If our first central pair is awful; name PL pair who is better then

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
2,524
Location
Chair
the weird myth rather is that their protection from midfield is inadequate. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has watched football for a long time that any team that needs to operate with 2 holding players vs tough opponents has a problem in center defence. Not in midfield
We don't play with two holding midfielders, though? Both Fred and McTominay play more as B2B midfielders than anything.

If we have two holding midfielders, Liverpool had three of them last season. Guess their defence must be extremely bad if they needed three players to protect them.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
48,877
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
We don't play with two holding midfielders, though? Both Fred and McTominay play more as B2B midfielders than anything.
Since you want to go the semantic route. I'll make you get the point better. We operate with two defensive oriented players vs the best teams. I don't care whether you want to call them b2b, combative whatever.

If we have two holding midfielders, Liverpool had three of them last season. Guess their defence must be extremely bad if they needed three players to protect them.
Liverpool play nothing like ANY other big team so the comparison is just pointless. They literally use their midfield to simply win the ball back quick. That is why they operate beat with 3 battlers. So that their full acks can play high like wingers and their 3 forwards stay narrow.


No other big team in Europe operates like that. They all have a 6 with an 8.


Frankly I don't even see why Im wasting time explaining this on this forum for the upteenth time. You go on believing Lindeloff and Maguire just need a new shiny defensive shield. It will end in tears.


Since many of you never learnt from us having a dead right wing attacking being the reason we hadnt played any fluid football. It's no surprise you won't get it either that our midfield isn't the issue. Missing the point is normal for a number of you.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
48,877
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
Not at all. It's a myth. CBs go one v one with the two forwards. If the CBs have to deal with the two forwards plus the opposing midfield then it's the problem of our midfield.
Our CBs have dealt fairly well when they have to deal with the opposition forwards only.
This nonsense excuse again. People love to pretend on this forum that we repeatedly concede goals with midfielders running at our center backs and runners from deep because supposedly our midfield does nothing defensively.

It's a marvel how that has taken route. We constantly concede goals because or center backs are:

a) too deep so they invite the early cross that is hard to defend (a.k.a west brom away)

b) too slow to play a high line so at home create a no man's land between them and the midfield that necessitates being covered by 2 defensive oriented midfielders or we concede silly goals. Our home results this season are proof

c) doing the same things. Instead of one pressing and one dropping off. Both defend like sweepers. A constant at set pieces and corners.

b) both two slow to play on the cover. Yet both push up into midfield constantly necessitating a double defensive cover in midfield to plug the holes that creates. Cover that has to play conservatively to best protect them

d) slaughtered for pace by a pacy player running at them

e) get bullied by an aggressive center forward (


How this stuff repeatedly gets blamed on the midfield infront of them is a mini miracle in itself that keeps on giving.
 

BaillyBaillyBailly

Full Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2014
Messages
221
Location
Altrincham
I'm becoming more inclined recently to think that sticking with Maguire and Lindelof is the way forward. Having a settled CB pairing is almost always the best way to ensure defensive stability regardless of ability. I also am not sure that any of the CBs we have been linked with (with the exception of Varane who I don't believe really wants out of Madrid) are actually any better than Lindelof/Bailly.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
12,434
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
the weird myth rather is that their protection from midfield is inadequate. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has watched football for a long time that any team that needs to operate with 2 holding players vs tough opponents has a problem in center defence. Not in midfield
The amount of defensive work that our midfield does isn't actually that much more than most teams do. Obviously Fred is quite a bit ahead of most, but McTominay doesn't really do any more defensive work than many players who play in a similar position. It's just that most of the teams you are talking about have players who do a similar amount of defensive work as Scott while also providing quite a lot more when they have the ball. As such it makes us a little unbalanced and gives the impression that we're playing a more 'defensive' duo than what we really are. Ideally we'd want to replace Scott with somebody who has similar defensive ability while also providing much more ball-playing ability.

Chelsea regularly play Kante and Jorginho. Together they do much more defensive work than our duo (mostly because they are both far ahead of Scott). Liverpool's midfield obviously does similar. Bayern's duo of Kimmich and Goretzka both do more defensively than Scott (despite playing in a much more dominant team).

