[jesperjaap]

I was never a fan of signing him, never been a fan since he has been here, quite the opposite.

I do however, think he has been the most improved player this season, certainly this calendar year. From my opinion being very poor to average at best 90% of the time and decent 10% of the time, he has been decent 90% of the time the last few months with a handful of very good performances.

I still dont think he is the right partner for Magurie, I still dont think all round he is good enough to be a starting centre back in a premiership title side regardless of the partnership but I do think he is finally showing himself to be competent.

That is still a problem for me though, can we trust him over a season as a starter to help us win major trophies
Can we trust Bailly to stay fit and give him competition?
If Bailly is injured do we have faith in Tuanzabe as the back up still?
Do we think Mengi is ready to step up?
DO we....oh sod that, Phil jones, its obviously no!

Even if you think yes to all the above, it is a lot of ifs and maybes, even with the new contract of Bailly which was poor for me though I still rate him personally....we still need a centre back signing anyway

 

[A-man]

To me it looks very bizarre. Some complain about his lack of pace and then also complain that he back peddles. But when he back peddles he is also keeping himself goal side always. That means the opponent is going less speed than him, so it gives time for our defence to get back in place. I would rather any of our players back peddles and gives time for the defence to get back rather than go in for a tackle and get beaten and then either he has to pull the attacker down or let him have a free run on our goal.

He doesn’t always “back peddle”, he also attack higher up, but absolutely he backs down more than most other defenders. This is something he has got credit for by pundits so it’s always been odd that some fans see this as a weakness. He is often last man and manage to steer the attacker to his right and stall the attack. I think some see this as passive and that he stalls the attack to let others take care of the attacker. Well, it’s a team sport and he is strong as a team player imo.

The disadvantage with this method is not a defensive disadvantage but an offensive disadvantage. If you don’t win back the ball early you lose the attacking pressure you just had. However when a CB plays aggressively against an opponent who already has control of the ball, it rarely means that the CB re-take control of the ball. Most of the time the aggressive CB just stalls the attack by a clearance or a tackle and the ball goes to throw in or something. So the problem is more of an academic nature.

 

[criticalanalysis]

He buys himself time till others get back to help. Yes it does work, it’s just weird. Like i say I can’t think of another who does the same

Except it 'working' is not that he has effectively shut down the attack. It 'working' means he has dragged the whole team back into our own half. He allowed the player get to the edge of our penalty box, made a very simple block and didn't even win the 2nd ball. Lindelof 'looks good' because he didn't make a decisive mistake but in reality he did feck all. He passed the responsibility on someone else.

Defenders, especially `CBs should not be trying to do last ditch sliding tackles. Lindelof did what he was expected to do. That is not commit himself and let the attacker turn back and pass it away from goal side off him. They scored because Maguire, Shaw, McTominay fecked it up. How on Earth did Mikhi get pass all those players?

I keep seeing these silly examples of extreme logic to justify a lack of action:

'He can't put pressure on the ball because he may get turned/out paced'
'He shouldn't try to win a ball, instead he must delay the attacker and wait for his team mates to back him up'
'A good defender doesn't need to do last ditch tackles'

There is a HUGE range of actions and decisions that can be made between winning a ball at the point of possession and making a rash tackle and giving them a free run at goal. Lindelof consistently picks the low risk option whether he is the last man or not. Sure he won't make 'mistakes' but by playing so 'safely', we concede easy terriority of our half, which in turn invites so much unneccessary pressure and we lose momentum as a result.

Is he to blame for our lack of proactive and coherent build up play? Of course not, that is mostly on the coach but you can criticise his unwillingness or lack of ability in closing down threats faster and more decisively. I'd expect a defender to smartly delay a player when we're being hit on the counter attacker, the game is stretched or it's a very dangerous 1 vs 1 player but the truth is that Lindelof is far too happy to rely on his team mates most of the time.

