Are we too harsh on defenders and goalkeepers?

Mad Winger

New Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
4,138
Location
#ShinjiIsFree
Recently I've been thinking about how many of the goals we concede that are direct results of "bad" defending and/or goalkeeping. This doesn't just apply to us, but to all other teams as well. But isn't this how it's supposed to be? Isn't football all about exploiting the opponents mistakes or catching them off-guard? After all, very few goals come from pure and unstoppable brilliance. There is almost always something that could have been done better, if we think about it in hindsight.

Over the course of a game, many goal-scoring opportunities are created, but the vast majority of them will not end up in the net. If anything, conceding is a rarity. So why is it that defenders and goalkeepers often get the blame when a game is lost? The defenders and goalkeepers have one main objective, and that is to not let the opponent score goals. But it's obvious that they're going to fail every once in a while. It's inevitable.

Don't get me wrong: every player on the field is in danger of getting scolded by the fans. My point is, we rarely blame the strikers and wingers(for instance) for losing a game. Sure, we'll bench them and even try to sell them(in our dream worlds), but we never really blame them for loss of points. You might argue that it's unfair to blame a striker for a loss, since it's much harder to create than it is to destroy. But at the end of the day, scoring goals is just as vital as defending.

If a striker gets 5 chances and scores on 1 of them, then he's a hero. If a defender lets an opponent go past him only 1 time out of 5, and that one time leads to a goal, then he's suddenly the bad guy. Doesn't this seem a bit unfair? Or am I just being crazy?

I for one think it's a bit frustrating to see that Evra and De Gea still are being criticized. Personally, I think both of them have been amongst our 5 best players this season, only behind RVP, Rafael and Carrick.
 
I play Goalkeeper and the way footballs are being made since World Cup '98 has made goalkeeping progressively harder. Those who blame De Gea for his parries/punches that led to goals don't know what they're talking about. Slow-mo replays make it look much easier than they really are, especially at the top level.
 
You don't know me at all then Mad Winger because I will always blame players that miss clear cut chances or perform poorly if they're the reason we didn't win. Defenders and goal keepers making mistakes is just more likely to cost a team the game.
 
Swaters16 said:
Defenders and goal keepers making mistakes is just more likely to cost a team the game.
Click to expand...

Are they though?

Let's say that Team A plays against Team B. It's a really close and rough game, but Team A is slighly edging it in terms of creating chances and defending. Team A has created 6 clear goal-scoring opportunites, while Team B has only gotten 3 big chances during the whole game. Nevertheless, Team B manages to score 2 goals, while Team A only scores one.

If we're only looking at these stats: who lost the game for Team A? The correct answer is of course that you always lose as a team. But if we're gonna focus on a certain area of the field, then it's obvious that the attack is to blame. But you can bet your ass that if just one of Team B's goals looked like a defensive blunder, then the defender who was responsible is going to get scolded for handing Team B three points.
 
Mad Winger said:
Are they though?

Let's say that Team A plays against Team B. It's a really close and rough game, but Team A is slighly edging it in terms of creating chances and defending. Team A has created 6 clear goal-scoring opportunites, while Team B has only gotten 3 big chances during the whole game. Nevertheless, Team B manages to score 2 goals, while Team A only scores one.

If we're only looking at these stats: who lost the game for Team A? The correct answer is of course that you always lose as a team. But if we're gonna focus on a certain area of the field, then it's obvious that the attack is to blame. But you can bet your ass that if just one of Team B's goals looked like a defensive blunder, then the defender who was responsible is going to get scolded for handing Team B three points.
Click to expand...

If the team that lost had their striker miss a series of 1-on-1 situations that he should have scored then yes the striker lost the match. If the goal keeper of the winning team played a stunning match though that's also different.
 
Swaters16 said:
If the team that lost had their striker miss a series of 1-on-1 situations that he should have scored then yes the striker lost the match.
Click to expand...