As such, I wouldn't say our two give much more defensive cover to our central defenders than many other teams out there. It's just that we're comparing them to Pogba and Matic, two players who for differing reasons leave us much more open than not only our other two but also more open than most other teams are willing to be. In reality it's what we should be expecting from the midfield.
 

criticalanalysis

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
2,972
This nonsense excuse again. People love to pretend on this forum that we repeatedly concede goals with midfielders running at our center backs and runners from deep because supposedly our midfield does nothing defensively.

It's a marvel how that has taken route. We constantly concede goals because or center backs are:

a) too deep so they invite the early cross that is hard to defend (a.k.a west brom away)

b) too slow to play a high line so at home create a no man's land between them and the midfield that necessitates being covered by 2 defensive oriented midfielders or we concede silly goals. Our home results this season are proof

c) doing the same things. Instead of one pressing and one dropping off. Both defend like sweepers. A constant at set pieces and corners.

b) both two slow to play on the cover. Yet both push up into midfield constantly necessitating a double defensive cover in midfield to plug the holes that creates. Cover that has to play conservatively to best protect them


d) slaughtered for pace by a pacy player running at them

e) get bullied by an aggressive center forward (


How this stuff repeatedly gets blamed on the midfield infront of them is a mini miracle in itself that keeps on giving.
Good posts, agree mostly on the bolded, although I'd say most of those negative traits are displayed far more by Lindelof than Maguire. I tried to summarise those thoughts with a hypothetical situation earlier in the thread:

Between the choice of one class centre back or one class base midfielder:

Maguire + Marquinhos + Fred at the base in a midfield three of Pogba and Bruno
Maguire + Lindelof + Fabinho at the base in a midfield three of Pogba and Bruno
Lindelof + Marquinhos + Fred at the base in a midfield three of Pogba and Bruno

Which is the strongest option?

All three are compromises but I'd opt for the first, which is why I've always consistently (harshly or not) implied that Lindelof is the weakest defensive link in our team and the one I expect more from.
 

SirReginald

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
183
Supports
Chelsea
Lindlelof is not top class and I don’t think he ever will be. That’s not to say he is a bad player but with a dearth of talent out there he suffices. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being world class, he is probably a 6.5 - 7.

With everything being said, I don’t see many players who could realistically come in and be significant upgrades on him and like others have said, defense isn’t really your main issue.
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
2,524
Location
Chair
Lindlelof is not top class and I don’t think he ever will be. That’s not to say he is a bad player but with a dearth of talent out there he suffices. On a scale of 1-10, 10 being world class, he is probably a 6.5 - 7.

With everything being said, I don’t see many players who could realistically come in and be significant upgrades on him and like others have said, defense isn’t really your main issue.
Generally my view as well. You don't need a world class CB pairing, you need a consistent and settled one, and I think we've largely got that (and they should probably be somewhat decent at their jobs, though that should go without saying.)

The discussion will keep raging about whether McFred in midfield makes them look better or worse than they are, and we won't know until we have an alternative. Some disagreed that de Gea's refusal to come off his line made them look worse, but I think most can now agree that our defense unit as a whole looks better and more assured with Henderson back there. Whether replacing McFred with a proper DM will have the same effect remains to be seen.
 

mikel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
43
They are one of the better pairings in the league. But, neither one is an elite CB near the level VVD and you probably need an elite CB to seriously contend for the big hardware year in and year out.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
Long passes attempted and backward passes obviously affected by team's playing style as City plays more possession and control means they will attempt less long pass and more backward passes. But overall, Maguire seems to be the best one in raw defending aspect but he conceded more fouls. Lindelof's stats look the worst one compare to the other four. Well, Dias & Stones pair definitely been the best pair in PL this season in my opinion.

Based on what I watch and even the stats reflect to it, Lindelof is passive centre back who prefers to rely on his brain rather than his physical attribute. He doesn't like to get involved contact to contact. The positive thing about him is that he is not as clumsy as lot of centre backs out there.

 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
Long passes attempted and backward passes obviously affected by team's playing style as City plays more possession and control means they will attempt less long pass and more backward passes. But overall, Maguire seems to be the best one in raw defending aspect but he conceded more fouls. Lindelof's stats look the worst one compare to the other four. Well, Dias & Stones pair definitely been the best pair in PL this season in my opinion.

