View Poll Results: Best Team Ever

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Paulie FC

    6 27.27%
  • FC Biatch

    1 4.55%
  • Grand FC

    1 4.55%
  • FC Deadringer

    0 0%
  • FC Bacon

    0 0%
  • Soccer Riots Seem Fun

    3 13.64%
  • Team Black Death

    9 40.91%
  • Cim Bom

    1 4.55%
  • Wood FC

    1 4.55%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 68

Thread: Vote: All Time Team

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by RussianGreen View Post
    Have you guys seen 1970 World Cup? I will take Pele-midfielder against ANYONE.
    You don't have one of the greatest attacking players on your team, arguably the greatest attacking talent (I would argue Maradona is slightly better) of all time, and play him as a defensive mid. That's the issue. Having players play in the defensive mid role who allow the attacking players to do their thing.

  2. #42
    Thought your lineup was OK, Batman's: Didi is a great defenisve mid, and I like having Gullit as your box-to-box mid, who can defend as well as attack (perhaps he is better going forward than defending, however). I think Brehme is out of position: think he's better off as one of the centre halves, not in the defensive mid role.

    I'd have Francescoli and Deco as your in the hole players, with Puskas and Di Stefano as your strikers, like you have already (what an attacking pair!)

    Your lineup is balanced: you have one specialist defending mid (Didi), one mid who can play both defense and attack (Gullit) and two attacking mids. I would either play four at the back, and slot Brehme in the back four, or continue with three at the back, axe Brehme, and slot Gulllit and Didi in front of the back three - then I'd bring in an extra attacker, probably someone left sided, to have Deco, Francescoli and Player X playing as attacking players behind the front two of Puskas and Di Stefano.

    BTW: the fact you didn't get a vote doesn't mean you don't have a great squad - you do. These things are more about which squad has the most recognisable names in it more than having players of pure quality.
    Last edited by Soberphobia; 07-08-2008 at 09:35 PM.

  3. #43
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Batmans A Scientist View Post
    Seeing as I don't know a whole lot about soccer history, I tried to draft players based on readings online and a little research. I'm guessing from the 0 votes that my team isn't on the same level as others, which begs the question, what are the weaknesses exactly, more of curiosity as I try to learn more about the history of the sport
    If possible it would've been much better to vote for a 1st 2nd and 3rd place team. That would've eliminated a great team like yours from being dead last with no votes.

    IMO you drafted great, and yours was one of the teams that got screwed because we can only vote for a single team, I would've picked Black death at 1st, you at second, Raoul Duke or Grand11 at third (contrary to Paulie's belief I think G11 has the best defense but it's a bit lacking going forward)

    The only thing I didn't like about you lineup was Brehme-Britner. I'd put brehme on the bench and start Breitner on Left back and play a classic diamond 4-4-2 and you could also put Francescoli or Deco on the bench bring in Rummenige and play a 4-3-3 I think both those formations would've been better.


    I agree with Black Death on both counts, we knew the team with Pele was going to get the votes of every american soccer fan who happened to pop by for the vote before the voting began. That's fine he certainly was a special player but in soccer I've never seen one special player take a team to win silverware by himself, the only exception I can think of being Maradona & Napoli.

    And without at least one holding midfielder and possibly two not even Pele can dominate a midfield by himself without anyone to harras the other teams midfielders and get him the ball.

    IMO Thats akin to saying Joe Montana could've won superbowls with only 2 offensive linemen in front of him.

    The current Marseille coach Eric Gerets had us playing a similar style of game when he was with Galatasaray a couple of years back, 5 purely attacking players 6 purely defending ones, and we got eliminated from the UEFA cup in the first round byTromsö - Who TF is Tromsö is right - some unknown Norwegien club based near the north ****ing pole

  4. #44
    Batman could have played Puskas as his left winger - one of the greatest left sided players of all time, with Di Stefano up front. Francescoli/Tevez/Scheva on the attacking right - perhaps a little out of position, but you could push them more central and have Deco play more right in an on-the-pitch situation.

    I prefer this lineup, and I would probably have voted for it:


  5. #45
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    Batman could have played Puskas as his left winger - one of the greatest left sided players of all time, with Di Stefano up front. Francescoli/Tevez/Scheva on the attacking right - perhaps a little out of position, but you could push them more central and have Deco play more right in an on-the-pitch situation.

    I prefer this lineup, and I would probably have voted for it:

    I still like Breitner over Cabrini and Rummenige over Deco with two upfront. What can I say I'm a huge fan of Breitnigge... I've never been a fan of Deco he plays the game a little too slow for my liking.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    I still like Breitner over Cabrini and Rummenige over Deco with two upfront. What can I say I'm a huge fan of Breitnigge... I've never been a fan of Deco he plays the game a little too slow for my liking.
    Actually, thinking about it, as I aluded to in my previous post, I would put Deco on the right and put someone else in the hole.

    True, Breitner could swap for Cabrini - if you were playing three at the back I would axe Puyol and still play Breitner/Cabrini. The issue is if you are playing Breitner at left back that he isn't in the postion where he was so effective with Rummenigge, ie in the midfield linking with the forward roaming Rummenigge. Alternately Rummenigge could play in the hole instead of Deco, or Tevez could play as the target man, Rummenigge on the right, Di Stefano in the hole and Puskas on the left.

