"The old player takes the young player's spot"

[Adesor Vafaseya]

I don't think players change much in international games. They are still the same players, you know .

not the players, but alone being involved in an international game is much different than playing in IPL. The expereince is not the same. It can teach the players some more lessons.
specially in one to one situations to see how other players react/behave, also overall positioning of opposing side etc etc...

[Martin-Reza]

^ About the first point, well, in that case the question was if the Hashemian left striker plus Daei center forward combo was better than the Hashemian center forward and someone else left striker combo. And I must say Hash still was a better left striker than the rest and Daei a better central striker than the rest apart from Hash, that it was not a crazy decision to make the decision for the Daei & Hash combo.

Secondly, I think you are missing my point here a bit. I am not asking if it was a good idea to play Daei, I am interested in what the exact problem was created by that. Did Borhani miss his regular 30 mins against Laos to become a better striker than Daei or did Branko miss them in order to see that Borhani would be the better choice for WC?

Both things don't make sense to me.

Probably the Daei case is not the right example in order to discuss the general problem I am referring to, as many think Daei sucked and shouldn't have played anyway.

The problem I am talking about is a better old player playing instead of a worse but younger player. Since in the opinion of many this wasn't the case with Daei, this cannot be taken as example to analyze the issue.

Maybe we should rather stick to Karimi and Zanidpour.

Can Zanidpour really improve so much because of a few TM caps more that in the end it pays off not to have taken advantage of Karimi's availability? Or is there a chance Zanidpour already is a better and more effective player but can't show it because of lack of playing time?

This is the question I am seeking an answer to, not if Daei in particular should have played a few years back.

^ internationally that is...

I don't think players change much in international games. They are still the same players, you know .

[Amin_]

1) Martin jaan, are you saying Daei was a better target forward at that time than Hashemian?!

If so, then we'll leave it at this.

If not, how come Daei took his spot as target forward and Hashemian had to play out of position (at least not as a target forward) in a 4-2-3-1 formation?!!

Had Branko not seen how unhappy and miserable Hashemian was coming more from the sides?!

===

2) Playing Daei against Asia's minors, where Iran (as a power house, at least back then) had most of the attacks and was present in the opponents box most of the time, is a totally different scenario as playing him at a WC against much stronger teams where Iran was actually playing counter football so far from the opponents box. Daei could still outmuscle these weak Asian players in the box and at least he won some aerial battles every now and then. But he was totally lost so far from the box.

Daei was totally lost in the middle of the pitch. He was barely found in the middle, let alone in the box.

No one can deny Daei's lack of pace and agility in those days; now was it really a smart move to play him in such games so far from the box with the conditions he was in back then?!

He wasn't even such type of a forward to play far from the box when he was at his prime, let alone in those conditions at the age of 37.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

^ internationally that is...

[Martin-Reza]

Actually Branko always used 2 forwards against Laos for example, normally Daei and Enayati back then.

And I must say I cannot imagine a player with 30+ club appearances a year is somehow not elaborated correctly.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

And that is the interesting point. How do you disagree in particular? Would Borhani now be so much of a better player with basically 1% more playing time a year? Was he always better and playing 30 mins against Laos would have proved it? Or is there another point I missed out on?

yes. Beacause I actually do believe that the qualities of Borhani (and a younger Mohsen Khalili) were not eloborated correctly!
I do believe that more playing AT THEIR YOUNGER ages would have resulted that after the retirement of Daei, we wouldn't stay in the middle of nowhere....

full 90 mins as a SINGLE FORWARD versus those Laos, Maledives Islands was really not neccessary.

Branco could have at least tried 2 forwards versus those nations if he really had to keep Daei...

so really, this is were I have a totally different point of view on Daei.

[Martin-Reza]

He was playing because Daei wielded significant power in the dressing room and was an ally for Branko - a valuable one since everybody was on his neck.

I guess generally we all agree that in a case where a player plays for non-sporting reasons is of course inacceptable. But this is not the issue here, nor is it the question here if that was the case with Daei. No secret that I can only shake my head in disbelief when I hear accusations of that kind against Daei and Branko.

[toofan]

its fine to have him there.but im not too sure about 90 mins.mayeb a young
talent to sub him out to gain experience.

[kaz]

He was playing because Daei wielded significant power in the dressing room and was an ally for Branko - a valuable one since everybody was on his neck.

[Martin-Reza]

^ Ok, but if he was so weak, why was he playing? There are 2 possible responses, one is the usual conspiracy theory reply saying he was worse than the alternatives but was so influential that he unrightfully played. The second is he still was better than the alternatives and then it comes down to the fact that we had noone.

But the Daei case is sth we shouldn't solely discuss, as the normal case is that the old player is rated higher than the younger, but yet he is asked to retire by many for the sake of the youngster. Now what exactly is the benefit for our football in that? That is the question.

^
and thats right there, where we disagree

And that is the interesting point. How do you disagree in particular? Would Borhani now be so much of a better player with basically 1% more playing time a year? Was he always better and playing 30 mins against Laos would have proved it? Or is there another point I missed out on?

[kaz]

The problem with Daei is that he didn't know when was when (or enough being enough).

Usually discussions around older players and promising youngsters is inevitable in all teams. Usually however, the player that is older is not 37...but in his early 30s.

Daei was a liability. Everyone prior and at the world cup mentioned so. People from all over the world, not even intimate with our football, were asking why Daei is playing. I will never forget Rafael Marquez (Mexican defender) essentially letting go of marking Daei and joining in the attack - basically Daei was useless and immobile.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

^
and thats right there, where we disagree

[Martin-Reza]

^ On the first point, of what benefit for Iran would 30 mins against Laos for Borhani have been for Iranian football?

I mean of the two issues I mentioned in my initial post. Would it have improved Borhani significally or would it have proved to us Borhani is actually better than Daei?

I think neither of the two things would have been the case, so there was no sense to play him actually.

[Adesor Vafaseya]

I still have two problems:

1, for letting Daei to play FULL 90 mins versus Laos islands, Maledives Islands, Bangladesh as the ONLY forward, so he can make his 100+ goals

really, really, at least in those games couldn't we let that highly honoured royal excellency majesty to play 60 mins? to let ye badbakhteh bichareh to gain at least 30 mins experience against Laos?

ON that I will not change my mind


2, In WC2006 Hashemain was off his rightful place just to make space for Ali daei, who was absolutely inefficient, and yet Daei played FULL 90 mins....

ON that I will not change my mind




What I say, in all politeness is, could it maybe be possible that in case of Ali Daei Branco did exaggerate a little bit??? just a tiny little bit?

[Martin-Reza]

Yes, a big share of the fans wanted him back, and after Azizi played 2 games, not so many wanted him back anymore. Don't want to say more, but he definitely was not forced by Dadkan or anyone else. It was a reaction to public will, but not a decision forced upon him.

I can't imagine Branko said sth differently in that interview, maybe you misunderstood.

As said, Enayati was Dadkan's favourite. I don't think he was forced to bring him, but it was sth like a favour to Dadkan. That was a mistake in my eyes. On the other hand, he didn't play, so Branko simply had a 22-men roster.

And Branko wanted to drop Karimi because of his bad behaviour in the preperation camp and then was persuaded by pretty much everyone to keep him. Including Dadkan and Human. Hard to tell if that was a good idea actually.