End of Season - % PL Minutes Played Analysis - United Worst Hit? Top 10 DONE (Rest of league - Please request individual teams)

[Grande]

Fine, we can consider that a player that is on the bench isn't available.

Is that irony? I don’t get it. Do you mean to say that a player sat on a bench can’t be affected by injury? Or more or less ready to play? It makes no sense to me. When Martinez and Evans sat on the bench just recently, with Casemiro starting, would you say that it was proof that Casemiro is the managers preferred CB? To me it’s more reasonably seen as evidence that they are somewhat available, but not fully available.
As I said, I don’t claim to know what was the issue with Varane at that point - I doubt it was purely that the manager assesed that a full strength Varane is not as good as a Maguire, a Lindelöf or an Evans with not too many games under their belt, but I can’t say I know. To me it seems quite likely it was in some way injury related (tje topic at hand, no?), which made me uncertain if you knew more than me about that.

 

[JPRouve]

Is that irony? I don’t get it. Do you mean to say that a player sat on a bench can’t be affected by injury? Or more or less ready to play? It makes no sense to me. When Martinez and Evans sat on the bench just recently, with Casemiro starting, would you say that it was proof that Casemiro is the managers preferred CB? To me it’s more reasonably seen as evidence that they are somewhat available, but not fully available.
As I said, I don’t claim to know what was the issue with Varane at that point - I doubt it was purely that the manager assesed that a full strength Varane is not as good as a Maguire, a Lindelöf or an Evans with not too many games under their belt, but I can’t say I know. To me it seems quite likely it was in some way injury related (tje topic at hand, no?), which made me uncertain if you knew more than me about that.

No, I accept your point.

 

[Grande]

No, I accept your point.

A, in that case, sorry for overlabouring the point.

 

[simonhch]

I think the confusion here stems from that you have written a lot of posts in a thread explicitly about injuries by claiming that injuries are not relevant but squad planning, tactics and general manager competency are. I would rather think that those things are relevant in threads about squadplanning, tactics and the various Ten Hag in/out threads, whereas in this thread they are at best asides, while injuries are in fact what is undenibly relevant here.

Again, another misrepresentation. I never said they weren’t relevant. I just said that there are other things more relevant to our shitty season. And to put that in a thread about injuries, especially when in reply to posts saying “seeing those injuries, what do people expect?”, seems the most relevant place to put it. Unless of course all discussion, unless otherwise supportive of the narrative that injuries are the sole reason for our failure, is prohibited.

There’s no confusion here. There are just people replying to things I never said, and doing so with righteous indignation.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Content and message aside, it's a lot of effort you're putting into these threads, kudos for that @BenitoSTARR!

Unfortunately, I can tell you from a decade of experience that in the forum format such article-worthy effort is often less engaged with and appreciated overall than more bite-sized OPs. Hope you do not let two line replies criticizing your work discourage you - there's always a few who make the effort worth it.

 

[90 + 5min]

Welcome to the final analysis of minutes played by PL players for their respective sides.

As before in the other thread the selection x%s are colour coded as follows:
x>75%
50% <x< 75%
0% <x< 50%
* = GK or additional circumstance (e.g. Loan)

Manchester United
Onana 100%
Dalot 92.8% Varane 40.1% Martinez 18.9% Shaw 28.1%
Casemiro 58% Mainoo 56.7%
Garnacho 75.3% Bruno 91.2% Rashford 66.6%
Højlund 63.5%​

Spoiler: United Full Squad PL Mins %

Onana 100%
Bayindir 0%*
Heaton 0%*

AWB 52.1%
Dalot 92.8%

Martinez 18.9%
Varane 40.1%
Maguire 48.2%
Lindelof 38.9%
Evans 40.7%
Kambwala 9.5%

Shaw 28.1%
Malacia 0%
Reguillon* 12%

Casemiro 58%
Amrabat 27.2%

Mainoo 56.7%
McTominay 55.3%
Eriksen 33.3%

Fernandes 91.2%
Mount 15%
Hannibal* 3.8%

Rashford 66.6%
Garnacho 75.3%
Antony 38.7%
Diallo 11.3%
Pellistri 4.8%
Sancho* 2.2%
Forson 2%

Højlund 63.5%
Martial 13%
Wheatley 0.4%

For a bonus this would be the most played XI by position (I believe please correct if you feel wrong) note this does not mean these players have all played together the most, only they’ve been the most selected/available.

Onana
Dalot Evans Maguire Dalot
Mainoo Casemiro
Garnacho Bruno Rashford
Hojlund

Just highlights problems with our centerbacks. To not have any player there for more than half of the games is brutal and no wonder we concede lot of goals.