On one hand you can say it's a smart passing of the responsibility as he reads the game well zonally and functions as a collective unit but it's also a very tame show of individual ability. It's like earlier in the season VDB was making a lot of safe passes to his team mates in the advanced midfield position. It reaches them but that's not the point.

 

[criticalanalysis]

He doesn’t always “back peddle”, he also attack higher up, but absolutely he backs down more than most other defenders. This is something he has got credit for by pundits so it’s always been odd that some fans see this as a weakness. He is often last man and manage to steer the attacker to his right and stall the attack. I think some see this as passive and that he stalls the attack to let others take care of the attacker. Well, it’s a team sport and he is strong as a team player imo.

The disadvantage with this method is not a defensive disadvantage but an offensive disadvantage. If you don’t win back the ball early you lose the attacking pressure you just had. However when a CB plays aggressively against an opponent who already has control of the ball, it rarely means that the CB re-take control of the ball. Most of the time the aggressive CB just stalls the attack by a clearance or a tackle and the ball goes to throw in or something. So the problem is more of an academic nature.

Just seen this after I posted above. You've pretty much agreed with my sentiment.

As for the bolded bit I wouldn't place that much of a clear separation them between. When you have ball higher up the pitch, close threats faster and keep the momentum on, I'd say it's of an equal advantage for both defence and offence. You like to use the stats of how well we've been defending this season and mention that the dropped points are due to a lack of attacking quality. Coaching aside, which I believe is the 'biggest' problem, I'd say it's both a lack of quality from defence and attack. I'm not using a cliche when I say 'our defence comprises of 11 players' but due to our playing style, it really is.

edit:

Well you’re obviously missing something because only City and Chelsea have conceded fewer goals than us. So it looks as though our back four is actually getting protected much more than you think.

Not to mention that we conceded 10 out of our 39 goals conceded in our first 3 games. None of which featured McT and Fred anchoring midfield.

In all but two of the games they’ve started this season we’ve either kept a clean sheet (13 clean sheets so far) or conceded a single goal. Extrapolate those states across the whole season and we’d have conceded fewer goals than any other team in the league.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/fred-2020-21-performances.457042/page-90#post-27151851

@Pogue Mahone. Just gonna nick your post to add some context for mine, cheers.

 

[A-man]

Just seen this after I posted above. You've pretty much agreed with my sentiment.

As for the bolded bit I wouldn't place that much of a clear separation them between. When you have ball higher up the pitch, close threats faster and keep the momentum on, I'd say it's of an equal advantage for both defence and offence. You like to use the stats of how well we've been defending this season and mention that the dropped points are due to a lack of attacking quality. Coaching aside, which I believe is the 'biggest' problem, I'd say it's both a lack of quality from defence and attack. I'm not using a cliche when I say 'our defence comprises of 11 players' but due to our playing style, it really is.

Just seen this after I posted above. You've pretty much agreed with my sentiment.

As for the bolded bit I wouldn't place that much of a clear separation them between. When you have ball higher up the pitch, close threats faster and keep the momentum on, I'd say it's of an equal advantage for both defence and offence. You like to use the stats of how well we've been defending this season and mention that the dropped points are due to a lack of attacking quality. Coaching aside, which I believe is the 'biggest' problem, I'd say it's both a lack of quality from defence and attack. I'm not using a cliche when I say 'our defence comprises of 11 players' but due to our playing style, it really is.

edit:



https://www.redcafe.net/threads/fred-2020-21-performances.457042/page-90#post-27151851

@Pogue Mahone. Just gonna nick your post to add some context for mine, cheers.

In the Roma match, we faced a pretty poor team that hardly had any chances at all. In those matches it is better to play it safe and don’t give them a chance to score on occasional counters. Lindelof played it safe, but others fecked up, simple as that.

I don’t mean that our attack has not been part of our succesful season, because it has. I said that in the matches where we lost points, were mostly our many draws. And almost all of them were clean sheets.

