Is being a defender more difficult nowadays?

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
For a striker who averaged less than a goal every 3 games, I really doubt he's embarrassing anybody. Also modern defenders are faster and stronger.
We are also seeing more slightly built waify centre halves who are picked for their ball skills and not for their aerial or combative ability. Those guys would get murdered by the rare sight of a fit Duncan Ferguson.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
Based on? You don't think with technology, sports science, better knowledge of dieting, training system, higher demands, etc, it wouldn't make a difference? I think defenders or players in the past are more aggressive but its hard to make an argument that they are more athletic.
Football still remains largely a skill based sport. We don't carefully select players due to their physical attributes. Sure, these guys are more athletic than the ordinary man on the street but by elite athletic standards they aren't.

Since this conversation is about defenders, let's look at the lead strikers of say the top 5 teams in the league. Cavani, Jesus, Antonio, Vardy, Werner aren't any more athletic than Henry, Owen, Cole, Hasselbaink, Viduka.

Put it like this, if a young Michael Owen hit the league he'd be seen just as much of a freak athlete as we saw him back in them days. He'd be the fastest striker in the league just as he was.
 

GatoLoco

Full Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
3,214
Supports
Real Madrid
Two exceptions to the rule perhaps? For instance, was Fernando Hierro as dedicated in the gym as Sergio Ramos? Or not to focus on just an individual, who had more physicality, Valdano's Real Madrid in 1995, or Mourinho's Madrid in 2012? Manchester United in the middle 90s or Manchester United in 2008 and 2009?
 

thepolice123

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
12,179
Football still remains largely a skill based sport. We don't carefully select players due to their physical attributes. Sure, these guys are more athletic than the ordinary man on the street but by elite athletic standards they aren't.

Since this conversation is about defenders, let's look at the lead strikers of say the top 5 teams in the league. Cavani, Jesus, Antonio, Vardy, Werner aren't any more athletic than Henry, Owen, Cole, Hasselbaink, Viduka.

Put it like this, if a young Michael Owen hit the league he'd be seen just as much of a freak athlete as we saw him back in them days. He'd be the fastest striker in the league just as he was.
Exactly what elite athletic standards? And I think athletic performance in football goes beyond things like just top speed and muscle strength?

Funny that you picked out Owen because in terms of athleticism, he was just fast. Someone like Vardy is probably just as fast (or maybe even faster), stronger, plays with a higher intensity, covers more ground and is extremely durable. All these count for something surely?
 

tenpoless

Full Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
16,176
Location
Fabinho's forehead
Although I wonder if strictly defending is a bit harder because say playing against a team like city you are just barraged by so many more players running at you, you go to cut off one passing lane and you suddenly have opened the door for two other players to be open. Or against Liverpool you make a tackle but they’ve compressed the space so much that they’re instantly back on the ball and you’re now out of position.
More players running at you can still be defended by good defending/tackling and good communication with your partners, just as it used to be. The biggest problem is VAR and ref when it comes into defending in my opinion, you tackle somebody to defend and most likely give them a free kick. You outmuscle a pacy winger/striker and they roll around on the ground begging for a free kick. So much athleticisms these days due to the development of sports science yet the players can't use their muscles freely and have to act like a little weak bitch for advantage. That makes defending more tricky but not due to the change in tactics.
 

markhughes

Full Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2016
Messages
867
Location
Sheffield, England
Without the ball it’s easier now I would say as tactically the whole team defends better than in previous years gone by, defenders seem less exposed overall. Also heading seems to have diminished a little with more of the game being played out from the back.

On the flip side defenders are required to do much more in possession. Someone like Smalling would have been a beast in the 90s.
 

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
20,297
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
Exactly what elite athletic standards? And I think athletic performance in football goes beyond things like just top speed and muscle strength?

Funny that you picked out Owen because in terms of athleticism, he was just fast. Someone like Vardy is probably just as fast (or maybe even faster), stronger, plays with a higher intensity, covers more ground and is extremely durable. All these count for something surely?
They're quite similar, but I think Owen was quicker - his acceleration in particular was phenomenal - and so much more so with the ball at his feet. That's the intensity that defenders could not handle. And it's that intensity that wins games and has more of an impact than Vardy's pressing ability. I'd agree that today Owen's average CB opponent would have another notch of pace, but often that would be offset by the higher lines that he'd love to expose. Going beyond the scope of the thread, obviously Vardy's durability and longevity are reasons why you might sacrifice Owen's higher peak to have a Vardy who can play 40 games a season at a consistent level for a decade.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
6,663
We can go further back, H.-P. Briegel 70s/80s fullback and stopper.
I guess the average level of athleticism must have certainly risen over time, biggest difference is probably in endurance? At the same time I think there's a bit of hyperbole around the supposed lack of athleticism of older generations.

80s/90s footballers already seem very fit, see this all time great douchebag for example (not a defender, but still). The 90s produced defenders like Rio, Stam, Campbell, Thuram, and Nesta.
I think the biggest difference is agility. I would say the average defender back then was slower and built more for power.
 

BrilliantOrange

Full Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,338
Supports
Ajax Amsterdam
Difficult question..

On the one hand I would argue that it has become easier, because these days coaches and teams are all very aware of their defensive organization, distances between the players to always have coverage and teammates nearby.. Defending as a team has developed a lot over the years, which makes it perhaps easier for individual defenders to be exposed..