  7. #47
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    The issue is if you are playing Breitner at left back that he isn't in the postion where he was so effective with Rummenigge, ie in the midfield linking with the forward roaming Rummenigge. .
    Yeah that's been my problem with Breitner at LB also, how about this: Brietner for Gullit in the middle Rummennige in the hole and Gullit on the right. a bit out of position for Gullit I know but it may work. Deco and Francescoli on the bench.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    Yeah that's been my problem with Breitner at LB also, how about this: Brietner for Gullit in the middle Rummennige in the hole and Gullit on the right. a bit out of position for Gullit I know but it may work. Deco and Francescoli on the bench.
    Let's face it, Gullit played just about everywhere in his career anyway, and did most of it with great aplomb. I would prefer him in a backward mid/libero role however playing off the defensive Didi.

    I can tell, however, that you really are in love with Brietnigge!

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    You don't have one of the greatest attacking players on your team, arguably the greatest attacking talent (I would argue Maradona is slightly better) of all time, and play him as a defensive mid. That's the issue. Having players play in the defensive mid role who allow the attacking players to do their thing.
    Have you seen both play? Just wondering.

  10. #50
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    I can tell, however, that you really are in love with Brietnigge!
    No Homo...

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by RussianGreen View Post
    Have you seen both play? Just wondering.
    On tape? Of course - I've seen just about all the footage of both players you could get your hands on. You wouldn't question my football knowledge if you had of read this thread properly.

    I rate Maradona above Pele because Maradona won a WC off his own boot, which Pele didn't do. Pele always had great team-mates to help him out. You also have to factor in what Maradona did at Napoli.

    Also, Maradona played in a time when defenses were much tighter and also much more cynical, and I say that knowing what Pele went through in his third WC. The age of 'pressing' football came about just as Maradona started his career - and the true age of professionalism started at about the same time. Maradona faced much stronger, fitter and faster defenders, with much less support than Pele. Maradona also had many more players go through the back of him than Pele, and that's a cold-stone fact; Maradona is a better player IMO. Insanely gifted - more so than what Pele was.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    No Homo...

  13. #53
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    On tape? Of course - I've seen just about all the footage of both players you could get your hands on. You wouldn't question my football knowledge if you had of read this thread properly.

    I rate Maradona above Pele because Maradona won a WC off his own boot, which Pele didn't do. Pele always had great team-mates to help him out. You also have to factor in what Maradona did at Napoli.

    Also, Maradona played in a time when defenses were much tighter and also much more cynical, and I say that knowing what Pele went through in his third WC. The age of 'pressing' football came about just as Maradona started his career - and the true age of professionalism started at about the same time. Maradona faced much stronger, fitter and faster defenders, with much less support than Pele. Maradona also had many more players go through the back of him than Pele, and that's a cold-stone fact; Maradona is a better player IMO. Insanely gifted - more so than what Pele was.
    +1



    I've always felt that the reason Maradona is always considered second best to Pele in the states was because of his doping thing in the 94 world cup and his political views.

    On a club level no one ever did what Maradona achived with Napoli, bringing them the championship of one of the toughest leagues in the world almost single handedly.
    Last edited by The Turk; 07-09-2008 at 10:24 AM.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    On tape? Of course - I've seen just about all the footage of both players you could get your hands on. You wouldn't question my football knowledge if you had of read this thread properly.

    I rate Maradona above Pele because Maradona won a WC off his own boot, which Pele didn't do. Pele always had great team-mates to help him out. You also have to factor in what Maradona did at Napoli.

    Also, Maradona played in a time when defenses were much tighter and also much more cynical, and I say that knowing what Pele went through in his third WC. The age of 'pressing' football came about just as Maradona started his career - and the true age of professionalism started at about the same time. Maradona faced much stronger, fitter and faster defenders, with much less support than Pele. Maradona also had many more players go through the back of him than Pele, and that's a cold-stone fact; Maradona is a better player IMO. Insanely gifted - more so than what Pele was.
    I am not questioning your knowledge at all - it is very clear that it is absolutely great. However I still think that without watching actual games (and not some archived abbreviated footage) is very hard to compare players.
    I also disagree that Pele was handled somehow with "soft hands". First cup i have seen myself (1966) Pele was hit by Bulgarian player (forgot his name) with such menace -now he would be suspended for year. Portuguese just finished him off. Pele was hit as hard as Maradona. If not harder.
    Last edited by RussianGreen; 07-09-2008 at 10:31 AM.

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    On tape? Of course - I've seen just about all the footage of both players you could get your hands on. You wouldn't question my football knowledge if you had of read this thread properly.

    I rate Maradona above Pele because Maradona won a WC off his own boot, which Pele didn't do. Pele always had great team-mates to help him out. You also have to factor in what Maradona did at Napoli.