What if the striker(s) mainly had 50/50 chances?

A team will almost never get a series of 1-on-1 situations(for obvious reasons).
 
I'm not sure. For example, everybody acknowledges Ashley Cole's excellent performance in the Champions League Final, yet not everybody recognises he was at fault for the goal. Similarly, Arjen Robben is held most accountable for Bayern and Holland's final losses in 2010, but do we recall the defensive lapses that let Inter/Spain in to score?

There is a point though when comparing this generation of defenders and goalkeepers to 15-25 years ago. The standard of top level defenders has clearly dropped (there's nobody really in Nesta, Maldini, Campbell, Thuram's class now) and there's probably a few reasons for that. Firstly, the natural fluctuations in quality between generations. Secondly, the backpass rule and improvement in pitches bringing forward a shorter, building-from-the-back passing game that demands a more technical skillset from the back five (with corresponding reductions in pure defensive skills). Thirdly, increased exposure through global TV coverage and SSN/MotD/GoS analysis means we have greater opportunity to dissect defensive mistakes than in previous eras. That works in favour for attacking players but less so for the back five.
 
Swaters16 said:
If the team that lost had their striker miss a series of 1-on-1 situations that he should have scored then yes the striker lost the match. If the goal keeper of the winning team played a stunning match though that's also different.
Click to expand...

Van Persie cost us at least a draw against Norwich, for example. Everyone gets to have an off-day though, that's why we have more than one world class attacking player.
 
Football hindsight in general in the era of multicamera angle slow motion after match analysis can be rather comical.

Almost every goal could have been stopped - if he hadn't given the ball away, if he'd got closer, if he'd stood his ground, if he'd tracked back, if he'd spotted the runner, if he'd stayed on the line, if he'd come off the line quicker - easy. Usually the failure is described as poor defending though, rather than some moral or personality defect. Unless it's a flair player who lost the ball or didn't track back, in which case he's reckless or lazy.

The exception to this lack of moral condemnation are goalkeepers who often get accused of cowardice if they don't do what the commentator wants.

Everyone knows that football's a low scoring affair, so no one's surprised when a forward misses. However with 20:20 hindsight enabled an attacker can always see when to pass (rather than shoot) and of course not only would the pass have made it through the defenders to reach a teammate, but he'd have controlled it and scored. The attacker of course is then arrogant and selfish.

However it's some of the offside calls that really make me chuckle. "That's a really poor call," they say after the 6th replay, with the camera looking accusingly at the linesman . "Look he was played onside by the fullback's big toe," and "the ball was played several milliseconds before he went past the defender." Well, duh, refs in being human shocker.
 
jojojo said:
Football hindsight in general in the era of multicamera angle slow motion after match analysis is rather comical.

Almost every goal could have been stopped - if he hadn't given the ball away, if he'd got closer, if he'd stood his ground, if he'd tracked back, if he'd spotted the runner, if he'd stayed on the line, if he'd come off the line quicker - easy. Usually the failure is described as poor defending though, rather than some moral or personality defect. Unless it's a flair player who lost the ball or didn't track back, in which case he's reckless or lazy.

The exception to this are goalkeepers who often get accused of cowardice if they don't do what the commentator wants.

With hindsight enabled an attacker can always see when to pass (rather than shoot) and of course not only would the pass have made it through the defenders to reach a teammate, but he'd have controlled it and scored. The attacker of course is then arrogant and selfish.

However it's some of the offside calls that really make me chuckle. "That's a really poor call," they say after the 6th replay, with the camera looking accusingly at the linesman . "Look he was played onside by the fullback's big toe," and "the ball was played several milliseconds before he went past the defender." Well, duh, refs in being human shocker.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I can't stand that anymore, it's such an easy go-to cliché to throw around instead of actually analyzing the situation...

Or "he's totally unmarked" when he clearly is being tracked but the striker still scores regardless, and conversely "the defender did just enough there" when the exact same thing happens but the striker misses...
 