On the other hand you can argue that attacking playing style has become a lot more fluent.. More movement into spaces, more players changing positions, more overlap between defenders/midfielders/defenders.. This makes I think the individual assignment for defenders a lot more complex than in the old days, where as a #3 you only needed to defend your #9 who stayed in the box for 90 minutes...
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
63,107
Location
eerF Palestine.
It's a non contact sport these days. The rules favourite attackers... It must be more difficult for defenders.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,437
I think the biggest difference is agility. I would say the average defender back then was slower and built more for power.
Fair, I think the understanding of what the ideal football-related athleticism is has shifted a lot over the decades. I was mainly thinking of the massively increased distance covered & sprints per game, and the number of games per season.
 

RooneyLegend

New Member
Joined
May 3, 2013
Messages
12,963
Exactly what elite athletic standards? And I think athletic performance in football goes beyond things like just top speed and muscle strength?

Funny that you picked out Owen because in terms of athleticism, he was just fast. Someone like Vardy is probably just as fast (or maybe even faster), stronger, plays with a higher intensity, covers more ground and is extremely durable. All these count for something surely?
Olympic level athleticism, that's not what footballers are. In alot of ways they are mere mortals. Even the changes are done with the same players. Don't you remember a time when a coach got fired and the very next week the team covered 14 km more? They didn't exactly get fitter overnight.

Alot of this is determined by coaches tactics. Some coaches press which is more strenuous some done. That affects the numbers. Becks' distance covered records stand today. His stamina records in terms of bleep tests and such lasted over a decade until Kagawa got here. Was he a product of sports science et all or was he just a very fit guy with natural stamina?
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
Do we have more or less goals now? I feel it is probably less so defenders cope with things very well. I just think they get exposed in the media for errors much more than in the past.
Compared to? Less than in the 50’s, more than in the 80’s.

The structure has changed massively — very few historical teams used pressing consistently, and nowadays it’s pretty much a requirement for any top side (and many regular ones). Which makes defenders job easier as the opposition has less chances, but at the same time when they do get them it usually means that you’re horribly exposed with space behind you. You also need to be much better on the ball to resist the opposition’s pressing.

Rules-wise it getting tougher and tougher for defenders. You’re not allowed basically any contact without getting the ball first — and every mistake (and many 50/50 decisions) in the box will get reviewed and you’ll get penalized.

So overall it got slightly more difficult, although the better way to put it is that the problems that current defenders have to deal with are different to those that they faced in the 90’s (let alone 50’s).
 

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
1,245
I think the requirement for a top defender has changed within the last decade or so. Now defenders have to show that they are capable of contributing substantially to the teams’ offense rather than just being excellent defenders. In saying they have to do more offensively, obviously I don’t mean only heading corner kick balls into the net.
 

harms

Shining Star of Paektu Mountain
Staff
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
27,952
Location
Moscow
Two exceptions to the rule perhaps? For instance, was Fernando Hierro as dedicated in the gym as Sergio Ramos? Or not to focus on just an individual, who had more physicality, Valdano's Real Madrid in 1995, or Mourinho's Madrid in 2012? Manchester United in the middle 90s or Manchester United in 2008 and 2009?
AC Milan of late 80’s or AC Milan of 2005/2007/2020? Barcelona of 1999 or Barcelona of 2011?
 

thepolice123

Full Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
12,179
They're quite similar, but I think Owen was quicker - his acceleration in particular was phenomenal - and so much more so with the ball at his feet. That's the intensity that defenders could not handle. And it's that intensity that wins games and has more of an impact than Vardy's pressing ability. I'd agree that today Owen's average CB opponent would have another notch of pace, but often that would be offset by the higher lines that he'd love to expose. Going beyond the scope of the thread, obviously Vardy's durability and longevity are reasons why you might sacrifice Owen's higher peak to have a Vardy who can play 40 games a season at a consistent level for a decade.
Owen was definitely a much more talented player but my point is how a lesser talented striker like Vardy can effectively sustain his top level and bridge the gap with advancements in football being one of the factors.


Olympic level athleticism, that's not what footballers are. In alot of ways they are mere mortals. Even the changes are done with the same players. Don't you remember a time when a coach got fired and the very next week the team covered 14 km more? They didn't exactly get fitter overnight.

Alot of this is determined by coaches tactics. Some coaches press which is more strenuous some done. That affects the numbers. Becks' distance covered records stand today. His stamina records in terms of bleep tests and such lasted over a decade until Kagawa got here. Was he a product of sports science et all or was he just a very fit guy with natural stamina?
I think it is pretty irrelevant compare them with Olympic level athletics? Its just like someone saying "Modern defenders are more athletic" and you reply by saying "Yeah but they can't run 100m in under 10 seconds." Just because they aren't at the top doesn't mean there can't be improvements.

The demands of football today are much higher than the past. I don't think its incredulous to suggest that players are more athletic as a result. Its just progress. Studies have shown that footballers today sprint more, cover more distance and require lesser recovery time. They are also much more durable and have prolonged careers at the top. Beckham came at a time when Fergie started adopting sports science in the club. He was actually ahead of his time in this aspect.

Sir Alex Ferguson Irish Times Saturday March 9th 2013 said:
Sports science, without question, is the biggest & most important change in my lifetime. It has moved the game onto another level that maybe we never dreamt of all those years ago. Sports Science has brought a whole new dimension to the game.