally, I've always been a huge fan of that Hungarian team, everything I know about them is mindblowing. Unplayable. Just going with what players I really want to have in my team really.

 

[antohan]

Yeah that's the only issue with Puskas, as far as I know he wasn't at his 100% in that WC.

It's a bit of a no brainer between him and Cruyff. Cruyff definitely the better performer and made a bigger impact.

Yet he still got the Golden Ball. You know why he wasn't 100% towards the end? Because teams kicked the living daylights out of him in the group stage (9-0 against South Korea, 8-3 against Germany). I'm not going to go into Puskas or Cruyff as both are right up there and worthy of the first turn, pointless debate. It's the teams around them that will make the difference.

 

[antohan]

I spent like two and a half minutes thinking of and making my pick!

Was it that hard? You can't go wrong with it really.

 

[Moby]

Yet he still got the Golden Ball. You know why he wasn't 100% towards the end? Because teams kicked the living daylights out of him in the group stage (9-0 against South Korea, 8-3 against Germany). I'm not going to go into Puskas or Cruyff as both are right up there and worthy of the first turn, pointless debate. It's the teams around them that will make the difference.

Of course, he was that great and surely one of the WC greats. I won't have him ahead of Cruyff strictly based on WC performances.

 

[antohan]

This is basically where I'm unsure of things.

Say Cruyff played every game for Holland as a false 9 and never deviated from that, do we just completely ignore the huge amount of data that proves he can play a number 10 role? Basically are we pretending for the sake of the draft that these players are just narrow/restricted versions who can only play where they played in world cup games.

There's a few reasons I disagree with this but the biggest is that I have a few players in my head who actually played out of their best positions when they played internationally.. So do we have to do the same and play them out of position

I don't want to go into examples or all hell will break loose, but some positions are more "defined" than others. Differentiating between AM/Inside forward/9.5, etc. is a bit of a mugs game. I wouldn't however be so flexible with an inside forward being depicted as a winger if they always played with an actual winger next to them. They didn't play the position, simple. If they did it at some stage in their career at club level I don't really care. I would stick with World Cups, otherwise it is a re-run of the All-Time draft.

I'm pretty sure I know a couple of players you are thinking about and to me their WC position was pretty clear and arguing they would translate that form to another is outside the remit here. Of course, half the people won't give two shits about it, but I certainly will take it into account.

 

[antohan]

I get you mate. Didn't actually think you had a negative view of Didi I know you don't. Just think that it is interesting that many consider Pele´s best WC to be 58 where Didi was actually still the better performer as it is the entire selling point of Didi.

Just wanted to hear your more elaborated opinion on it.

Context: you will never again see a 16-year-old make such an impact. No chance. Pelé 70 was a fully developed GOAT, it is 58 that boggles.

 

[Moby]

Context: you will never again see a 16-year-old make such an impact. No chance. Pelé 70 was a fully developed GOAT, it is 58 that boggles.

IMO a lot of that goes to the fact that Pele, physically and athletically was ahead of his time. That helped him throughout his career but from the very start the defender didn't know what hit them because they had hardly encountered such a physical presence. Something like that is highly unlikely in this age. That sort of shock can only be delivered when something is in a stage of evolution, like football was back then.

 

[Fergus' son]

Was it that hard? You can't go wrong with it really.

I suppose not, just saying I hardly thought about it. Noticed that Cruyff and Matthaus both hadn't been picked and quickly decided to take Lothar, one of those players whose presence tends to complete a midfield.

 

[Balu]

Yet he still got the Golden Ball. You know why he wasn't 100% towards the end? Because teams kicked the living daylights out of him in the group stage (9-0 against South Korea, 8-3 against Germany). I'm not going to go into Puskas or Cruyff as both are right up there and worthy of the first turn, pointless debate. It's the teams around them that will make the difference.

I love Puskas, no doubt about that he was easily the best player at that tournament. He just didn't get the chance to prove it in the crucial games. It wasn't really his fault but his attitude was also part of the problem why teams kicked him like no one before. In a time when referees allow defenders to get away with assault, you don't tell your opponent that you're going to ridicule and torment him throughout the game, that's just a bad idea, especially against a cynical German reserve team that didn't really come to play football in that game.

 

[Balu]

I suppose not, just saying I hardly thought about it. Noticed that Cruyff and Matthaus both hadn't been picked and quickly decided to take Lothar, one of those players whose presence tends to complete a midfield.

You could argue at his best, he was a complete midfield on his own, he doesn't need to complete it .

 

[Fergus' son]

You could argue at his best, he was a complete midfield on his own, he doesn't need to complete it .

That's actually what I meant! As close to an one man midfield as you can get which is always handy, particularly regarding future picks.

 

[Gio]

I'll take the star of '66

 

[Annahnomoss]

Pol 1. Maradona
Cal 1. Pele
Aldo 1. Garrincha
Theon 1. Beckenbauer
Rpitroda 1. Zidane
Paceme 1. Platini
Jayvin 1. Ronaldo
Desert 1.Moore
Annah 1. Didi
Crappy/Pippa 1. Fontaine
Fergus 1. Matthäus
Balu/NM 1. Cruyff
Anto 1. Puskas
Gio. 1. Euesebio
Cutch
TITO​

 

[antohan]

I love Puskas, no doubt about that he was easily the best player at that tournament. He just didn't get the chance to prove it in the crucial games. It wasn't really his fault but his attitude was also part of the problem why teams kicked him like no one before. In a time when referees allow defenders to get away with assault, you don't tell your opponent that you're going to ridicule and torment him throughout the game, that's just a bad idea, especially against a cynical German reserve team that didn't really come to play football in that game.

Aye, same flaw the Dutch confessed to, being so focused on humilliating the Germans they forgot the point was to win the game. Germans and keeping the focus on the right things, eh?

 

[Balu]

That's actually what I meant! As close to an one man midfield as you can get which is always handy, particularly regarding future picks.

Yeah, just make sure he doesn't loose his shoe at halftime, if you need him to score a penalty later on .