24 - Thomas Vermaelen
- Thread starter FlyLo
- Start date
Irish_Cules
New member
I like the style of picture they've done for all the new signings.
I hate it. They're all clearly photoshopped. You'd think one of the biggest clubs in the world could do better.
L
linetty
Guest
You bet they're shopped Sherlock, it says 'fotomuntatge' on the side.
BerkeleyBernie
Senior Member
I don't get the big fuss. Don't need "world class," just decent. If the 2013-2014 CBs could have stopped a few set pieces, and had scored a few headers from set plays, Barça would have won La Liga, and would have progressed further in CL. The new additions likely provide that minimum, if not more.
Barça will be much more of an aerial threat with Suarez and the new CBs, which means buses will be more vulnerable. It's a simple and effective way to win 5-10 more games in itself.
Barça will be much more of an aerial threat with Suarez and the new CBs, which means buses will be more vulnerable. It's a simple and effective way to win 5-10 more games in itself.
serghei
Senior Member
It is all about his health. If we signed him, then everything is all right I suppose. I took a look on his injury record, and a lot of those injuries have to do with the physicality of the Premier League. He has qualities and he can help. For some reason, I'm more confident with this transfer than with Mathieu's transfer. Glad that we have depth in defence too now.
serghei
Senior Member
Let's not kid ourselves. Neither Hummels, nor Benatia were REALLY for sale this summer (with Roma pursuing CL dreams again). When you ask 61m. like Roma reportedly asked for Benatia, that's pretty much a prohibiting price and a "we don't really want to sell" message. With Hummels things were clear from the get-go. Dortmund don't want to sell and the player doesn't want to leave. Case closed.
xavi_the_Boss
New member
We had the second best defense last season in the league didn´t we?
serghei
Senior Member
It doesn't work that way. For example, if a team has to defend 20 attacks in one game, and receives 2 goals, that is a good defensive performance. But if a team has to defend only 4 attacks, and also receives 2 goals, that is not a good defensive performance by any means. In the first case, 90% of the opponent's chances to score were solved by the defence (including the keeper), while in the second scenario only 50% of the opponent's chances were handled right. So, in conclusion, both teams received the same number of goals, but their efficiency rate is very different. That proves conceded goals is not always the best way to measure the quality of a defence.
Last edited:
JamDav1982
Senior Member
Nor does it mean that a team defending 20 attacks has a better defence. As that defence can often have defensive midfielders and full backs protecting them and they are defending their area.
Twenty of those attacks may well be easier for a defence to cope with than it is for 4/5 attacks against a backline that is pushed high up the park have less protection on front of them and have full backs that push on.
It is difficult to tell which is more difficult to defend.
serghei
Senior Member
True, but the point still stands. Conceded goals don't tell the whole story.
JamDav1982
Senior Member
It doesnt but I wouldnt always look to the water tight defences as being the best. What Barca need is a defence that gives a the rest of the team the platform to perform.
The best example I can think of this is Argentina from the world cup. Their defence was shocking in the first few games as they tried to get more men forward to support Messi, the result was that they were shaky at back but Messi scored 4 goals in 3 games.
The dodgy defence and injury to Di Maria caused Sabella to take a much more defensive approach where the full backs were reigned in and Mascherano almost played as a third CB at times. The result was they barely conceded another goal and players like Garay were held up as stars in that system. However Messi was isolated and was not given the platform to affect games in the same ways as he had much less support.
Barca ALWAYS have to go with the first way and have a high defence with defenders that can take initiative and snuff out threats even if pulled into full back areas. It is much more difficult to defend that way but Barca have to do that to support the possession game and get lots of players forward.
Thats why it is not accurate to hold up defences like Chelsea or Atletico compared to Barca as they are being asked to do different jobs.
Antimadridista1
New member
Fixed.
Home of Barca Fans