 

[CallyRed]

Incredible effort to this for every team in the league.

 

[always_hoping]

excellent work as ever BenitoSTARR

 

[Gavinb33]

Incredible that, how fans can say "injuries" is just an excuse, is beyond me. When you have 3 of the back 4 playing less than 40% of the minutes, what do people expect?

Not just that, say Maguire is Martinez back up in the squad now you'd expect him to play what 60/70% but he isn't even 50% and so on, it's not just the 1st choice has been out the back up has been put too meaning your playing the back up to back up in 30% games and now spread that across the whole of the back 4 bar the RB but then you have to play him LB for a significant amount and you see where our problems have been

 

[Grande]

Again, another misrepresentation. I never said they weren’t relevant. I just said that there are other things more relevant to our shitty season. And to put that in a thread about injuries, especially when in reply to posts saying “seeing those injuries, what do people expect?”, seems the most relevant place to put it. Unless of course all discussion, unless otherwise supportive of the narrative that injuries are the sole reason for our failure, is prohibited.

There’s no confusion here. There are just people replying to things I never said, and doing so with righteous indignation.

Hm. How does righteous indignation look? I think your tone has been one of condescending dismissal, but that’s how it looks to me. But, yea, I think there is confusion, as it seems to me you get several answers based on this being a thread about the comparative amount of injuries this year. Neither the title nor the OP to me indicates that injuries are ‘the only’ factor in our results, or even argumenting as to how big or important factor it is. I would say that those you refer to writing ‘what do people expect’ are taking a tangent path. Which is no big deal, but when long strains of apparent resiprocal dismissal about other stuff ensues, I think it amounts to confusing the subjects.

 

[simonhch]

Hm. How does righteous indignation look? I think your tone has been one of condescending dismissal, but that’s how it looks to me. But, yea, I think there is confusion, as it seems to me you get several answers based on this being a thread about the comparative amount of injuries this year. Neither the title nor the OP to me indicates that injuries are ‘the only’ factor in our results, or even argumenting as to how big or important factor it is. I would say that those you refer to writing ‘what do people expect’ are taking a tangent path. Which is no big deal, but when long strains of apparent resiprocal dismissal about other stuff ensues, I think it amounts to confusing the subjects.

Resd the post exchange. People were arguing with me on things I never said. Absolutely I became condescending after that.

 

[Wumminator]

excellent work as ever BenitoSTARR

How did you do that?!?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

How did you do that?!?

Literally the most impressive thing in the thread.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Good work @BenitoSTARR

Turn out having loads of injuries wasn't ETH just making stuff up, who would have thought it

 

[always_hoping]

Wumminator by highlighting the username then copy and paste.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

always_hoping oh my god….

 

[Borninthe80ts]

On the issue of certain players being available but not playing ie Varane. The issue isn’t that he was available for 400 minutes and didn’t play, it’s because he was generally coming of and injury played and then got injured again.
Also the replacements played well enough to earn their place for the next game, like Maguire or Mctominay.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

I really like the idea @BenitoSTARR . Kudos for doing all that work!

Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to simply look at games missed due to injury (or not in squad), rather than minutes played. It gives a much more correct picture of the season in terms of bad luck. Players can be rotated, rested, lose their spot due to poor form or break into the team at the later stage (like Mainoo).

This is how I would do it for each player:

1. Go to Transfermarkt (or whichever site you prefer)
2. Take 38 minus the number of games missed due to injury or "not in squad".
3. Calculate the percentage.

Do this and we only have 2 red players. And I reckon a few yellow players gets bumped up to green as well.

Actually, using "not in squad" is a bit unfair too. Players who get punished for being late etc should not count as bad luck.

--

Using my method Varane gets bumped to yellow (almost green!). Rashford, Højlund and Mainoo gets bumped to green. This is the result (percentages not included, because I'm lazy):

Spoiler: my method

Onana
Dalot Varane Martinez Shaw
Casemiro Mainoo
Garnacho Bruno Rashford
Højlund
​

​

Thanks for sharing this @Scandi Red.

I went with % mins played as it’s the only reliable metric of how often a player is able to impact our season. I’m sure you’ll appreciate the difference between being on the bench having returned from injury to actually playing minutes.

When considering availability I think we get into dangerous territory of assuming players are all ready to play. For example a bench listed player is then assumed to have 90mins worth of availability in them when in reality they might only have 5-10 mins worth (see numerous cameos of players on benches returning from injury)

So for me, I’m happy that the model reflects accurately our experienced season and the experiences of the other clubs as there is absolutely no debate to be had over who actually was on the pitch and impacting the seasons and results.

