- Apr 21, 2005
- 9,429
- 12,383
Something I've noticed over the last couple of seasons is that good, well organised defences tend not to get the credit they deserve from pundits and fans alike, especially when they significantly contribute to a match result.
This aspect of the game obviously isn't ignored completely by those discussing games, but post-match analysis usually doesn't dissect how the defence won the 3pts for the team in question.
Take last night's match report from the BBC for instance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41216382
There's not one mention of the Spurs back 5 and goalie being rock-solid for most of the match, against one of the most formidable attacking sides in Europe.
This Guardian article is not much better either:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...russia-dortmund-champions-league-match-report
Another piece of evidence is the pundits fawning over Liverpool and their title-challenging credentials in every pre-season build-up. There might be the odd 'perhaps their defence might not be as good as the rest', but it's usually followed by 'but they've got plenty of goals in them, so they'll be okay'. No they won't. A rock solid defence keeps you in contention when you're having a rough patch during periods of the game. It also helps you to see out games, where you're winning by a single goal.
Personally, I think the problem (and it's not just a Spurs-related problem) lies with the perception that possession and direct attacking play in the final third, equate to the attacking team being dominant; indeed, being the 'better side'. Sometimes this is the case, but not always.
If an attacking player makes a number of runs into the final third, but is always shepherded by the defender and nothing comes of it, then this is good defending. Likewise, if the ball is whipped into the 6 yard box and there are 2 or 3 defenders marking the 2 or 3 attacking players and nothing comes of it, then again this is good defending. And when a defender stretches or slides in to make a challenge, to nick the ball away from an attacker, this is usually seen as 'last-gasp' defending, but with such fine margins between success and failure at the elite level of the game, this should be seen as 'good defending'.
Anyway, I thought I'd post this to see what the rest of you think, because I can see us getting results against big teams this year, by sitting back and soaking up the pressure. And we'll probably have to listen to pundits and fans alike stating that 'Spurs rode their luck'.
We didn't.
We defended well.
This aspect of the game obviously isn't ignored completely by those discussing games, but post-match analysis usually doesn't dissect how the defence won the 3pts for the team in question.
Take last night's match report from the BBC for instance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41216382
There's not one mention of the Spurs back 5 and goalie being rock-solid for most of the match, against one of the most formidable attacking sides in Europe.
This Guardian article is not much better either:
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...russia-dortmund-champions-league-match-report
Another piece of evidence is the pundits fawning over Liverpool and their title-challenging credentials in every pre-season build-up. There might be the odd 'perhaps their defence might not be as good as the rest', but it's usually followed by 'but they've got plenty of goals in them, so they'll be okay'. No they won't. A rock solid defence keeps you in contention when you're having a rough patch during periods of the game. It also helps you to see out games, where you're winning by a single goal.
Personally, I think the problem (and it's not just a Spurs-related problem) lies with the perception that possession and direct attacking play in the final third, equate to the attacking team being dominant; indeed, being the 'better side'. Sometimes this is the case, but not always.
If an attacking player makes a number of runs into the final third, but is always shepherded by the defender and nothing comes of it, then this is good defending. Likewise, if the ball is whipped into the 6 yard box and there are 2 or 3 defenders marking the 2 or 3 attacking players and nothing comes of it, then again this is good defending. And when a defender stretches or slides in to make a challenge, to nick the ball away from an attacker, this is usually seen as 'last-gasp' defending, but with such fine margins between success and failure at the elite level of the game, this should be seen as 'good defending'.
Anyway, I thought I'd post this to see what the rest of you think, because I can see us getting results against big teams this year, by sitting back and soaking up the pressure. And we'll probably have to listen to pundits and fans alike stating that 'Spurs rode their luck'.
We didn't.
We defended well.