Edit:
I’m not sure what you want to demonstrate with those stats? Which aren’t correct btw.

 

[criticalanalysis]

In the Roma match, we faced a pretty poor team that hardly had any chances at all. In those matches it is better to play it safe and don’t give them a chance to score on occasional counters. Lindelof played it safe, but others fecked up, simple as that.

I don’t mean that our attack has not been part of our succesful season, because it has. I said that in the matches where we lost points, were mostly our many draws. And almost all of them were clean sheets.

You've contradicted yourself there, if Roma was so poor, why did Lindelof play it so safe? He should have stepped in and decisively stopped that attack. He didn't and it ended up in a goal. Do I blame him entirely for it? Of course not but he has plenty of previous of just being poor in this regard. The problem is that Lindelof would do this whether it's City, Roma or Burnley.

It's disingenuous to say 'others fecked up' because whilst he didn't set up his team mates for failure, he certainly didn't give them a platform to succeed. 'Patiently' dropping 30 yards into your own half, little to no pressure on the ball, not getting touch tight and in the end only making a simple block without winning the 2nd ball is not something to defend or praise.

His lack of action is as cupable as everyone else. He passed the buck to somebody else. That's not 'intelligent' defending or safe.

In the last sentence are you trying to imply 'clean sheet = defence's good work', 'in the games with no goals = defence did good, most of the responsibility is on everyone else'?

My point is that the clean sheets and a lack of goals is on both the defence and attack. We play two defensive midfielders to protect the back four. That is directly and indirectly a reason why there are 'no goals'. It's too simplistic to blame or credit one set of players.

 

[A-man]

You've contradicted yourself there, if Roma was so poor, why did Lindelof play it so safe? He should have stepped in and decisively stopped that attack. He didn't and it ended up in a goal. Do I blame him entirely for it? Of course not but he has plenty of previous of just being poor in this regard. The problem is that Lindelof would do this whether it's City, Roma or Burnley.

It's disingenuous to say 'others fecked up' because whilst he didn't set up his team mates for failure, he certainly didn't give them a platform to succeed. 'Patiently' dropping 30 yards into your own half, little to no pressure on the ball, not getting touch tight and in the end only making a simple block without winning the 2nd ball is not something to defend or praise.

His lack of action is as cupable as everyone else. He passed the buck to somebody else. That's not 'intelligent' defending or safe.

In the last sentence are you trying to imply 'clean sheet = defence's good work', 'in the games with no goals = defence did good, most of the responsibility is on everyone else'?

My point is that the clean sheets and a lack of goals is on both the defence and attack. We play two defensive midfielders to protect the back four. That is directly and indirectly a reason why there are 'no goals'. It's too simplistic to blame or credit one set of players.

If you play a poor team who only will get 1-2 chances in a match, it is better to play super safe those few chances instead of risking anything to keep/regain possession.

He gave them a platform to be successful as he stalled the attack in order for 6 players to run home to defend!

The defensive midfielders means the 4 attacking players can focus on attacking, and the fullbacks can move forward. I definitely think our attack should have scored goals in some of those 0-0 matches.

 

[MikeKing]

If you play a poor team who only will get 1-2 chances in a match, it is better to play super safe those few chances instead of risking anything to keep/regain possession.

He gave them a platform to be successful as he stalled the attack in order for 6 players to run home to defend!

The defensive midfielders means the 4 attacking players can focus on attacking, and the fullbacks can move forward. I definitely think our attack should have scored goals in some of those 0-0 matches.

What a backwards logic. I mean I see your point and I concede that it's not the only way but isn't precisely against the poor teams you'd want your team to create a platform to dominate rather than defend with numbers. If you back off every time you give poor teams more chances to build play or even create just a couple of chances. We've also seen Lindelof create unnecessary pressure by inviting press and then losing the ball by either giving it away or pass to a team mate with no options.