    Also, Maradona played in a time when defenses were much tighter and also much more cynical, and I say that knowing what Pele went through in his third WC. The age of 'pressing' football came about just as Maradona started his career - and the true age of professionalism started at about the same time. Maradona faced much stronger, fitter and faster defenders, with much less support than Pele. Maradona also had many more players go through the back of him than Pele, and that's a cold-stone fact; Maradona is a better player IMO. Insanely gifted - more so than what Pele was.
    I agree to an extent. Proof of what you said is in the 62 WC when Pele was injured, Garrincha stepped in scored 2 goals in the 1/4s, 2 goals in the 1/2s and Brazil won the Final without him. Hence your argument, he had an awesome supporting cast.

    However, you kind of backhanded aside the gazillion goals Pele scored, regardless of harder/softer defenses and/or supporting casts. You don't score over 1000 goals in your career just because you always had insanely good players around you. He may have had an awesome supporting cast on the national team, but I doubt it was the same at Santos (I may be wrong).

    For Santos: 1124 goals in 1265 games
    For Brazil 77 goals for 92 games

    I'm sorry, but those numbers are just insane.

    On a personal level, I prefered Maradona, but I don't think you can say he was better.

  16. #56
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by RussianGreen View Post
    Pele was hit as hard as Maradona. If not harder.
    I agree.

  17. #57
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Istanbul
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by RaoulDuke View Post
    For Santos: 1124 goals in 1265 games
    For Brazil 77 goals for 92 games

    I'm sorry, but those numbers are just insane.
    .
    I agree that the numbers are insane but if we're talking club level Maradona is head and shoulders above Pele, he did it in La Liga and the Serie A against the top club competition the era had to offer and Pele did it in the Brasilian league which is not really known for its defensive prowess is it?

    I think you can say that Maradona is better because he did it against better opposition.


    and with this post this has officially become the soccer version of a Chad-Clemens thread

    Anti Pele Militia

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by RussianGreen View Post
    I am not questioning your knowledge at all - it is very clear that it is absolutely great. However I still think that without watching actual games (and not some archived abbreviated footage) is very hard to compare players.
    I also disagree that Pele was handled somehow with "soft hands". First cup i have seen myself (1966) Pele was hit by Bulgarian player (forgot his name) with such menace -now he would be suspended for year. Pele was hit as hard as Maradona. If not harder.
    Why thank you! I don't think it is (my knowledge - absolutely great), TBH, elsewise I'd be a manager somewhere. I would prefer Liverpool, but Rafa is doing too good a job right now. I would also like to manage Everton, so I could ensure they would get relegated next season.

    Pele was butchered at the '66 World Cup, but that was how Maradona was treated his entire career. Pele said at the end of that WC that it would be his last because of the treatment he recieved. In other words, packing up his ball and heading off like a little kid. The fact he came back in '70 was due in no small part to the fact he was in probably the greatest team of all time. No wonder he can't get a stiffy now.

    Maradona never shirked a contest or even hinted at doing so unlike Pele. He could have packed it in before Italia 90 - he had huge injury issues in the 18 months in the lead up to that tournament, but he burned with a desire to win for Argentina. He was a shadow of what he was in Mexico then, but still drove his country to the final - I recall an incredible pass he made with his right (!!) foot to set up the Cannigia goal that sank Toto Schillaci's strike for Italy when the Argies took it on penalties in the semi. When Argentina lost the final, Maradona cried like a baby - it meant that much to him. Maradona also juiced himself to the eyeballs in '94 in order to keep the weight down so he could help his country win. Didn't care a hoot that his doctors told him playing football and taking amphetamines was bad for the heart - no wonder he had heart problems later on. He just wanted to win - it was life or death for him. The drugs did not improve his skill one jot - how do you improve on perfection anyway?

    I have watched every entire game of the Brazil campaign in 1970: what I see is a great team on a very loose leash by their opposition - loose opposition marking, loose opposition defense allowing great players to do as they please, something which Maradona never had the luxury of enjoying.

  19. #59
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    13,128
    Quote Originally Posted by The Turk View Post
    I agree that the numbers are insane but if we're talking club level Maradona is head and shoulders above Pele, he did it in La Liga and the Serie A against the top club competition the era had to offer and Pele did it in the Brasilian league which is not really known for its defensive prowess is it?

    I think you can say that Maradona is better because he did it against better opposition.


    and with this post this has officially become the soccer version of a Chad-Clemens thread

    Anti Pele Militia
    LOL.

    No don't start that sh*t in here man.

    I can't compare the club levels, because I know squat about Brazilian Club football. On paper I'd agree with you, but for me, the goals scored trumps everything.

    Like I said, I prefer Maradona, his story, what he did in Naples, the WC, the downfall...it reads like a Greek tragedy.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Death View Post
    Yep: like I said, I thought you drafted the best out of all of us. If the vote had of been for pure drafting, you would have got my vote in a canter - you and Paulie picked up incredible talent right throughout the draft.
    Great comments guys, I appreciate the criticism.

    Honestly, my thought process was all wrong throughout the draft. Instead of trying to assemble an All-Time team as a cohesive unit, I just tried getting as much talent as possible.

    I suppose there are two theories to an All-Time Draft.

    Maybe we'll do another one in a couple months' time.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us