Based on what I watch and even the stats reflect to it, Lindelof is passive centre back who prefers to rely on his brain rather than his physical attribute. He doesn't like to get involved contact to contact. The positive thing about him is that he is not as clumsy as lot of centre backs out there.
I don’t think it is so much what the players like and don’t like. It’s more what style of defending they are good at.

I don’t agree when people call a defender passive just because they play less physical contact. One of Lindelof’s strengths is to shut down space. That does not involve any contact, but is the opposite of being passive.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
The amount of defensive work that our midfield does isn't actually that much more than most teams do. Obviously Fred is quite a bit ahead of most, but McTominay doesn't really do any more defensive work than many players who play in a similar position. It's just that most of the teams you are talking about have players who do a similar amount of defensive work as Scott while also providing quite a lot more when they have the ball. As such it makes us a little unbalanced and gives the impression that we're playing a more 'defensive' duo than what we really are. Ideally we'd want to replace Scott with somebody who has similar defensive ability while also providing much more ball-playing ability.

Chelsea regularly play Kante and Jorginho. Together they do much more defensive work than our duo (mostly because they are both far ahead of Scott). Liverpool's midfield obviously does similar. Bayern's duo of Kimmich and Goretzka both do more defensively than Scott (despite playing in a much more dominant team).

As such, I wouldn't say our two give much more defensive cover to our central defenders than many other teams out there. It's just that we're comparing them to Pogba and Matic, two players who for differing reasons leave us much more open than not only our other two but also more open than most other teams are willing to be. In reality it's what we should be expecting from the midfield.
Good post!
My feeling is that people exaggerate how defensive our set up is, based on the misunderstanding that just because they don’t offer anything forward, that they do a bigger defensive work than what you find in other teams.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
I don’t think it is so much what the players like and don’t like. It’s more what style of defending they are good at.

I don’t agree when people call a defender passive just because they play less physical contact. One of Lindelof’s strengths is to shut down space. That does not involve any contact, but is the opposite of being passive.
I don't just mention the physical contact though. I don't think you get it and it is as per what you mentioned Lindelof's strength is ''shut down space''. Do you know what it means? It means waiting for opposition player to make mistake to win the ball back rather than trying to attempt for tackle and duel contest to win it back. That is passive, the opposite of Bailly.

If you compare Lindelof with others, his number of duel contested and tackle made is the smallest one or about the same with Dias's Man City which reflects to Lindelof's style is more passive than the others. Not going to include Dias Man City as passive as Lindelof because Man City's Pep plays more on the ball and high possession which makes sense why Dias and Stones at City duel contested & tackle made are in low number. When you compare Dias at Benfica, he made much more duel contested and tackle.

 
Last edited:

Ole'sattheWheel

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
147
I don't rate Harry as highly as I do Dias, VVD, Laporte, Stones, and maybe a few other CBs in the league. But one thing I really appreciate about him is how solid he is physically. Remember before we signed him we'd have to chop & change our CBs every week due to injuries: Smalling, Jones, Rojo, Blind, Bailly.... Any given week you could guarantee at least 3 of them would be injured. What we really needed in Harry was a solid physical CB who is composed on the ball and not constantly fecking injured. Overpriced 100%, he has his weaknesses and the odd horrible game (usually comes when the entire team is all over the place), but he is ever-present, committed and solid.

I'm glad we signed him, and we could afford it so the price in my eyes is irrelevant.

Lindelof I think has more stand-out games than Harry, but also prone to costing us a goal or losing us a game - less stable but more capable of making a last ditch tackle to stop a goal, or pinging a great through ball to set up one of our forwards.


They can be improved upon for sure, but I agree with the OP in general
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cheimoon

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
79,553
Location
india
Lindelof and Harry are so criticized here. As a pair and as individuals (i don't deny, i slated Harry often too). But when you look closely, who have better defensive duo? For which duo you would trade our duo? Not one of them, i am talking two for two trade.