Maybe I can look on it in another way being a fan of a team that is told to have "bad defenders" but currently has the best defensive record in Europe.

Today we expect goalkeepers to take part in the match and be somewhat the eleventh field player - and we expect that a good defender does not only defend very well but is very well at opening the match and needs to be a little playmaker, too.

The mistake is usually made before a single striker is in a one-against-one with a defender - where the later has usually a 50 per cent chance (or even less when the forward comes with speed) to win it...

Defense just starts with the moment the ball gets lost and a good team has 11 defenders and not just 2...
 
Mad Winger said:
Recently I've been thinking about how many of the goals we concede that are direct results of "bad" defending and/or goalkeeping. This doesn't just apply to us, but to all other teams as well. But isn't this how it's supposed to be? Isn't football all about exploiting the opponents mistakes or catching them off-guard? After all, very few goals come from pure and unstoppable brilliance. There is almost always something that could have been done better, if we think about it in hindsight.

Over the course of a game, many goal-scoring opportunities are created, but the vast majority of them will not end up in the net. If anything, conceding is a rarity. So why is it that defenders and goalkeepers often get the blame when a game is lost? The defenders and goalkeepers have one main objective, and that is to not let the opponent score goals. But it's obvious that they're going to fail every once in a while. It's inevitable.

Don't get me wrong: every player on the field is in danger of getting scolded by the fans. My point is, we rarely blame the strikers and wingers(for instance) for losing a game. Sure, we'll bench them and even try to sell them(in our dream worlds), but we never really blame them for loss of points. You might argue that it's unfair to blame a striker for a loss, since it's much harder to create than it is to destroy. But at the end of the day, scoring goals is just as vital as defending.

If a striker gets 5 chances and scores on 1 of them, then he's a hero. If a defender lets an opponent go past him only 1 time out of 5, and that one time leads to a goal, then he's suddenly the bad guy. Doesn't this seem a bit unfair? Or am I just being crazy?

I for one think it's a bit frustrating to see that Evra and De Gea still are being criticized. Personally, I think both of them have been amongst our 5 best players this season, only behind RVP, Rafael and Carrick.
Click to expand...

I think for me it's because everyone knows their job. If a striker switches off for a minute, he doesn't make the run, and doesn't score the goal. Not to worry, another chance should come his way. But a defender isn't afforded that luxury. If you switch off at all, you could concede the goal that costs you the game.

I can't speak for other teams, but if United concede a goal, it's usually to a team inferior to us. I think we can all accept that Fulham aren't as good a team as United, so if they score a goal, something has usually gone wrong in defence or in goal.

Strikers can make mistakes, but score the one, important, winning goal. Defenders can make no mistakes bar the one, which turns out to be the decisive goal. I'd also say defenders have less to do. It's why teams pay the big money for strikers. The top seven transfer fees are for attacking players. Buffon came next, and that was over a decade ago, the next eight, bar Nedved, are also for attacking players. It's obviously seen as harder to score a goal than to defend one, so when we do concede, it's invariably because someone hasn't done their job properly.

Take Evra yesterday for example. Didn't have a bad game for me, but he switched off for one second, didn't see who was coming behind him, and nearly conceded. Of course if a player can have an excellent game but make the one mistake, many people will excuse them i.e. De Gea vs Spurs. De Gea kept us in the game, so many fans afforded him that mistake which cost us the win. Gary Neville on the other hand - a defender - says it doesn't matter what you do in the previous 89 minutes if you cost your team the game in the 90th, which is fair enough really. Much like how it often doesn't matter what a striker does in the first 89 minutes, if he scores in the 90th.

jojojo said:
Almost every goal could have been stopped - if he hadn't given the ball away, if he'd got closer, if he'd stood his ground, if he'd tracked back, if he'd spotted the runner, if he'd stayed on the line, if he'd come off the line quicker - easy.
Click to expand...