That being said, I think Lindelof has improved a few aspects last few months and is in decent form. I trust him up to a point, and I'm comfortable with him right now. I respect his attitude to improve, but I still don't like him that much as a player. Think we need something more, Lindelof has a limit in the context of this team.

 

[criticalanalysis]

If you play a poor team who only will get 1-2 chances in a match, it is better to play super safe those few chances instead of risking anything to keep/regain possession.

He gave them a platform to be successful as he stalled the attack in order for 6 players to run home to defend!

The defensive midfielders means the 4 attacking players can focus on attacking, and the fullbacks can move forward. I definitely think our attack should have scored goals in some of those 0-0 matches.

These three sentences are exactly why we will never agree on the same thing then.

1) You believe we need to play super 'safe' against poor teams. I will caveat the notion of 'safe' by not actually winning the ball or stopping the attacker in any shape or form.

2) You believe making your team mates run back 30 yards to collectively defend against a poor team is a good thing.

3) You expect our attackers to drop 30 yards to collectively defend against said poor teams and then when they can't run 60 yards ahead and score goals, it's on the attackers and not on the defenders.

Incredible.

 

[A-man]

What a backwards logic. I mean I see your point and I concede that it's not the only way but isn't precisely against the poor teams you'd want your team to create a platform to dominate rather than defend with numbers. If you back off every time you give poor teams more chances to build play or even create just a couple of chances. We've also seen Lindelof create unnecessary pressure by inviting press and then losing the ball by either giving it away or pass to a team mate with no options.

That being said, I think Lindelof has improved a few aspects last few months and is in decent form. I trust him up to a point, and I'm comfortable with him right now. I respect his attitude to improve, but I still don't like him that much as a player. Think we need something more, Lindelof has a limit in the context of this team.

I agree it is a little backward logic, but I still believe it is the way to go. If you struggle to score against a poor team, yes you need to keep pressure. We didn’t struggle, we had actually already scored a goal and we later scored another 5. Instead it is important to not give away anything. They were weak.

These three sentences are exactly why we will never agree on the same thing then.

1) You believe we need to play super 'safe' against poor teams. I will caveat the notion of 'safe' by not actually winning the ball or stopping the attacker in any shape or form.

2) You believe making your team mates run back 30 yards to collectively defend against a poor team is a good thing.

3) You expect our attackers to drop 30 yards to collectively defend against said poor teams and then when they can't run 60 yards ahead and score goals, it's on the attackers and not on the defenders.

Incredible.

First of all you seem to be the only one who blame him for the goal.

And yes, I don’t think it is a problem that the whole team have to run back and defend those 1-2 chances we conceded in the whole game. If it was more often we need to play less safe, but in a game like this, no. Play safe and take no risks at those few chances. In the end I was also right and we could easily score 6 goals despite Lindelof playing it safe 1-2 times in the game.

 

[criticalanalysis]

I agree it is a little backward logic, but I still believe it is the way to go. If you struggle to score against a poor team, yes you need to keep pressure. We didn’t struggle, we had actually already scored a goal and we later scored another 5. Instead it is important to not give away anything. They were weak.


First of all you seem to be the only one who blame him for the goal.

And yes, I don’t think it is a problem that the whole team have to run back and defend those 1-2 chances we conceded in the whole game. If it was more often we need to play less safe, but in a game like this, no. Play safe and take no risks at those few chances. In the end I was also right and we could easily score 6 goals despite Lindelof playing it safe 1-2 times in the game.

But we did struggle in the first half and part of that was because we did give something away with Lindelof's part in the second goal as cupable as everyone else.

How about instead of needing to score 5 goals, Lindelof stepped up and just put pressure on the player who ran from his own half, all the way unchallenged to the edge of our penalty box. Being 2-1 down and the brilliance of our attackers is not something you can give Lindelof credit for ffs

If you claim that, then you should blame Lindelof and the defence for every time we have not scored a goal, which is exactly what you have done on our attackers.