For me only Dias and Laporte (not Stones) are better. Other central pairs are not even close to our guys.
Isn't our ambition to win the league? If we're conceding that City have a better two, and this season's blip aside, Livepool's first choice option is much better too, then we obviously need to strengthen?

Was it the point of this thread to prove that the starting CB pair isn't good enough to take us to our ambitions? Or is being pretty good and better than most enough? In that case it's top 2-4 every year for us. Hurray
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
I don't just mention the physical contact though. I don't think you get it and it is as per what you mentioned Lindelof's strength is ''shut down space''. Do you know what it means? It means waiting for opposition player to make mistake to win the ball back rather than trying to attempt for tackle and duel contest to win it back. That is passive, the opposite of Bailly.

If you compare Lindelof with others, his number of duel contested and tackle made is the smallest one or about the same with Dias's Man City which reflects to Lindelof's style is more passive than the others. Not going to include Dias Man City as passive as Lindelof because Man City's Pep plays more on the ball and high possession which makes sense why Dias and Stones at City duel contested & tackle made are in low number. When you compare Dias at Benfica, he made much more duel contested and tackle.

I understand what you mean, but I don't agree. In my opinion, you confuse "not making a lot of tackles and not going in to duels" with being passive.
I mean that there are other ways to defend that are just as active. The Athletic described CBs as dogs or cats. Dogs try to manage the player in front of them (duels, tackle, etc) and cats are aware of the space and know how to manipulate it. Lindelof is clearly the latter type, but that is not less active. When he is following an attacker and try to steer him in to less dangerous areas and/or stall him, it is not passive. When you shut down an area and make it unavailable it is being active. Reading the play before it happens and stop ping it from happening is active. All thiose things are examples of being active, without getting the cred in the duels or tackles stats. Passive is to stand looking at things without doing anything, to not be in the right position, etc.

On a side note that has nothing to do with what I wrote above:
Bailly and Lindelof have basically the same numbers when it comes to duels and tackles
Duels: Lindelof 6.1, Bailly 6.4
Tackles: Lindelof 0.8, Bailly 0.8
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
I understand what you mean, but I don't agree. In my opinion, you confuse "not making a lot of tackles and not going in to duels" with being passive.
I mean that there are other ways to defend that are just as active. The Athletic described CBs as dogs or cats. Dogs try to manage the player in front of them (duels, tackle, etc) and cats are aware of the space and know how to manipulate it. Lindelof is clearly the latter type, but that is not less active. When he is following an attacker and try to steer him in to less dangerous areas and/or stall him, it is not passive. When you shut down an area and make it unavailable it is being active. Reading the play before it happens and stop ping it from happening is active. All thiose things are examples of being active, without getting the cred in the duels or tackles stats. Passive is to stand looking at things without doing anything, to not be in the right position, etc.

On a side note that has nothing to do with what I wrote above:
Bailly and Lindelof have basically the same numbers when it comes to duels and tackles
Duels: Lindelof 6.1, Bailly 6.4
Tackles: Lindelof 0.8, Bailly 0.8
That is not definition of passive defender! What you are describing in that bold mark is definition of useless defenders who shouldn't be a professional footballer. A passive defender still needs to do something, and that something is what you described about Lindelof.

It's very unfair to compare Bailly's stats with this season. Bailly barely even play and when he played, he faced teams like Burnley, Fulham, Crystal Palace & Wolves which means we had high possession against those teams thus why Bailly's defensive attempted & contested are low number (pretty sure I explained similar concept of what happened to Dias & Stones at Man City).

Let me show you Bailly where he started 24 league games in 16/17. I will also add another more towards aggressive CB like Milenkovic as another example so you can understand that Lindelof is more towards passive centre back. Those two had much higher duel contested, tackle made, ground duel contested, and interception than Lindelof.

 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
That is not definition of passive defender! What you are describing in that bold mark is definition of useless defenders who shouldn't be a professional footballer. A passive defender still needs to do something, and that something is what you described about Lindelof.

It's very unfair to compare Bailly's stats with this season. Bailly barely even play and when he played, he faced teams like Burnley, Fulham, Crystal Palace & Wolves which means we had high possession against those teams thus why Bailly's defensive attempted & contested are low number (pretty sure I explained similar concept of what happened to Dias & Stones at Man City).

