Full backs who can actually defend

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
49,462
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
It seems like most top level full backs are mediocre at best while defending, and that it has become acceptable because they're great at bombing forward. If you had to rank fullbacks (both left and right) based on their defending capability alone, who would be your top 5?

Mine are

1. Lahm
2. erm...
...
 
Cole has been unstable over the past year, but at his best, he'd be on the list. Sagna's alright too.

I think a list of full backs shit at defending would be easier to make.
 
Cole, maybe Sagna and Lahm, Zanetti's a decent shout too. That's about it really.
 
It's funny that the best two full backs, in my opinion, are Alba and Alves yet they're not as strong defensively as some listed here. Evolution of the game.
 
It's tough really. Popper the other week stated that Rafael was a wing back, which in reflection, is a fair assessment. Wing back suggests that they are an integral part of the attacking play, whereas full infers defending first and foremost, yet we all know how Rafael plays.

Players like Rafael, Alves, Marcelo etc will often be judged on how good they are going forward, because they're rarely highlighted defensively. Marcelo looks excellent for Madrid, but how would he cope when put under the cosh by a team who'll actually look to exploit his defensive weaknesses? I believe Bayern did that, and he was shown up.

In my opinion, anyone who isn't a good defender, is a poor full back. I maintain that Rafael is a poor full back. Smalling and Jones are both far better than him, but as a wing back, it becomes a different question.
 
Ramshock said:
Hasnt been a world class full back in the Premier League since Irwins best days at United.
Click to expand...

Whatever the term means (surely it is relative anyway to the standard of talent playing at the time), Evra was world class at his best for United. Amazing player.
 
Yeah definitely. As was Neville, and Cole.

fecking retarded comment by Ramshock.
 
Liam147 said:
It's tough really. Popper the other week stated that Rafael was a wing back, which in reflection, is a fair assessment. Wing back suggests that they are an integral part of the attacking play, whereas full infers defending first and foremost, yet we all know how Rafael plays.

Players like Rafael, Alves, Marcelo etc will often be judged on how good they are going forward, because they're rarely highlighted defensively. Marcelo looks excellent for Madrid, but how would he cope when put under the cosh by a team who'll actually look to exploit his defensive weaknesses? I believe Bayern did that, and he was shown up.

In my opinion, anyone who isn't a good defender, is a poor full back. I maintain that Rafael is a poor full back. Smalling and Jones are both far better than him, but as a wing back, it becomes a different question.
Click to expand...


Fullback implies, not infers.

For example, I can imply that your grasp of the English language is subpar but you can infer that I am a grammar nazi.
 
Bebe said:
Buttner.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think Coentrao is excellent defensively.
Click to expand...

Was gonna post the same, he is very good. Far better than Marcelo defensively.
 
I've always liked Aleksandr Anyukov.
 
Eboue27 said:
Fullback implies, not infers.

For example, I can imply that your grasp of the English language is subpar but you can infer that I am a grammar nazi.
Click to expand...

I'm open to correction here, but from what I understand the term 'full back' comes from the days when formations were more like 2-3-5 than 4-4-2. In those times the centre half actually played closer to the modern day central midfielder than the modern day centre backs. The full backs were the '2' in the 2-3-5 - so in that case the name makes total sense. As time moved on 'centre halves' moved further backwards to become central defenders, the 'full backs' got pushed wider and have become more attacking in their purpose than they were back in the early to mid 1900's.

In essence, again being open to correction, the original 'full backs' are more akin to todays centre backs, original centre halves correspond more to central midfielders than centre backs, and modern day full backs are kind of taken out of the original front five to become utility attacking/defending players.

Main point is, the names of some positions have stuck around more due to tradition than to being accurate descriptions of the roles played. It makes sense to me that a full back is only primarily a defender if you expect him to be spending most of his time defending. If you expect to be the stronger team more often than not, then a specialist defender at 'full back' is probably a waste.
 