Such a one-sided and bias logic, which completely goes in the favour for Lindelof. Takes credit for not doing anything decisive, forces his team mates to do his defending for him and then when we can't score goals, it's on the attackers.

 

[A-man]

But we did struggle in the first half and part of that was because we did give something away with Lindelof's part in the second goal as cupable as everyone else.

How about instead of needing to score 5 goals, Lindelof stepped up and just put pressure on the player who ran from his own half, all the way unchallenged to the edge of our penalty box. Being 2-1 down and the brilliance of our attackers is not something you can give Lindelof credit for ffs

If you claim that, then you should blame Lindelof and the defence for every time we have not scored a goal, which is exactly what you have done on our attackers.

Such a one-sided and bias logic, which completely goes in the favour for Lindelof. Takes credit for not doing anything decisive, forces his team mates to do his defending for him and then when we can't score goals, it's on the attackers.

We were superior. They got some energy after the gift from Pogba but anyone could see that they were a level or two below us. We know that our attack will cost them eventually. I even bet money before the game that we would score 7 goals because I knew how poor their defence is. Any team will get a few chances in a game. Play it safe those few chances and then dominate them the other 88 minutes.

Again, you are the only one who blame Lindelof for the goal. There is a reason for that. You simply took the only bone you could find but it didn’t really work out for you.

Anyway. We’ve had this discussion before so I’m not continuing. Over and out.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Players like Cavani, Bruno, and Bailly tend to be preferred stylistically over the likes of Martial, Lingard, or Lindelof mainly because they have a much more aggressive mentality to their play.

However, it's only fair to say Lindelof has improved in this area a lot more than I thought he would, both defensively and in attack, and it's at a point now where it's only an occasional blip as opposed to the glaring weakness it was previously. With that said his contribution to defensive set pieces, as one of the senior CB's, is still not as solid as I'd like.

 

[Andersons Dietician]

To me it looks very bizarre. Some complain about his lack of pace and then also complain that he back peddles. But when he back peddles he is also keeping himself goal side always. That means the opponent is going less speed than him, so it gives time for our defence to get back in place. I would rather any of our players back peddles and gives time for the defence to get back rather than go in for a tackle and get beaten and then either he has to pull the attacker down or let him have a free run on our goal.

See to me this is just how defending has evolved. Take the 2nd goal, he does everything right. He has slowed the attacker down so everyone can get set in place. Which in theory should then make us hard to break down but a few things happen happen distracting Shaw and Maguire and they go to deep. Lindelof did what every defender is supposed to do.

If earlier in the move he goes out to the player and tries to make a tackle then that’s a dream scenario for any attacker especially with that much space inbehind. Defending is weighing options and picking the one with the most probable outcome of preventing a goal. That is delaying till your team is back in position. Especially in a scenario like that when you’re exposed and the attacker has all the advantages. To add Lindelof does stop the first ball in and nobody makes an effort to win the 2nd ball.

 

[golden_blunder]

I agree it is a little backward logic, but I still believe it is the way to go. If you struggle to score against a poor team, yes you need to keep pressure. We didn’t struggle, we had actually already scored a goal and we later scored another 5. Instead it is important to not give away anything. They were weak.


First of all you seem to be the only one who blame him for the goal.

And yes, I don’t think it is a problem that the whole team have to run back and defend those 1-2 chances we conceded in the whole game. If it was more often we need to play less safe, but in a game like this, no. Play safe and take no risks at those few chances. In the end I was also right and we could easily score 6 goals despite Lindelof playing it safe 1-2 times in the game.

Whilst I don’t blame him directly l think his back pedalling so far was unnecessary and led to the chance

 

[ivaldo]

See to me this is just how defending has evolved. Take the 2nd goal, he does everything right. He has slowed the attacker down so everyone can get set in place. Which in theory should then make us hard to break down but a few things happen happen distracting Shaw and Maguire and they go to deep. Lindelof did what every defender is supposed to do.