Content and message aside, it's a lot of effort you're putting into these threads, kudos for that @BenitoSTARR!

Unfortunately, I can tell you from a decade of experience that in the forum format such article-worthy effort is often less engaged with and appreciated overall than more bite-sized OPs. Hope you do not let two line replies criticizing your work discourage you - there's always a few who make the effort worth it.

Appreciate this none the less.

Just highlights problems with our centerbacks. To not have any player there for more than half of the games is brutal and no wonder we concede lot of goals.

Agreed. We had one point in the season where we nearly had a CB playing 50% of games then they got injured. To my knowledge no other top club has had this.

Incredible effort to this for every team in the league.

Thanks and appreciate it. It’s going to take me time to get through the rest of the league but I’m hoping to have top half of the table done tomorrow.

excellent work as ever BenitoSTARR

Thank you

Not just that, say Maguire is Martinez back up in the squad now you'd expect him to play what 60/70% but he isn't even 50% and so on, it's not just the 1st choice has been out the back up has been put too meaning your playing the back up to back up in 30% games and now spread that across the whole of the back 4 bar the RB but then you have to play him LB for a significant amount and you see where our problems have been

Yeah and I think this message is lost on some. Yes we have a squad, yes you expect to use the squad to cover, but we’ve been hammered here uniquely. We didn’t have even one CB holding down for the majority of games.

Good work @BenitoSTARR

Turn out having loads of injuries wasn't ETH just making stuff up, who would have thought it

Appreciate it.

To be clear this isn’t me trying to defend Ten Hag I just wanted to show how other clubs compare to us in terms of which players ended up playing for them.

On the issue of certain players being available but not playing ie Varane. The issue isn’t that he was available for 400 minutes and didn’t play, it’s because he was generally coming of and injury played and then got injured again.
Also the replacements played well enough to earn their place for the next game, like Maguire or Mctominay.

But as I’ve said above being “available for 400mins” is a misrepresentation of facts. Him being on a bench or out of the squad for vague reason isn’t the same as being fully fit and available. A fully fit and fitting Varane starts week in week out.

As you say though that’s not even the primary concern.

 

[saivet]

Thanks for the thread.

I would suggest that Aston Villa's first 11 is the following:

Martinez 88.2%
Cash 62.6% Konsa 89.9% Torres 72% Digne 70.6%
Kamara 48.6%
Luiz 87.8% McGinn 88%
Diaby 63.8% Watkins 94.3% Ramsey 24.8%
​

You could argue that Mings 0.9% was the first choice as he got injured 30 minutes into the new season but given they signed Torres, he may well have taken his place anyway. The forward line is an interesting one as I think Buendia 0% could have been a regular starter of he didn't get injured for the whole season (possibly ahead of Diaby). Ramsey is another one that could have been a regular if not for injuries this season too. Diaby was a new signing, so let's assume he's part of the strongest team. Beundia and Ramsey both had more minutes than Bailey last season, so assuming Ramsey would start.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Thanks for the thread.

I would suggest that Aston Villa's first 11 is the following:

Martinez 88.2%
Cash 62.6% Konsa 89.9% Torres 72% Digne 70.6%
Kamara 48.6%
Luiz 87.8% McGinn 88%
Diaby 63.8% Watkins 94.3% Ramsey 24.8%
​

You could argue that Mings 0.9% was the first choice as he got injured 30 minutes into the new season but given they signed Torres, he may well have taken his place anyway. The forward line is an interesting one as I think Buendia 0% could have been a regular starter of he didn't get injured for the whole season (possibly ahead of Diaby). Ramsey is another one that could have been a regular if not for injuries this season too. Diaby was a new signing, so let's assume he's part of the strongest team. Beundia and Ramsey both had more minutes than Bailey last season, so assuming Ramsey would start.

Happy to take on board feedback.

Villa have chopped and changed formations and line ups quite a bit this season even with the majority fit so I’m genuinely unsure what the best line up is but this is helpful to know an alternative view.

Im confident of Mings not being first choice over Pau now but Ramsey or Buendia in the side is possible. I’ll update the opening posts to reflect your version (I’m assuming you’re a Villa fan or have paid more attention to them than me)

Hojlund only missed 10 starts due to injury/recovery/illness so why is he on 64% when his availability was 74%

This only makes sense if you do it by availability not game time. It's meaningless if you make often-subbed or not picked players look injured.

