What do people see in Lindelof?

What is your opinion on Lindelof?


  • Total voters
    38

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
Tbh it's a problem with a lot of modern CBs, due to the emphasis towards CBs needing to be skilled at playing out from the back, and less teams playing a strategy that involves getting crosses in and having a big man upfront.

Problem is everything else should be secondary, the most important things for a CB is to be able to win the physical battle, command their penalty box and win aerially challenges.

Wes Brown, Jamie Carragher, Martin Keown level players, very good but never top bracket CBs in their era, put them in today's game and they'd make most CBs starting for the top sides look like Titus Bramble.

Van Dijk is/was last season seen as the best CB in the world, I honestly don't think he's any better than the 3 aforementioned CBs, just the standard has decreased massively, aside from defenders being able to pass a bit better.
It’s a natural development of the game. The defenders are important in other aspects of the game than just defending by winning duels. The top teams need to have CB with good ball handling. It’s possible a team with “modern” CBs concede 3-4 extra goals over the season from losing aerials, but defenders losing possession, clearing the ball all the time, not being able to build up from the back etc will cost more for a top team.
 

RUCK4444

Full Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
6,571
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
In one word I'd describe him as weak. That's his biggest flaw.

He's a slightly above average defender who is weak. There's about 10 CB's who are better than him in this league tbh.
 

Trequarista10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
333
It’s a natural development of the game. The defenders are important in other aspects of the game than just defending by winning duels. The top teams need to have CB with good ball handling. It’s possible a team with “modern” CBs concede 3-4 extra goals over the season from losing aerials, but defenders losing possession, clearing the ball all the time, not being able to build up from the back etc will cost more for a top team.
I mean those numbers are purely speculative and will depend on a bazillion factors so I don't want to engage in that discussion to nowhere too much. I will just say defenders primary job is to defend. Having a defend who can't defend very well is like having a fancy mobile phone that can do X, Y and Z, but can't make phone calls.

It's like making a sports car with loads of amazing technical functions and innovations to enhance the driving experience, but the brakes don't work. Or in cricket picking a team full of second rate bowlers who can bat a little, and leaving out Glenn McGrath or Jimmy Anderson, and wondering why you can't bowl out the opposition.

I may edit this post later and add more, increasingly bizarre similies.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
I mean those numbers are purely speculative and will depend on a bazillion factors so I don't want to engage in that discussion to nowhere too much. I will just say defenders primary job is to defend. Having a defend who can't defend very well is like having a fancy mobile phone that can do X, Y and Z, but can't make phone calls.

It's like making a sports car with loads of amazing technical functions and innovations to enhance the driving experience, but the brakes don't work. Or in cricket picking a team full of second rate bowlers who can bat a little, and leaving out Glenn McGrath or Jimmy Anderson, and wondering why you can't bowl out the opposition.

I may edit this post later and add more, increasingly bizarre similies.
The most important with a car might be that it is safe, but just being the safest car in the world won’t win you a formula 1 race.

For a lower table team, defending by winning duels is number one for a CB. For a top team, all other aspects are just as important. Obviously you need to be able to defend as well, but clearing aerials is not the most important anymore. Smalling is a good example.

And it’s not like Lindelof- Maguire have been leaking goals because Lindelof can’t defend. They have 26 matches as CB pair with 24 conceded goals, 0.92 per match. About half of them from setpieces/penalties and only 12 goals in 24 matches from open play.
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
I don't recall saying anything of the sort - although don't tell me we bought the right CB when we splashed out on maguire
Can always be discussed but I think he fit quite well. He added the much needed aerial dominance while still being good on the ball.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,100
Location
Hope, We Lose
It’s a natural development of the game. The defenders are important in other aspects of the game than just defending by winning duels. The top teams need to have CB with good ball handling. It’s possible a team with “modern” CBs concede 3-4 extra goals over the season from losing aerials, but defenders losing possession, clearing the ball all the time, not being able to build up from the back etc will cost more for a top team.
Funny comment. We and most of those teams concede 3 or so of those goals too
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
Funny comment. We and most of those teams concede 3 or so of those goals too
Of course, every team does, even if I can’t remember our CBs lose possession to the cost of a goal except on poor pass from Bailly. Can’t be many at least. But in general, the more the CBs lose possession, the more goal scoring opportunities you concede. Simple as that.

For a team wanting to fight for titles, you need a back line that can handle the ball even under pressure. Clearing is not enough.
 

Trequarista10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
333
The most important with a car might be that it is safe, but just being the safest car in the world won’t win you a formula 1 race.

For a lower table team, defending by winning duels is number one for a CB. For a top team, all other aspects are just as important. Obviously you need to be able to defend as well, but clearing aerials is not the most important anymore. Smalling is a good example.