Im amazed this conversation is still going on. You won't find a CB or a coach worth their salt that would say this is poor defending. It's just one poster and his vendetta.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Im amazed this conversation is still going on. You won't find a CB or a coach worth their salt that would say this is poor defending. It's just one poster and his vendetta.

The fact that they have written paragraph after paragraph about it should say as such, especially for an incident that when watching it live I barely even thought about Lindelof (the statues around him are the problem).

 

[Zlaatan]

He's incredibly passive at times and should go for the tackle/be more physical in some situations which is one of the reasons I'd like a new CB to take his place, but to see 93 paragraphs about how badly he defended this situation is just laughable as he did it by the book.

Shaw however made two school boy errors for that goal, first he plays the passer onside by being a yard off the defensive line and then he still manages to be on the wrong side of Dzeko when the ball comes in, both much worse than anything you could possibly throw at Victor, but since Luke was one of our best players of the game (and season) our resident couch maestros of defending doesn't seem to care about micro-analyzing that, let alone even mentioning it.

It's funny how some people have to have a go at their least favorite players quite literally after every single game, it's like they feel the need to make the caf as reverse-rawk as possible by constantly shitting on our players.

 

[Martial'sEmergingSmile]

Came out of tonight's match with more credit than anyone outside De Gea, Cavani and Bruno.

 

[Lassitude42]

Came out of tonight's match with more credit than anyone outside De Gea, Cavani and Bruno.

Yes, I think I appreciate him much more now

If only he had Bailly's pace and strength and Bailly had his brain. I age watching Bailly defend, it's really not good for me.

 

[el3mel]

How can anyone doubt that he's clearly our best defender alongside Maguire and it's not even close when it comes to comparing him with Bailly ? When will everyone just give him the credit he deserves ?

 

[Foxbatt]

He was brilliant today. Shows how good a defender he is. Maguire looks a lot more comfortable with Lindelof alongside him.

 

[A-man]

He was brilliant today. Shows how good a defender he is. Maguire looks a lot more comfortable with Lindelof alongside him.

Now that’s passive defending at its best!

 

[AltiUn]

How can anyone doubt that he's clearly our best defender alongside Maguire and it's not even close when it comes to comparing him with Bailly ? When will everyone just give him the credit he deserves ?

At the very least, Maguire, Lindelof and Henderson seem to have an understanding between them which makes us infinitely better when they play together.

I'm aware this hot take may come across poorly considering the performance de Gea just had.

 

[ivaldo]

You just wait. He'll be half a inch too far to the left and the usual culprits will emerge to criticize him.

 

[Foxbatt]

Now that’s passive defending at its best!

Good one. .

 

[VeevaVee]

Amateur stuff today

 

[Ekeke]

Too weak physically leading to 2 defensive mistakes, 1 being the first goal. Also questionable composure on that one

Think there was another nice long pass for an attacking player

 

[Vidyoyo]

Class today as usual

 

[mu4c_20le]

Another one for the blooper reel

 

[acnumber9]

He’s soft as shit. A better centre back might allow us to only play one defensive midfielder.

 

[ha_rooney]

Needs to be replaced if we’re getting to the next level. Put him under pressure & he folds too often.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

He's soft as shit.

If football was non contact then he'd be great but it isn't and he's a liability.

So, so weak.

 

[PoTMS]

He's weak as piss. Needs upgrading. Decent third choice centre back.

 

[Godfather]

Always been soft and always will be

 

[#07]

He's fine but fine isn't good enough if we have ambitions to win the title any time soon. His performance at Villa showed again why we need to strengthen at centre half in the summer.

 

[Real Name]

Sometimes he plays like he's made of paper.

 

[spiriticon]

My gran is harder than him

 

[The United]

He is part of a problem our double pivot has to defend deep and more than support the attack.

He does not dominate in one on one situations and we have to put numbers back to defend.

 

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

Yeah, he has done well overall this season with no competition, but we need a better CB this summer.

All signs point towards us getting one.