Let me show you Bailly where he started 24 league games in 16/17. I will also add another more towards aggressive CB like Milenkovic as another example so you can understand that Lindelof is more towards passive centre back. Those two had much higher duel contested, tackle made, ground duel contested, and interception than Lindelof.

What you are talking about are defenders who are aggressive and less aggressive, not active vs passive. This is what I tried to explain with CBs who care mostly about the player in front of them (Bailly, Maguire) and CBs who care mostly about the space behind (Lindelof). Of course this is not black and white and all players are somewhat in between. This is an important factor when pairing CBs and one big reason why Lindelof and Maguire are successful. It can be useful to have someone to push, and someone to take care of the space behind. Doesn’t make one or the other more or less active even if the stats will look different. This why many teams will have defenders with the same “numbers” as Lindelof. Here are examples with CBs who played most matches in their teams this season. I took the PL top teams plus Real and Bayern.


Duels + tackles

Dias 5.8+ 0.8
Stones 5+0.8

Lindelof 6.1 + 0.8
Maguire 9.2+0.9

Thiago Silva 5.8 + 0.9
Zouma 7.8 +0.8

Varane 5.4 +0.7
Ramos 6.5 + 1.1

Evans 7.4+1
Fofana 12.5 +2.1

Dier 7.4+ 0.8
Alderweireld 6.5 + 1.5

Boateng 5.4+1.1
Alaba 4.9 +1.2

Many teams have CBs who go in to less duels than Lindelof, simply because teams also need CBs who can defend space and not only going in to duels. Doesn’t make Varane, Alaba, Boateng, Thiago Silva, Ramos, etc passive defenders. There are also teams where both CBs are aggressive like Leicester and Atletico.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
What you are talking about are defenders who are aggressive and less aggressive, not active vs passive. This is what I tried to explain with CBs who care mostly about the player in front of them (Bailly, Maguire) and CBs who care mostly about the space behind (Lindelof). Of course this is not black and white and all players are somewhat in between. This is an important factor when pairing CBs and one big reason why Lindelof and Maguire are successful. It can be useful to have someone to push, and someone to take care of the space behind. Doesn’t make one or the other more or less active even if the stats will look different. This why many teams will have defenders with the same “numbers” as Lindelof. Here are examples with CBs who played most matches in their teams this season. I took the PL top teams plus Real and Bayern.


Duels + tackles

Dias 5.8+ 0.8
Stones 5+0.8

Lindelof 6.1 + 0.8
Maguire 9.2+0.9

Thiago Silva 5.8 + 0.9
Zouma 7.8 +0.8

Varane 5.4 +0.7
Ramos 6.5 + 1.1

Evans 7.4+1
Fofana 12.5 +2.1

Dier 7.4+ 0.8
Alderweireld 6.5 + 1.5

Boateng 5.4+1.1
Alaba 4.9 +1.2

Many teams have CBs who go in to less duels than Lindelof, simply because teams also need CBs who can defend space and not only going in to duels. Doesn’t make Varane, Alaba, Boateng, Thiago Silva, Ramos, etc passive defenders. There are also teams where both CBs are aggressive like Leicester and Atletico.
It's just different words but the concept is the same. You haven't really tell me what passive defender does, feel free to do it. Every defender whether passive or active must do/offer something. Defender's job is to defend, you can't defend by ''without doing anything'' & ''no positioning skills'', that's like playing with 10 men!!

No one say is not an important factor. I never even say that being passive is a bad thing. Varane is a passive centre back like Lindelof. He's basically Lindelof but much quicker, better aerial & ground duel version of Lindelof. He's basically just a much better version of Lindelof.

A team tends to have one passive and one active but what you don't understand is there is a defender who can do both type and but also only can do one type. Lindelof can only do one which passive one while Silva can do both passive and active.

He's passive now because he's old so he needs to rely on his positioning & reading the game more. In his prime age, he is more active defender. It shows he can do both type in his prime while Lindelof can only do one type which the passive type.