And it’s not like Lindelof- Maguire have been leaking goals because Lindelof can’t defend. They have 26 matches as CB pair with 24 conceded goals, 0.92 per match. About half of them from setpieces/penalties and only 12 goals in 24 matches from open play.
Mate. Come now. You need to improve your similies. F1 cars don't sacrifice basic functions for speed. Thats my point in a nutshell.

Going back to what you said in an earlier post about evolution. To some extent I agree, but I think tactics are more cyclical than purely advancing forwards. What annoys me is I know in a few years the cycle will change and there will be a new upcoming coach or two who play a style more akin to late 90s football, more direct, defenders who keep it simple or go long. Yet what will happen is it will be touted as something new and different. It won't be 'whacking into the channel' or 'hoofing it up to the big man', it will described as an inventive way of 'playing over the press' or 'vertical possession' or some other such hipster nonsense.

Its also overly disparaging to CBs of past eras. The likes of John Terry, Vidic, Rio, Campbell, King, even Carragher were no dopes on the ball. Im not even sure the likes of Lindelof are much better on the ball than they were, if he even is at all. Yet he is considerably, immeasurably worse at actually defending.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,100
Location
Hope, We Lose
Of course, every team does, even if I can’t remember our CBs lose possession to the cost of a goal except on poor pass from Bailly. Can’t be many at least. But in general, the more the CBs lose possession, the more goal scoring opportunities you concede. Simple as that.

For a team wanting to fight for titles, you need a back line that can handle the ball even under pressure. Clearing is not enough.
Liverpool won the title and the champions league without 2 players like that. Van Dijk yes, his partners no
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
Mate. Come now. You need to improve your similies. F1 cars don't sacrifice basic functions for speed. Thats my point in a nutshell.

Going back to what you said in an earlier post about evolution. To some extent I agree, but I think tactics are more cyclical than purely advancing forwards. What annoys me is I know in a few years the cycle will change and there will be a new upcoming coach or two who play a style more akin to late 90s football, more direct, defenders who keep it simple or go long. Yet what will happen is it will be touted as something new and different. It won't be 'whacking into the channel' or 'hoofing it up to the big man', it will described as an inventive way of 'playing over the press' or 'vertical possession' or some other such hipster nonsense.

Its also overly disparaging to CBs of past eras. The likes of John Terry, Vidic, Rio, Campbell, King, even Carragher were no dopes on the ball. Im not even sure the likes of Lindelof are much better on the ball than they were, if he even is at all. Yet he is considerably, immeasurably worse at actually defending.

What I mean with evolution is that
1. The defence is not separated from the rest of the team. Most strategies of todays top teams involve and require defenders being good on the ball and to participate, to attract press and keep possession, to play through the lines, etc. Being able to clear every aerial is less important. Look at City, the best team in the PL. Their CBs win the least aerials in the whole league, but still concede least. If we rank CBs after won aerials, Stones is 47/49 and Dias 43/49. Pretty much the worst in the league. Those stats alone don’t automatically mean they are very poor in the air, but it sure shows that having CBs winning a lot of aerials is not part of City’s plan.

2. The same as you already mentioned. Few top teams will attack with crosses in to the box. Its mainly the bottom half teams who do that, and if the price is we concede a goal, we should be so superior that we win anyway.

Imo it is just as effective to put pressure on the ball holder to avoid precision crosses. We did that well against Chelsea as an example.



Liverpool won the title and the champions league without 2 players like that. Van Dijk yes, his partners no
This was a general observation. There will always be one or two great teams that don't fit exactly in to this even though I doubt liverpool would hav won PL and CL with two clearing CBs.
 
Last edited:

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,100
Location
Hope, We Lose
What I mean with evolution is that
1. The defence is not separated from the rest of the team. Most strategies in todays top teams involve and requires defenders being good on the ball and tomparticipate, to attract press and keep pissession, to play through the lines, etc. Being able to clear every aerial is less important. Look at City, the best team in the PL. Their CBs win the least aerials in the whole league, but still concede least. If we rank CBs after won aerials, Stones is 47/49 and Dias 43/49. Pretty much the worst in the league. Those stats alone don’t automatically mean they are very poor in the air, but it sure shows that having CBs winning a lot of aerials is not part of City’s plan.

2. The same as you already mentioned. Few top teams will attack with crosses in to the box. Its mainly the bottom half teams who do that, and if the price is we concede a goal, we should be so superior that we win anyway.

Imo it is just as effective to put pressure on the ball holder to avoid precision crosses. We did that well against Chelsea as an example.




This was a general observation. There will always be one or two great teams that don't fit exactly in to this even though I doubt liverpool would hav won PL and CL with two clearing CBs.
I dont think they would have either, but as I've always suggested having 1 player comfortable on the ball and able to play it out is enough. Liverpool had Van Dijk and it was enough to be successful when playing with Matip etc
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
I dont think they would have either, but as I've always suggested having 1 player comfortable on the ball and able to play it out is enough. Liverpool had Van Dijk and it was enough to be successful when playing with Matip etc
I fully agree about Liverpool, they but in more general terms it seems like most top teams chose two CBs who are good on the ball. It shows maybe that to win everything you must not do like everybody else.
 