MrK said:
I'm open to correction here, but from what I understand the term 'full back' comes from the days when formations were more like 2-3-5 than 4-4-2. In those times the centre half actually played closer to the modern day central midfielder than the modern day centre backs. The full backs were the '2' in the 2-3-5 - so in that case the name makes total sense. As time moved on 'centre halves' moved further backwards to become central defenders, the 'full backs' got pushed wider and have become more attacking in their purpose than they were back in the early to mid 1900's.

In essence, again being open to correction, the original 'full backs' are more akin to todays centre backs, original centre halves correspond more to central midfielders than centre backs, and modern day full backs are kind of taken out of the original front five to become utility attacking/defending players.

Main point is, the names of some positions have stuck around more due to tradition than to being accurate descriptions of the roles played. It makes sense to me that a full back is only primarily a defender if you expect him to be spending most of his time defending. If you expect to be the stronger team more often than not, then a specialist defender at 'full back' is probably a waste.
Click to expand...

I was merely making a grammatical correction on the usage of imply/infer. I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the evolution of the position.
 
Eboue27 said:
I was merely making a grammatical correction on the usage of imply/infer. I'll bow to your superior knowledge on the evolution of the position.
Click to expand...

After hitting submit I kinda realised I replied to the wrong post, I just saw people getting hung up on the name of the position and yours was the last post in the chain :)

I'm still quite possibly talking a load of bollocks though, never discount that.
 
Probably not in the same class as others mentioned in this thread. He's utterly consistent though, great shout.
 
MrK said:
I'm open to correction here, but from what I understand the term 'full back' comes from the days when formations were more like 2-3-5 than 4-4-2. In those times the centre half actually played closer to the modern day central midfielder than the modern day centre backs. The full backs were the '2' in the 2-3-5 - so in that case the name makes total sense. As time moved on 'centre halves' moved further backwards to become central defenders, the 'full backs' got pushed wider and have become more attacking in their purpose than they were back in the early to mid 1900's.

In essence, again being open to correction, the original 'full backs' are more akin to todays centre backs, original centre halves correspond more to central midfielders than centre backs, and modern day full backs are kind of taken out of the original front five to become utility attacking/defending players.

Main point is, the names of some positions have stuck around more due to tradition than to being accurate descriptions of the roles played. It makes sense to me that a full back is only primarily a defender if you expect him to be spending most of his time defending. If you expect to be the stronger team more often than not, then a specialist defender at 'full back' is probably a waste.
Click to expand...

I think that's correct. And is the reason why the traditional numbers for the fullbacks were 2 and 3. Same for right and left wingers being 7 and 11.

------1-------
----2---3-----
--4---5---6---
-7-8-9-10-11-
 
On the Contrary Wilkinson for Stoke is the complete opposite. Absolutely gash going forward but will scrap and hack you down if you go near him in attack.
 
Arruda said:
I think that's correct. And is the reason why the traditional numbers for the fullbacks were 2 and 3. Same for right and left wingers being 7 and 11.

------1-------
----2---3-----
--4---5---6---
-7-8-9-10-11-
Click to expand...
Yep, Arsenal then dropped the 5 deeper to be the 'stopper' centre-half. Then we morphed into 424 with one of the half-backs dropping to partner the centre-half and one of the inside-forwards dropping to pair with a wing-back.
 
He was shit when he came on yesterday, but generally, Zabaleta is a very good defensive full-back, who isn't all that great at the more attacking aspects of the role.
 
Dani alves.

He had Ronaldo in his back pocket more than once in the recent classicos.

The fact is though his main part in the team is to keep the width and act more as a winger than a fullback, but back in his sevilla days he was also very solid defensively too.
 
Erm... Zabaletta?

Excellent fullback.
 
peterstorey said:
Bacary Sagna, best fullback in the league.
Click to expand...

Hugely overrated. He's had 1 stunning season which was his debut season iirc. Since then he's been decent.

Cole is still the best fullback in the league all things considered.
 
Evra, Cole, Marcello can all defend, and if their respective managers give them one sole job, "defend" then they do it and well.

Difference with these type of players is that they are more often than not told to attack, I remember Evra saying that SAF had a go at him once and asked what he bought him for, the answer was "attacking".
 
We brown was good at defending. Very underrated. Was a key player in 2007/8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.