 
Last edited:

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
It's just different words but the concept is the same. You haven't really tell me what passive defender does, feel free to do it. Every defender whether passive or active must do/offer something. Defender's job is to defend, you can't defend by ''without doing anything'' & ''no positioning skills'', that's like playing with 10 men!!

No one say is not an important factor. I never even say that being passive is a bad thing. Varane is a passive centre back like Lindelof. He's basically Lindelof but much quicker, better aerial & ground duel version of Lindelof. He's basically just a much better version of Lindelof.

A team tends to have one passive and one active but what you don't understand is there is a defender who can do both type and but also only can do one type. Lindelof can only do one which passive one while Silva can do both passive and active.

He's passive now because he's old so he needs to rely on his positioning & reading the game more. In his prime age, he is more active defender. It shows he can do both type in his prime while Lindelof can only do one type which the passive type.

The point is that Ramos, Varane, Silva, Lindelof etc are not passive just because they defend without many duels. This is a misunderstanding that I’ve sen a lot. I’ve even seen people who think it is passive defending to neutralising an attacker by steering him out to less dangerous areas. Active choices are not passive. Marking a player so the pass never happen is even more active than not marking and waiting until he has received the pass and then tackle.

Edit: just like you, I don’t mean aggressive vs non aggressive is superior to the other style. Both Varane and Zouma are good def elders in different ways. Imo the best is often a combination of them. It is also not 100% style of play but also different roles in different teams and depending on whom they pair with. I expect Lindelof to be more aggressive in the air if Maguire doesn’t play, and leave most of the aerial defence to Maguire if he plays, as example. I expect Maguire to have 3-4 duels extra duels per game as he is target for every corner.
 
Last edited:

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
The point is that Ramos, Varane, Silva, Lindelof etc are not passive just because they defend without many duels. This is a misunderstanding that I’ve sen a lot. I’ve even seen people who think it is passive defending to neutralising an attacker by steering him out to less dangerous areas. Active choices are not passive. Marking a player so the pass never happen is even more active than not marking and waiting until he has received the pass and then tackle.

Edit: just like you, I don’t mean aggressive vs non aggressive is superior to the other style. Both Varane and Zouma are good def elders in different ways. Imo the best is often a combination of them. It is also not 100% style of play but also different roles in different teams and depending on whom they pair with. I expect Lindelof to be more aggressive in the air if Maguire doesn’t play, and leave most of the aerial defence to Maguire if he plays, as example. I expect Maguire to have 3-4 duels extra duels per game as he is target for every corner.
I have given you two things; One, description about what passive defender does which they tend to less commit but more defending on space, rely on their positioning skill and reading the game like Lindelof. Two, consistent stats to prove my point was right.

However, you are yet to tell me what passive defender does to defend and keep avoiding that question. Your point remains invalid and questionable if you can't tell me what passive defender does to defend.

Every defenders must do something to defend whether it is passive or active. How can you defend if the defender just stand looking without doing anything and at the same no positioning skills? That makes no-sense.

Ramos can do passive and active type of defender just like Silva. And just like Silva, he is more towards passive type as he gets older but in his prime he proves he was much more active than he is now and Lindelof.
 
Last edited:

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
I have given you two things; One, description about what passive defender does which they tend to less commit but more defending on space, rely on their positioning skill and reading the game like Lindelof. Two, consistent stats to prove my point was right.

However, you are yet to tell me what passive defender does to defend and keep avoiding that question. Your point remains invalid and questionable if you can't tell me what passive defender does to defend.

Every defenders must do something to defend whether it is passive or active. How can you defend if the defender just stand looking without doing anything and at the same no positioning skills? That makes no-sense.

Ramos can do passive and active type of defender just like Silva. And just like Silva, he is more towards passive type as he gets older but in his prime he proves he was much more active than he is now and Lindelof.
To say that a defender is passive is something negative. If he was passive it means he didn’t do anything, didn’t react or moved too late, was not actively getting on the right side of the attacker etc. Aggressive players can be passive at times as well.

The one who marks his man or space so the pass never happen is fully active. The one who doesn’t shut down the passing opportunities, either because he was passive or don’t have the skills, instead has to get physical.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
To say that a defender is passive is something negative. If he was passive it means he didn’t do anything, didn’t react or moved too late, was not actively getting on the right side of the attacker etc. Aggressive players can be passive at times as well.

