Phillip Lahm

devilish

Where did I got personal with you? Ive just explained why I dont go in lengthy arguments with you, nothing more nothing less.

Brwned

Chief, he's not worth the time or effort.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Tell that to Devlish. Who is convinced Neville is not an attack minded fullback.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

It seems that way. He got personal for no reason. Now he tries to paint is as "an explanation as to why he can't get into some lengthy argument".

Like disagreeing with him is " getting into a lengthy argument"

amolbhatia100

Watch the two teams play a little more. Thats all i can say. Evra's miles ahead. True, he can improve his final ball. But the inroads he makes through his running are invaluable. His actual skill on the ball is unique for a fullback.

His general play and energy was still like it always is. Except that he couldnt get past the wall of a defence of ours and actually create something. Evra played a huge part.

Brwned

I think it's just his way of saying 'I'm clearly wrong so I'm just going to make it personal'. It's not the first time he's done it.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Agreed

peterstorey

I have - Evra's better going forward but nowhere near as good a defender. Which brings us neatly back to where we started.

Brwned

I agree that Sagna is better defensively and Evra is better at attacking, but I don't think either are that much better in either aspect. Sagna gets forward very well and is very productive for a full back, he still doesn't have that explosiveness that sets Evra apart. But by the same token, Evra has become great at defending, I would say he is one of the hardest full backs to beat one on one and is very hard in the tackle, Sagna is more consistent defensively though and has the air of solidity.

But saying Evra's "nowhere near as good a defender" is taking things a bit far.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Agreed. Evra's dealing with Messi at OT sums up his defending perfectly. Sagna is not way better than that

devilish

If you think that Gaz is the silky attacking minded fullback who dribbles past defenders and go into dangerous areas like Evra, Cafu or Lahm does then be my guest. In my opinion Gaz rely mostly on his positioning, leadership and workrate. His attacking abilities had improved though (Expecially after Becks departure) but still he is nowhere near in that to the typical attacking minded fullback.

There again as I said, I dont want to go into endless arguments with you.

devilish

I agree

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

I don't have to. I never said anything close to that. You however claim Neville isn't an attacking fullback. Which is simply wrong.

Gary Neville is an attacking fullback. Period. He doesn't need to beat people with silky skills to be that. Since his debut he has always been a creative outlet for us in danger areas of the pitch. Consistently. We have just been blessed that his defensive game has mostly been top notch too. To claim he attack minded is to do the equivalent of saying Becks wasn't a proper winger back in 99. Because he couldn't do what a Giggs or Ronaldo coudl with ball at his feet.

That's the problem In your opinion. Which is wrong. Start a thread if you like, asking whether Neville is an attacking fullback or not. Very few if any will side with you. Attacking has always beena great sterngth of his.

Frankly there isn't anything to argue about. You are simply wrong about Neville. That's all there is to the matter. I'm not about to bother making you see something this obvious with the attitude you currently have. It's not worth the effort. So here ends my statements to you on this topic.

Thus concludes the chief

amolbhatia100

I dont know whether to label him as an attacking fullback but hes pretty much a complete fullback. Defends superbly, tackles hard, passes it well, gets forward and has a nice cross on him. Brilliant fullback is our Nevillator.

devilish

I agree with you but there again what are Neville's greater strengths? Skill, technique, dribbling and capability to exploit the right spaces or is it more positioning, leadership, tackling and ability to close the gaps well? Is he more of a Cafu or is he more of an older Maldini?

Brwned

You don't need to be a good dribbler with pace to be an attacking full back, Neville's crossing is top class and his willingness to get forward is a huge advantage to us. He is an attacking full back with brilliant defensive capabilities.

devilish

A good cross does not make you an attacking fullback. Its like saying that OShea is an attacking midfielder just because he rarely misses in front of goal.
Gaz had improved greatly in going forward but he is no Cafu or Alves in it either. Gaz strengths where and still are positioning, tackling, leadership and ability to win the ball.

Brwned

Your definition of an attacking fullback differs from mine then. There is not only one type of attacking full backs, there are many variations. For example, Cafu is completely different to Alves in style, yet you call them both attacking full backs.

Crossing, stamina and willingness to get forward constitutes as an attacking full back for me, he is the best crosser in our team.

Lizard King

Evra's fucking fantastic defensively.

devilish

aiAnd yet he is more comfortable in going forward rather then in defending. Gaz is a better defender though.

devilish

The concept that a defensive fullback = shite in going forward is wrong. There had been defensive fullbacks who faired well in going forward expecially during the past few years where going forward with the ball is becoming a must. What distinguish between a good attacking minded fullback and a defensive minded fullback are their strengths.

Brwned

Shall we start another poll?

Spoonatov

Best left back I've seen at OT. Just ahead of Irwin.

Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber

Exactly. Saying Gazza isn't an attacking fullback because he doesn't posses the ball skills of a Cafu is like saying Bekcham wasn't a winger in his hey day at OT, because he didn't have Giggs or Ronaldo's natural ball skills.

rooney__10

Bullshit really. Theres no such thing as an attacking full back or defensive fullback. It's either your a good one or your shit. It is how a team plays and the tacticts employed by the management which constitutes whether you attack or defend. Every fullback has to have the attacking ability and if tactics dictate you to attack then you will either be good at it or shit at it.

In my opinion if your a fullback that doesn't attack then your not a fuckin fullback, you need to have attacking ability if yor a fullback. Tactics will determine how much you attack well in the purest sense anyway.

devilish

The last one ended in a draw 18 vs 8....

Nah Im not interested in another one.

Lets agree to disagree on this.

Brwned

That's not true at all. Plenty of people think Alves is a very good attacking full back yet not a good full back overall. How does that one work out? Wes Brown is a very good full back but is awful at attacking.