Read on Twitter
*CB is protected well by a good defensive team structure and ticks boxes within his role*
= “He was so good!”
*CB is exposed by a poor defensive team structure and is now burdened by too many boxes with half outside his role*
= “He was so bad!”
That's problematic.
= “He was so good!”
*CB is exposed by a poor defensive team structure and is now burdened by too many boxes with half outside his role*
= “He was so bad!”
That's problematic.
Good CB performances ≠ clean sheets.
Bad CB performance ≠ conceding goals.
Clean sheets and conceding goals are far more a team thing than the individual quality of one's CBs. That doesn't mean CBs have no responsibility of course. They do but team defence matters more.
Bad CB performance ≠ conceding goals.
Clean sheets and conceding goals are far more a team thing than the individual quality of one's CBs. That doesn't mean CBs have no responsibility of course. They do but team defence matters more.
If a team has a bad defensive record due to conceding too many good chances and then they improve in that then this is because they've become better defensively as a team e.g. Man City under Guardiola this season. It isn't because they bought a CB even if he helps.
It's too common that CBs are valued based on how well their teams defend as a whole. Virgil van Dijk was already world class, at the very least excellent, when he was at Southampton and one could argue even at Celtic. It's why Liverpool were fine paying £75m for him.
If your evaluation of CBs focuses on how they do during one-on-ones in situations wherein they've been exposed due to inadequate coverage then your conclusions will always fall short.
Just a random, late-night thread.
Goodnight.
Just a random, late-night thread.
Goodnight.