Varane was available for 22 games or 58%, not 40%

Højlund was a 20/21 year old who came to us injured and due to age (and lack of back up) it’s not sensible to say 74% because he physically wouldn’t be capable of playing those minutes. I come back to this premise. A manager plays his best side as much as is possible in order to win games. If we can agree with that premise then this stands.

If we can’t then by all means make your own thread.

This isn’t being done based on “availability” because that assumes that any player on the bench has 90mins of football in them and so it becomes a subjective debate between who is actually ready and available to make a significant contribution and who can only manage a 5 minute cameo having returned from injury.

As all clubs are being treated the same (and given we already have the data to show United have the worst injuries - source:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cq55wy2qx21o.amp) for me it makes most sense to look at who played for each side.

Varane’s realistic availability is also in question given his most recent admission https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...-varane-manchester-united-concussion-football

 

[Wumminator]

Wumminator by highlighting the username then copy and paste.

Great work in this thread. Well done for all your hard work. @BenitoSTARR do the rest of the league you lazy prick.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Great work in this thread. Well done for all your hard work. @BenitoSTARR do the rest of the league you lazy prick.

Will be making a dent in them tomorrow.

 

[Borninthe80ts]

Thanks for sharing this @Scandi Red.

I went with % mins played as it’s the only reliable metric of how often a player is able to impact our season. I’m sure you’ll appreciate the difference between being on the bench having returned from injury to actually playing minutes.

When considering availability I think we get into dangerous territory of assuming players are all ready to play. For example a bench listed player is then assumed to have 90mins worth of availability in them when in reality they might only have 5-10 mins worth (see numerous cameos of players on benches returning from injury)

So for me, I’m happy that the model reflects accurately our experienced season and the experiences of the other clubs as there is absolutely no debate to be had over who actually was on the pitch and impacting the seasons and results.

Appreciate this none the less.


Agreed. We had one point in the season where we nearly had a CB playing 50% of games then they got injured. To my knowledge no other top club has had this.

Thanks and appreciate it. It’s going to take me time to get through the rest of the league but I’m hoping to have top half of the table done tomorrow.

Thank you

Yeah and I think this message is lost on some. Yes we have a squad, yes you expect to use the squad to cover, but we’ve been hammered here uniquely. We didn’t have even one CB holding down for the majority of games.

Appreciate it.

To be clear this isn’t me trying to defend Ten Hag I just wanted to show how other clubs compare to us in terms of which players ended up playing for them.

But as I’ve said above being “available for 400mins” is a misrepresentation of facts. Him being on a bench or out of the squad for vague reason isn’t the same as being fully fit and available. A fully fit and fitting Varane starts week in week out.

As you say though that’s not even the primary concern.

I’m going to join in the parade and give credit and thanks to the hard work you’ve put in mate. I’m not a stats guy and it becomes a blur after a while so i rate you for that.

The picture that is painted is clear though and if you have your core team, who set standards and style out or playing poor it has an affect. It’s also adds support to those looking for genuine reasons for why we consistently remain inconsistent.

Nobody is saying there’s nothing everyone at the club couldn’t have done better frankly, we all add to the environment we inhabit. Let’s hope the club are really investigating the potential causes as this problem has held us back for close to 15 years or more really.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

So just deliberately giving the false impression that players like Hojlund were available for much less than i.e. Jackson. While leaving Nkunku in a spoiler, who is clearly Chelsea's best attacker and would be starting every game along with Palmer if fit. Same with Fofana and Badiashile who would probably both start ahead of Disasi.

The BBC page clearly shows feck all about who had the worst injuries. United had the most instances of injury by a statistically insignificant amount. It shows we have fewer overall days lost to injury than Newcastle and Chelsea. It shows we all peaked at having 11 players out injured at the same time.

At no point in the OP do I say this is analysis of injury. The title is clear it’s the % minutes played by each player.

If you choose to deliberately ignore my reasoning and explanation and then draw a false conclusion that’s up to you.

Hobbers if you don’t believe the BBC I can’t help you. It shows we’ve been very adversely impacted above other clubs. If you wish to place our injury problems at a similar level to theirs then consider where the injuries were concentrated and the fact alternatives were regularly available for Chelsea of greater quality then ours (Evans/ No LB)

Of course injuries impact selection so availability becomes very subjective. I’ve made this point clear enough that I have no interest in debating it further.

If you disagree with the presentation of Chelsea for example who would you replace Nkunku with and I will update the OP.

Same for one of Fofana or Badiashile?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

If you cant read then I cant help you. The BBC page shows exactly what I says it shows. 45 vs 43 isnt a significant difference. It also says nothing as to how badly injuries impacted squad availability or how important the injured players were.

