I think that's relevant to every top club in England right now
True statements, aren't they?
I've no idea right now. I'd give City a chance, mostly because they have two new centerhalves so there's scope for improvement there.
At many teams, they are being asked to defend 2v2 against agile and technical players and being able to dominate in their own box physically. Not many central defenders back in the day that would be able to do this well or were asked to do this at this extent. Ferdinand, Stam, Campell, Radebe, King, Johnsen all had the physicality to do this, but it could also be argued that the attacking potency of many of the teams in this era is higher. How many players had the abilities 1v1 (a combination of technical and physical abilities) like Zaha, Rashford, Martial, Sterling, Traore, Saint-Maximin, Neto, Podence, Mane, Salah, Pepe, Auba etc. 20 years ago? Henry, Giggs, Solano, Dyer?
It's the overwhelming deluge of attackers all running in unison exploiting breached space from failed pressing that is the biggest difference, imo.
Somewhat similar to ISO situations when looking at the demand for the central defenders to be able to react quickly to players moving perpendicular to themselves. So, they need to turn and accelerate. Or be extremely good at predicting/positioning like Terry/Vidic were.
I think there are more agile and technical attackers now, and as you say, fewer teams sit as deep and compact as they did before. Either way, more difficult to be a central defender in most "non-busparking" teams in the current EPL as the physical demands (agile enough to handle ISO and multiple attackers making runs while still needing to be dominant in aerial duels) are almost mutually exclusive. And given that one of the biggest treats to a high pressing team is when they can just ding it behind or towards a Mitrovic-esque player that flicks it on to a fast player.
Some defenders like Vestergaard, Mee, Maguire and Tarkowski would suit a deeper line well. Many others, as you say, seems to be a hybrid, in that they are somewhat capable in the air and somewhat capable in ISO, but when they go against the extremes like Traore or Mitrovic in their prefered element, they fall well short.
A lot of it is skewed by one off games though, given we're early in the season. Southampton conceded 5 to Spurs, Liverpool conceded 7 to Villa etc. City for example have only conceded 3 goals in 5 games when you take the Leicester result out of it. Thing that worries me as a United fan is we don't fall into that bracket, Spurs hit us for 6 but we also conceded 3 goals against Palace & BHA. When you factor in our offensive performances, for example take out the Newcastle game and we've scored a single goal from open play (VdB in the loss to Palace) all season, and things look bleak.
Not a single side with more games than goals conceded. Barely anyone who aren't imminently hitting double figures... with 7 games played.
This is one of those statements that sound good but don't make any sense. If it was that easy to play that way then all teams would opt for this than relying on individual quality
One day I'll calculate variance of goals conceded/team
Depends whose behind them.
Fair point.
Yh would be interesting - I did that with the PL previously to prove that the overall competitiveness has fallen away recently. I suspect this season will now revert to type and the crazy scorelines will be more rare but here's hoping I'm wrong.
The back four has pretty much taken shape in front of mendy.
Not sure why you think it's easy to play that way. For starters, it requires a Pep and half a Bn quid to buy the KDBs Sterlings of this world. When I say how they play, I'm talking about their dominance which comes from their attacking quality. The individual quality I'm referring to is their back 4
Don't think so. Zouma's pace, heading, and athleticism are key to complement Silva.
So City's defensive record will be due to KDB and Sterling?
To be fair, the way City retain possession and limit opposition transition opportunities is all designed to reduce the actual high-stakes defending their defenders have to do. City have had very good defensive records of late with players like Zinchenko and Delph in the back line, and that's due to their collective efforts as a team.
Wolves conceded 4 in one game
Not a single side with more games than goals conceded. Barely anyone who aren't imminently hitting double figures... with 7 games played.
The irony - four straight clean sheets since this comment, and five in six in all comps. Don't get me wrong, I'd have totally agreed with you and still think they're suspect but just funny nonetheless.
City's defensive record will be because of they play as a team, absolutely and the way they hold the ball, their attacking quality, the way they press from the top etc all contributing to that. A team's defence isn't 4 players defending in isolation. Calling it nonsense doesn't make your inability to see this any less weird but carry on thinking a team's defence is simply 4 players and their individual ability in isolation.
Their defenders are part of that process. It's not like they twiddle thumbs while the midfield and attack retain possession.
Of course, I'm not arguing that they aren't. Just that City have more of a team-wide positional approach to defending that has allowed them to get away with average (at best) players in the defense for years now.
And my argument is that they aren't average, because average players and defenders get shown up regardless of the team's approach to defending. There are plenty of tasks that can't be covered by positional defending. Otherwise, can we bring this positional defending to United and make Bailly look like a star?
I suppose I just fundamentally disagree. Otamendi, Stones, Zinchenko, Mendy, and Delph have all featured prominently in that defense over the past few seasons, and all are entirely mediocre at best.