The one who marks his man or space so the pass never happen is fully active. The one who doesn’t shut down the passing opportunities, either because he was passive or don’t have the skills, instead has to get physical.
What you are describing is called shit or useless, passive should not be considered as negative or useless.

What about I give you a better word. So same concept, same discussion but I will replace passive word to reactive while the active word to proactive. Lindelof is more towards a reactive type centre back than proactive. He is not as proactive as the others I have listed. Agree now?
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
What you are describing is called shit or useless, passive should not be considered as negative or useless.

What about I give you a better word. So same concept, same discussion but I will replace passive word to reactive while the active word to proactive. Lindelof is more towards a reactive type centre back than proactive. He is not as proactive as the others I have listed. Agree now?
passive is never used in a positive way. You don’t hear fans wanting to buy Varane because he is so passive. And if you really have to put words on it I don’t agree with proactive /reactive either :) Who is most proactive, the one who shuts down space to prevent things from happen before they happened, or the one chasing players and going in to tackles?
These are maybe just words, but I believe it is also how we see the player.

I liked the description I referred to before, even though it is not always true. Some focus on getting the player in front of them and others on controlling the space around and behind them.

I would describe Lindelof, Maguire and Bailly all three fit well in to those stereotypes. If you are poor at both those things, then maybe you have your passive player :)
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
passive is never used in a positive way. You don’t hear fans wanting to buy Varane because he is so passive.
The reason why you don't hear that is because being passive is not always negative. Passive/reactive defending can be positive and in a positive way is about to wait for opportunity to look for weakness and exploit the weakness.

And if you really have to put words on it I don’t agree with proactive /reactive either :) Who is most proactive, the one who shuts down space to prevent things from happen before they happened, or the one chasing players and going in to tackles?
These are maybe just words, but I believe it is also how we see the player.

I liked the description I referred to before, even though it is not always true. Some focus on getting the player in front of them and others on controlling the space around and behind them.

I would describe Lindelof, Maguire and Bailly all three fit well in to those stereotypes. If you are poor at both those things, then maybe you have your passive player :)
You clearly don't understand proactive and reactive in football/sport. In football tactic, proactive is looking to establish the ''pattern of action'', and not afraid to play on their strength. On the other hand, reactive looks for weaknesses and exploit the weaknesses. https://www.sounderatheart.com/2012/11/6/3609264/tactical-analysis-metaphor-proactive-reactive

Lindelof's style is reactive because he prefers to wait for an opportunity by playing for space, positioning, and reading the game to look for weaknesses and exploit the weaknesses. That's why his defensive attempted are low because he is reactive, he choose to look for weaknesses and exploit weaknesses rather than being dare to play on opponent's strength. Some defender are proactive, some are reactive, some are both proactive and reactive. Lindelof is more towards of reactive.
 
Last edited:

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
260
I think more than anything we have found a strategy and cohesiveness that is working through the spine of the side and that includes the protection being offered to them. There seems little doubt that when you analyse the characteristics of the pair of them, they do lack in a few areas for the type of football we are trying to play. In short, it doesn't look to be an ideal pairing, however, most teams do not have the ideal players in every single position on the pitch. Part of the manager's job is getting the best out of what is available. It is not necessary to have one of the top 5 players in Europe in every position, even City and Liverpool have had weaker areas but the quality players and team performance compensates.

The question becomes 'can they take us to a title?' I don't see why not based on this season's record. The question may arise when we alter the balance of the midfield slightly, possibly pending further signings. That may change things. The issue is we cannot let either of them become isolated very often and we have to hope Maguire can take most of the responsibility in the air. However, on occasions this won't be possible and we will see the issues exposed.

However, as fans we are often guilty of expecting perfection and every goal conceded is analysed in view of the weaknesses of the players when sometimes the opposition plays well. The fact is we are going to concede goals in football matches, the important thing is that we defend well enough over a season. Generally this has been achieved this year, we need to add more quality in a few areas and turn a few more draws into wins - it is not beyond the realms of possibility with this defence.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
The reason why you don't hear that is because being passive is not always negative. Passive/reactive defending can be positive and in a positive way is about to wait for opportunity to look for weakness and exploit the weakness.