United in sin

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 14, 2020
Messages
197
Maguire is a good centre-back. He has also been one of the best centre backs in the Premier League this season.

He has been a good signing.

If you cant even acknowledge that you're beyond help.
Beyond help? Why do you feel the need to make a childish dig simply because I dont share your opinion? Maguire is vastly overrated by the British press and his fellow countrymen, he's not seen as much on the continent but that's ok I guess.

He's average as they come and there's always this talk about him needing the right partner to cover his shortcomings. He needs two non footballing converted DMs to shield him and his equally slow and porous partner in Lindelof. Ive watched united since the 80s and I've never seen a more overrated central defensive pairing suit up for us as dead cert starters

Maguire is better than Lindelof but that's not saying much. We can do much better and settling for these guys won't get us anywhere IMO
 

Statue of Limitations

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
442
He is either close to the best, or worst player each time he is on the pitch.
Doesn't seem to have many games in the middle, or maybe it's just when he goofs it is scrutinised by many.

I don't want to see him leave, I'd put it that way. He has every chance of becoming more consistent, seeing more 7/8 out of 10 performances and less 3/4 ones.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
101,268
Location
Dublin, Ireland
He is either close to the best, or worst player each time he is on the pitch.
Doesn't seem to have many games in the middle, or maybe it's just when he goofs it is scrutinised by many.

I don't want to see him leave, I'd put it that way. He has every chance of becoming more consistent, seeing more 7/8 out of 10 performances and less 3/4 ones.
How many years do you want to give him?
 

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær

Lutefisk is it!
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
85,653
Location
Eric Bailly's Red Army
He's the boy next door, whose tattoos suggest your parents wouldn't approve. His shy but welcoming smile belies the air of a young man who would chase down a thief to help an old lady get her handbag back. Plus he's Swedish, and that's kind of exotic, sexually, or so I was led to believe in the 70s.
 

Bastian

Full Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2015
Messages
13,060
He's now viewed worse than he actually is. He's a 6/10 player. Plenty of deficiencies, but surely a decent squad option. His agent must be the business, what with him being linked to Barca and immediately getting a new contract.

I would sell him though if we'd get what we paid.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
8,857
If people were to say that next season was make or break for him as a star CB, I guess I'd be okay with that.

I just really think he could be unreal for us.
We are likely to sign a new centre back though. Not sure how he can be ‘’star CB’’ if he’s 3rd choice. Speaking about he could be unreal, I think that’s why this thread exists. What do you see the unreal thing in Lindelof?
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
54,751
The only thing I like in Lindelof is that he doesn't get injured so often. The same can't be said about Jones and his clones (Tuanzebe and Bailly). We should therefore keep him as backup and get rid of the rest.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
101,268
Location
Dublin, Ireland
If people were to say that next season was make or break for him as a star CB, I guess I'd be okay with that.

I just really think he could be unreal for us.
I’m not quite sure why you’d say he could be unreal seeing as we’ve had him for a few years now making errors. We are heavily linked to buying a cb this summer and I suspect it will be to replace Lindelof
 

mitchmouse

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
10,329
Your eyes are deceiving you. Besides when has he been caught out by pace? It’s not a problem, Bruce was great for us and he had limited pace.
I think Bruce was faster than Maguire - and in those days opponents weren't as fast, so it was less of a problem. I can remember a number of times that Harry was caught out, although not many where the conceded a goal from it
 

A-man

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2017
Messages
4,480
I think Bruce was faster than Maguire - and in those days opponents weren't as fast, so it was less of a problem. I can remember a number of times that Harry was caught out, although not many where the conceded a goal from it
We haven’t conceded many goals because of Maguire being slow. I can’t think of any this season. He is slow “sideways” 1v1 but that has also been improved this season.

Then one might argue that yes we haven’t conceded goals, but his partner need to always cover. Of Maguire was fast, his partner could also push higher up. But I think you always need to cover if you are partner to an aggressive CB who goes in to many duels. Even if Maguire was fast as Mbappe his partner would need to fall down behind him as there is no chance he would be able to turn around and sprint down a forward if he mistimed a duel or other ball was played in to the space behind him. That’s his partners job to cover
 

mitchmouse

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2014
Messages
10,329
We haven’t conceded many goals because of Maguire being slow. I can’t think of any this season. He is slow “sideways” 1v1 but that has also been improved this season.

