Thanks for the compliment VJ, but this is very much a joint effort. As enigma said the only one we really disagreed on was charles. As for the rest, our footballing views match up pretty well 
Billy No Mates Draft: QF - Physiocrat vs Enigma_87/MJJ
- Thread starter Physiocrat
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Thanks for the compliment VJ, but this is very much a joint effort. As enigma said the only one we really disagreed on was charles. As for the rest, our footballing views match up pretty well When you bolded my quote you missed as before in reference to Rivaldo. The same option is as before was saying Rivaldo provides similar options on the counter and slower build up attacks
New tactics. Gone all out attack, see the OP.
Looks like this is over. Well played @Enigma_87 @MJJ
I would though have played a 433
-------------Cruyff------
Henry------------------Figo
-----Gerson----Effenburg
-----------der Kaiser-------
-------------Back 4------------
More opportunity for Beckenbauer to get forward and no Giggs Henry problem.
Would like some thoughts from anybody on my WM side? I do think the back 5 personal fit the system quite well
I would though have played a 433
-------------Cruyff------
Henry------------------Figo
-----Gerson----Effenburg
-----------der Kaiser-------
-------------Back 4------------
More opportunity for Beckenbauer to get forward and no Giggs Henry problem.
Would like some thoughts from anybody on my WM side? I do think the back 5 personal fit the system quite well
Henry as a LW is an option, but we wanted cruyff in his best position from where he could influence the pitch the most hence the 4-2-3-1.
I still believe young giggs can work very well with henry, he was more of a wing-forward than a traditional winger.
This one is easy. Can't see much synergy in Physio's team unfortunately
Thanks
@Physiocrat .
I'm not sure why Henry/Giggs is an issue here. I think both can work very well together. The reason we went with the above is Cruyff - having 2 wide man that can also come inside is what we're looking in a team that would have Cruyff as a orchestra in the middle.
I think you did well with the initial formation to mask Vieri and dropping him but IMO would've done better with a CB rather than Zico(at least my thoughts). Maybe I'm a bit harsh on Carvalho/Silva but I do think there are quite a few CB better than them that could've been picked instead.
The other formation is a bit suicidal for me especially with two full backs(and Vogts not doing a man marking job) as a part of a back 3. I think your original one was pretty much spot on with what you had at disposal.
@Physiocrat .
I'm not sure why Henry/Giggs is an issue here. I think both can work very well together. The reason we went with the above is Cruyff - having 2 wide man that can also come inside is what we're looking in a team that would have Cruyff as a orchestra in the middle.
I think you did well with the initial formation to mask Vieri and dropping him but IMO would've done better with a CB rather than Zico(at least my thoughts). Maybe I'm a bit harsh on Carvalho/Silva but I do think there are quite a few CB better than them that could've been picked instead.
The other formation is a bit suicidal for me especially with two full backs(and Vogts not doing a man marking job) as a part of a back 3. I think your original one was pretty much spot on with what you had at disposal.
This one is easy. Can't see much synergy in Physio's team unfortunately
Was that the original line-up or my slightly crazed 325 I went to after being down heavily after 12 hours or so?
Not sure No.10 is Cruyff's best position and putting Henry on the left is not a LW more an inside forward with Cruyff dropping deep. If you want to keep Cruyff I'd find an Henry replacement and play a DM next to der Kaiser to play box-to-box.
The reason I went with Carvalho and Silva was that they were excellent CBs but were also good on the ball. I could have gone for Ruggeri but wanted the high possession option, plus I'm not fond of pure stoppers. I can understand the evaluation of Carvalho but T. Silva is a genuinely great CB on a level with Rio. Re- Zico I needed something else up front otherwise I'd have played Rivaldo as a false 9 with Best left and Johnstone right.
On strikers in general in an all-time draft there's only really MVB, G. Muller, Ronaldo and Romario of out and out strikers who get any credit at all. As an aside I think Ronaldo is actually better with a strike partner and Romario is significantly overrated. If you look at Balu's game most voters rate defence higher than the attack (Maldini will nullify Ronaldo) when it's clear that 8 times out of 10 the better attack wins- you can see this is transfer fees, goalscorers cost the most. All this is to say is that I do think Vieri is a credible threat against Nesta and Baresi.
Marzolini is out of place, probably should have kept on Silva but Vogts also played CB so I don't think he's too out of place.
What would you say is to beat position ? I always thought thought free role as a mumber 10( able to drop deep, go wide, push up) suits him the best as it doesn't disrupt the team shape and allows him to exert his genius all over the pitch.
I always have thought of it as a false 9 within the total football system when he starts central but can drift left or in the hole. That said I can understand the way you're deploying him.
I think Thiago Silva is a wee bit under-rated in the grand scheme of things. It's clearly a harder era for defenders to shine because the parks are quicker, the refereeing is far more strict, the passback rule is in place, the offside trap is a mess, and it all contributes to an attacking-friendly environment. Without then catapulting someone like Ramos into the pantheon of greats, what Silva brings together in terms of his physicality, athleticism, slickness on the ball, and defensive astuteness is a really impressive overall package. All of that has been in such compelling evidence for Milan and PSG and he is one of the few defenders who doesn't just cave in when up against the elite strikers of today. And his influence for Brazil could not be more pronounced than when he was absent for that semi-final evisceration in Rio.
I think Rivaldo with Best left and Johnstone would be better option IMO, provided that you got another top CB. Ruggeri is the better option out of the two and you could've played another ball playing CB next to him.
There is also Puskas, Eusebio that can get on that first list. I think depending on the era it is arguable whether defence or attack wins. For example if we take the great Milan side, sure they had MvB, Gullit etc up front but if it wasn't for their defence I doubt they would've achieved what they did. Also another example is Fergie in the 90's and early 00's and then the late 00's when we were much more solid at the back and played 3 CL finals compared to 1 before.
I don't believe Vieri would cause much trouble between Nesta and Baresi to be fair. From memories when he was at Inter he was nullified most of the time when he played against Nesta and if you add Baresi to the equation I can't see him getting much of a sniff.
Probably Silva would've been better if you were trying 3 at the back, but all in all 3-2-5 as a formation I doubt would've brought many votes
I recall 36 years old Nesta being a pretty good match for prime Messi when both sides met. Same can be said for 30 years Cannavaro with the notorious WC performance. I don't think that era was that long ago compared to this one.
The level of world class defenders nowadays compared to 10 years ago I think is lower. Sure it has something to do with the things you mentioned but still the pool at the top is not that big at all.