You clearly don't understand proactive and reactive in football/sport. In football tactic, proactive is looking to establish the ''pattern of action'', and not afraid to play on their strength. On the other hand, reactive looks for weaknesses and exploit the weaknesses. https://www.sounderatheart.com/2012/11/6/3609264/tactical-analysis-metaphor-proactive-reactive

Lindelof's style is reactive because he prefers to wait for an opportunity by playing for space, positioning, and reading the game to look for weaknesses and exploit the weaknesses. That's why his defensive attempted are low because he is reactive, he choose to look for weaknesses and exploit weaknesses rather than being dare to play on opponent's strength. Some defender are proactive, some are reactive, some are both proactive and reactive. Lindelof is more towards of reactive.
Sorry, insults don’t work on me.
Waiting for the opportunity is reactive, while shutting down passes, marking space or man is pro active as it is an action taking place to prevent something from happen. That is the definition of pro active. It’s not rocket science.
 

BorisManUtd

Full Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2013
Messages
389
Think Dias-Stones and Van Dijk and whoever his partner at the back is are 2 better pairings, one because of Dias mostly and other because Van Dijk obviously. Chelsea play with 3 at the back and it's kinda difficult to compare them to others but their defensive record has been brilliant ever since Tuchel came in.

We've conceded 35 goals so far but 11 of those goals coming in first 3 games of the season (3 vs Palace, 2 vs Brighton and 6 against Tottenham) and weren't even ready for season back then (especially Maguire and AWB). It's kinda similar to number of goals we scored. It's 64 but 9 came against 10-man Southampton.

So with all the criticism of our centre-backs think they've been very good, especially in 2021.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,473
Sorry, insults don’t work on me.
What insult?

Waiting for the opportunity is reactive, while shutting down passes, marking space or man is pro active as it is an action taking place to prevent something from happen. That is the definition of pro active. It’s not rocket science.
Again. You are only googling general definition. It is different in sport's tactic. I gave you the link for you to read not to ignore because it is very good to read. https://www.sounderatheart.com/2012/11/6/3609264/tactical-analysis-metaphor-proactive-reactive
Here, another good read: https://footballwhispers.com/blog/scout-report-nikola-milenkovic/
I suggest you to read them. If you have issue, feel free to speak what the issues are.

Shutting the area or marking space is an action to wait for weakness/mistake and exploit the weakness/mistake, that is reactive.

Proactive action is the opposite, you beat the opposition players by getting the ball first before the opposition players do (reflects to higher interception & higher ground duel successful). That's what we call not trying to wait/exploit weakness.
You dare to go toe to toe without afraid with their strength/ability because you are confident that your ability can over-weight the player's ability (higher defensive attempted including ground duel and tackle). That's also the same with not trying to wait/exploit weakness.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,171
Again. You are only googling general definition. It is different in sport's tactic. I gave you the link for you to read not to ignore because it is very good to read. https://www.sounderatheart.com/2012/11/6/3609264/tactical-analysis-metaphor-proactive-reactive
Here, another good read: https://footballwhispers.com/blog/scout-report-nikola-milenkovic/
I suggest you to read them. If you have issue, feel free to speak what the issues are.

Shutting the area or marking space is an action to wait for weakness/mistake and exploit the weakness/mistake, that is reactive.

Proactive action is the opposite, you beat the opposition players by getting the ball first before the opposition players do (reflects to higher interception & higher ground duel successful). That's what we call not trying to wait/exploit weakness.
You dare to go toe to toe without afraid with their strength/ability because you are confident that your ability can over-weight the player's ability (higher defensive attempted including ground duel and tackle). That's also the same with not trying to wait/exploit weakness.
Thanks for the links, good reading. Agree with the definitions just the detail that I still put some other things than you in the pro-active part. Anyway, I need to continue discussing that as I generally agree with what you wrote on the first place.

For me this is the most important factor when you pair two CBs. That’s the reason why Lindelof works well with Maguire, and also Bailly as long as we can take the game to the ground. In our back line it is even bette than just the two CBs as the two full backs also complement the CBs imo.