That is true though, and is it unfair to expect the best footballers in the world to see these situations? Along with many other things, isn't it their intelligence which sets them apart?
 
jojojo said:
However it's some of the offside calls that really make me chuckle. "That's a really poor call," they say after the 6th replay, with the camera looking accusingly at the linesman . "Look he was played onside by the fullback's big toe," and "the ball was played several milliseconds before he went past the defender." Well, duh, refs in being human shocker.
Click to expand...

Sky Sports commentators have been bad for that, although I suspect that's part of a wider agenda to turn the game into a TV-driven soap opera.

Blackwidow said:
Defense just starts with the moment the ball gets lost and a good team has 11 defenders and not just 2...
Click to expand...

Well yes that's what seperates the men from the boys when it comes to managers and pundits: the ability to spot the root causes of goals. Or as Keane put it in his book "first tackle, first pass, first touch, everything counts. A lot of little things add up to the thing that matters."
 
Liam147 said:
is it unfair to expect the best footballers in the world to see these situations?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. If you're a defender, then you're in a job that throws "curveballs" at you all the time. Your opponent's job is basically just to wait for you to make the slightest "mistake", and then take advantage of it. Wouldn't it then be just as fair to blame the strikers for failing to score?

I see you mention that it's easier to defend than it is to create, and that strikers have a higher market value. Doesn't this just strengthen my argument that we are too harsh on the defenders? The strikers are supposed to be of higher value, they earn more, and they have a just as important job(no goals, no victory). Why aren't they blamed for the losses by the general public?

I honestly think we expect too much from our defenders and goalkeepers. And this comes from an extremely attacking-minded ex-wide forward:D
 
Gio said:
I'm not sure. For example, everybody acknowledges Ashley Cole's excellent performance in the Champions League Final, yet not everybody recognises he was at fault for the goal. Similarly, Arjen Robben is held most accountable for Bayern and Holland's final losses in 2010, but do we recall the defensive lapses that let Inter/Spain in to score?

There is a point though when comparing this generation of defenders and goalkeepers to 15-25 years ago. The standard of top level defenders has clearly dropped (there's nobody really in Nesta, Maldini, Campbell, Thuram's class now) and there's probably a few reasons for that. Firstly, the natural fluctuations in quality between generations. Secondly, the backpass rule and improvement in pitches bringing forward a shorter, building-from-the-back passing game that demands a more technical skillset from the back five (with corresponding reductions in pure defensive skills). Thirdly, increased exposure through global TV coverage and SSN/MotD/GoS analysis means we have greater opportunity to dissect defensive mistakes than in previous eras. That works in favour for attacking players but less so for the back five.
Click to expand...

Campbell? How does he get a place in such illustrious company? There are 3 defenders in Manchester alone who are better than Sol Campbell.
 
I agree with OP. Generally, we're all a bit too hash on defenders and keepers and too lenient on forwards and mids. That said, there have been many occasions where forwards and mids have gotten plenty of stick.
 
The Neviller said:
Campbell? How does he get a place in such illustrious company? There are 3 defenders in Manchester alone who are better than Sol Campbell.
Click to expand...

He's the weakest of the four but the best defender in England 10-15 years ago. Ferdinand's peak was obviously higher and Kompany's getting near Campbell's level, but he's not there yet.
 
Yes we do.

Because it's easy.

Most of the time you can directly see if a defender or gk makes a mistake, so it's easy to point the finger at them.

The truth is that maybe a bad pass further up the field lead to a situation that caught the defender on the wrong foot, or a winger not helping out a fullback.

It's seldom that there is really just one mistake happening when a goal is scored but the last in line will usually get the blame for losing the deciding header or not punching the ball away far enough.

That's why I usually don't like to blame a single player for a goal, as long as there wasn't a blatant brain fart involved.

Defending is always a team effort and it should be treated as such, as a collective mistake, that is if like I said it wasn't cause by a total brain fart, which with most goals isn't the case though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.