Then one might argue that yes we haven’t conceded goals, but his partner need to always cover. Of Maguire was fast, his partner could also push higher up. But I think you always need to cover if you are partner to an aggressive CB who goes in to many duels. Even if Maguire was fast as Mbappe his partner would need to fall down behind him as there is no chance he would be able to turn around and sprint down a forward if he mistimed a duel or other ball was played in to the space behind him. That’s his partners job to cover
I agreed that we didn't concede many goals but we might struggle again in the CL against top teams - and I think Linelof does cover him a lot
 

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
15,959
Location
Croatia
I rate him. Very highly. I admit that he needs to be stronger BUT what i like;
He is not slow defender. Not pacey like Bailly but when someone outspeed him?
Good technique
Excellent positioning
Good decision making. He will not dive in stupid tackles like Jones or make stupid fouls like Smalling.

Not a world class defender but he is quality defender.
 

He'sRaldo

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,691
The only thing I like in Lindelof is that he doesn't get injured so often. The same can't be said about Jones and his clones (Tuanzebe and Bailly). We should therefore keep him as backup and get rid of the rest.
He doesn't get injured often because he doesn't play an aggressive physical game, in fact he avoids it.

It's no coincidence that our most injured CB's over the past few years have been our bravest and most aggressive.

Also, Ole did play him through a back injury this season which seemed to coincide with his drop in form. I assume if he recovers fully from that he'll be a lot better.
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
380
At this point I don't think we are going to see massive improvements to much of Lindelof's game. He is probably in his prime, or close to it. He's not going to get stronger, or quicker, or have a personality transplant that makes him the domineering force many want to see in our centre backs. He's a player that wants to position well, intercept, without being exposed to battles or aerial bombardments. Sadly we can't always control that situation which makes him a weakness at least some of the time.

But it would be nice to see him carrying the ball a bit more often. About twice a season he does something really impressive in this regard. Then he doesn't try it for another 12 games. This is somewhat confusing as it's not that he has a poor success rate in doing so. When you looked at Chiellini on the ball tonight, I think that was a bit of what we were sold when we bought Lindelof. Clearly he is nowhere near that class of player but if he had even a fraction of that willingness to be more decisive with his passing and ball carrying it wouldn't half help out the awkward balance we have in building play.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,100
Location
Hope, We Lose
He doesn't get injured often because he doesn't play an aggressive physical game, in fact he avoids it.

It's no coincidence that our most injured CB's over the past few years have been our bravest and most aggressive.

Also, Ole did play him through a back injury this season which seemed to coincide with his drop in form. I assume if he recovers fully from that he'll be a lot better.
I dont think you should look at a couple of CBs at United, where we always seem to have injury issues with CBs and use it to decide on an entire type of player

Players like Terry played all the time. Konsa played 33 league games for Villa and made the most shots blocked which is probably the best stat to suggest bravery in the top 5 leagues, averaging 1.4 per 90 mins as well
 
Last edited:

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
5,466
Location
TRA
I agreed that we didn't concede many goals but we might struggle again in the CL against top teams - and I think Linelof does cover him a lot
Maguires lack of pace might cause us to struggle against the top Champions League teams? Such as the two teams in this seasons Champions League final? Who scored precisely zero league goals against us in four games this season?
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
49,100
Location
Hope, We Lose
I agreed that we didn't concede many goals but we might struggle again in the CL against top teams - and I think Linelof does cover him a lot
Champions league?

We've just struggled against good teams in the latter stages of the europa league the past 2 seasons let alone teams outside the group stages of the CL
 

Abraxas

Full Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2021
Messages
380
He doesn't get injured often because he doesn't play an aggressive physical game, in fact he avoids it.

It's no coincidence that our most injured CB's over the past few years have been our bravest and most aggressive.

Also, Ole did play him through a back injury this season which seemed to coincide with his drop in form. I assume if he recovers fully from that he'll be a lot better.
Surely his playing style has very little to do with his lack of injuries, or at least I don't see how that can be a decisive factor.

Jones isn't always injured because of a spectacular tackle or bold defending, he picks up a new injury every time he approaches fitness, and the reasons seem to be as varied as the injuries he sustains. I don't see how much of it can be characterised as arising from style. That can explain certain incidents but he hardly gets on the pitch to expose himself to enough "brave" defending for this to serve as the primary reason. Is he the most unlucky man in football that is a magnet for injury inducing defending or simply susceptible - which is more likely? Are there one or two other aggressive defenders about that maintain fitness?

The biggest risk factor is simply playing football, as that is likely to result in actions that lend themselves to injury in innocuous fashion. Stretching, landing, muscular fatigue. Then you have hereditary susceptibility and natural fitness something Owen spoke at length about, he certainly didn't pick his up from aggressive pretensions. Then yes playing style could make a difference by being exposed to more risky situations, however, it isn't going to supercede the above, I wouldn't think.

Painting it as Lindelof doesn't get injured just because he's not aggressive is overly simplistic. He lacks aggression but this is a weird route to approaching that criticism.