CB is not more key position than FB, they are equally important and if anything FB are so much more important in modern game.
That may be increasingly true however it is also true that central defenders tend to go for more than FB's - this is because the good ones organise the defence around them as well as do the defending and they are incredibly important - FB's don't do that but are obviously more important in attack.
This is correct, the attacking fullback is a necessity in the modern game and I even shared a article on the how they're coached differently to yesteryears.
That's funny considering that the likes of Maldini and Irwin would probably shit on all modern FBs. Oh well.
Every position is incredibly important. CBs organize defense, FBs provides width and does the job of 2 roles.
In your mind..
I didn't say that's the case, I said that was the mentality which is bs mentality.
Yeah, they are very important and gives so much balance to the team. Good attacking FB means teams can overload the central position to gain numerical advantage without losing the width and attacking threat from wings.
Yeah I'd agree with that. Should be an interesting summer.
I wouldn't say fullbacks are more important as there are plenty of teams where you'd argue that their CB is a more vital cog than either fullabck. But they're certainly important in their own right. The major shift from the past is that wingers prefer to come inside and operate as attacking midfielders or inside forwards, meaning that your fullbacks, if they're impotent themsleves, leave your attack riddled with a lack of width/wide threat. At the same time theres no set formula for success, and all kinds of fullbacks can be part of a winning team.
Yeah, I said it in other post, every position is equally important. FBs have become very important is adding so much to the attack, CBs adds more by playing passes from deep so that midfield don't have to drop deep. FBs helps in attack so that wingers can drift to central positions.
I think you were too young to remember the time when WC FB were able to equally defend and attack
I'd tend to agree with you here. I thought for the most part he looked good defensively. The only way he'd work for us is if we played him on the same flank as an out and out attacking right winger. a bit old school maybe, where he'd provide the cover and maybe add some attacking support. We don't have that type of player for the right hand side yet, so this signing would need to be made with upgrading at right wing in mind, something we've been calling for, for a long time. Put this lad in with the Mata's, Lingards etc and we'll still be lacking attacking width down that flank.
I'm old enough to remember irwin and Maldini. Maldini played in a team that was arguably amongst the best in the world. And Irwin played at a time when Serie A and the Spanish league were far superior. I'm sure you still remember when Romario and Stoichkov destroyed the likes of Steve Bruce and Pallister in the Camp Nou and made them look ordinary with Irwin struggling along with them? But they did fine domestically.
He’s not wrong in the case of Maldini and Irwin would easily be one of the best around now. Mr Consistency
Then you will also remember that we had to drop half our team for that match due to the stupid foreigner rule
I watched most of the game, and specifically watched him... He's strong, quick and seems a natural defender.. On the ball not outstanding, and he gifted a chance that the French should have capitalised upon.
Maldini was by far the best fullback the world has seen in the past 30 years. The closest to him was Zanetti but he wasn't as good as him. Regarding that game in the Camp Nou, well, that what happens when you put slow CBs against rapid strikers. Such comment has nothing to do with Maguire btw whose speed seem to be at par of Bruce's
I’m approaching 40, and remember Maldini being one of the best players in the world, and universally considered one of the best defenders of all time!
I do remember Schmeichel and Cantona missing the game with the following line up..
Frank de Boer and Lizarazu are regarded by many neutrals as being better than Denis Irwin. A quick google search will tell you that with the lists they made with irwin not in sight. Maldini was a legendary defender of his time no question, but in attack I preferred the speedy world cup winner lizarazu.
Just to tie a bow on this conversation since I had to duck out yesterday -Yeah we can agree to disagree on the first notion, mate, no issues. You are definitely wrong about Pupi though, you can search for highlights in the 90's it will be well worth it I promise
I'm not against signing AWB, just feel we would definitely need to sign a RW as well if we are to ease him in and develop his game. Also in this way we wouldn't be dependent on him creating in attack, whilst solidifying our back line.
Despite tonight showing (just one off game) we could definitely use him and will improve our backline.
I agree with your post mostly, but Maldini as great as he was, was not as good in attack as many others. I remember Kanchelskis gave him a hard time by just running direct at him with pure pace. Think he'd struggle in the modern with the game getting quicker.
This is simply not the case ... why else do CBs generally cost more?
3 of the 6 most expensive defenders ever have been fullbacks.
Who?
We could do without rafael, but not without vidic. Having a top quality centre back always is a higher priority than a top full back.
Moving on from the fact that @GlastonSpur is clearly wrong, and that Spurs probably have a pretty good training complex, but who cares?... it's really telling when you look at the list of the top defensive transfers that we aren't anywhere near it, but City have 4 of the top7, and Liverpool the most expensive.
Somehow City with same CBs and different FBs looked completely different team.
Erm... they don't? It's very close unless you get that huge talent.
But Vidic was truly top class... Rafael was lovable, but never at Vidic's level.
Yeah that's depressing. We really need top class RB and CB.
Guardiola plays football in oppositions half with 70% plus ball possession and maximum control. He likes to push them so high and press so high and squeeze the opposition that their only route to get out came from long balls into space behind full backs, and thus his team needed recovery pace from full backs to maintain that control which aging players were often found wanting. They spend most of their time on the ball and need full backs to contribute in attack and provide width and final balls. And also beat their men. That energy was lacking in previous ones. Their centrebacks never come under pressure ,when they did they leaked goals. But against top creative team's who could build and create he mostly relied on kompany as the go to guy than stones or otamendi who on top form is a superior cb. Still they keep leaking goals against top oppositions.
Six players is a tiny sample size, not statistically worth bothering with. There have been hundreds of CBs and fullbacks signed across Europe's top leagues in the last few years.
That's the problem with exceptional defenders. Some skills are remembered more then others. People see Zanetti's elegant movement with the ball and think he wasn't a great defender. However he was. Same with Maldini when going forward. The guy was such a great defender that he could play as a CB and still be world class. That was a rare thing at a time when the FB role was considered as inferior to that of a CB. Therefore he's remembered more for his defensive skills rather then his attacking skills Having said that Maldini could attack. I saw him take the ball and dribble with it to the other end.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