The fact you then go on about them having alternatives available. You dont live in the real world, do you? No Fofana and they lost Badiashile AND Chalobah for almost the whole season and were left with Disasi and Colwill often covering left back. We lost Martinez and Varane was unavailable for about 12 games, but we had Maguire AND Evans AND Lindelof all available for the majority of the season. We had one first choice full back available all season, they had zero. They also lost their goalkeeper half way through the season.

It's desperate stuff trying to spin our injuries as notably worse than theirs.

Bigger squad with players of similar profiles = less impact unless you want to argue that Maguire, Lindelof or Evans are similar to Varane and Martinez.

Or that Chelsea didn’t have Gusto and Cucurella?

Martinez absent 27 games 1st choice
Varane absent 12 games 2nd choice
Maguire absent 13 games 3rd choice
Lindelof absent 17 games 4th choice
Evans absent 12 games 5th choice

How is that much better and sustainable?

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Chelsea have absolutely had availability issues and their season will have been negatively impacted as a result.

Ours has just been that bit worse with an unmanageable concentration of injuries in our defence whereas theirs have been spread out through a deeper squad.

The fact Chelsea underperformed only serves to show injuries significantly impact performance.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

I'm only doing this for our defence and Chelsea's, but it gives a pretty good idea how stupid it is to claim we had it worse than Chelsea for injuries. This isn't minutes, it's % of league games available to play, not including sub appearances after recovering from injuries.

Man United

Onana 100%
Dalot 97% Varane 58% Martinez 21% Shaw 32%

Alternatives: AWB 63%, Maguire 74%, Evans 74%, Lindelof 55%, Malacia 0% (Bayindir 100%)



Chelsea

Sanchez 42%
James 18% Silva 89% Badiashile 47% Chilwell 29%

Alternatives: Gusto 71%, Fofana 0%, Disasi 84%, Chalobah 29%, Colwill 61%, Cucurella 71% (Petrovic 100%)

​

Thanks for the above and genuinely appreciate this kind of engagement.

So purely in terms of availability (and playing in best position only) this is the most available back line for both sides

Onana 100%
Dalot 97% Maguire 74% Evans 74% Shaw 32%

And

Petrovic 100%
Gusto 71% Silva 89% Disasi 84% Cucarella 71%​

Id take that Chelsea back line over our most available.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

We should also bear in mind the profiles of players in Chelsea’s back line.

I would argue their CBs all profile more similarly to one another than Martinez, Varane, Maguire, Lindelof and Evans do.

 

[Wumminator]

I'm only doing this for our defence and Chelsea's, but it gives a pretty good idea how stupid it is to claim we had it worse than Chelsea for injuries. This isn't minutes, it's % of league games available to play, not including sub appearances after recovering from injuries.

Man United

Onana 100%
Dalot 97% Varane 58% Martinez 21% Shaw 32%

Alternatives: AWB 63%, Maguire 74%, Evans 74%, Lindelof 55%, Malacia 0% (Bayindir 100%)



Chelsea

Sanchez 42%
James 18% Silva 89% Badiashile 47% Chilwell 29%

Alternatives: Gusto 71%, Fofana 0%, Disasi 84%, Chalobah 29%, Colwill 61%, Cucurella 71% (Petrovic 100%)

​

Chelsea have that young Gilchrist lad as well don’t they?

And they have Sarr who they signed and loaned out.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Chelsea have that young Gilchrist lad as well don’t they?

And they have Sarr who they signed and loaned out.

Chelsea have the following listed as senior team CBs on their website

Silva 6ft (39)
Disasi 6ft 3 (26)
Fofana 6ft 1 (23)
Colwill 6ft 1 (21)
Badiashile 6ft 4 (23)
Chalobah 6ft 4 (24)
Gilchrist 6ft (20)
Sarr* loaned out 6ft (25)

We have

Martinez 5ft 9 (26)
Varane 6ft 3 (31)
Maguire 6ft 4 (31)
Lindelof 6ft 2 (29)
Evans 6ft 2 (36)
Kambwala 6ft 4 (19)

Now look at the profiles of players that Chelsea have VS our CB profiles. Which squad has the more like for like replacements?

 

[Ludens the Red]

We should also bear in mind the profiles of players in Chelsea’s back line.

I would argue their CBs all profile more similarly to one another than Martinez, Varane, Maguire, Lindelof and Evans do.

fair play going through the effort to emphasise your point. Although again I think you’ve massaged this bit here in relation to Chelsea.
Why do you think This? Cos they’re all black?
They're not all similar profile at all.
Fofana is more akin to Rudiger. Aggressive, carries the ball through defence and midfield, likes one on one battles.
Colwill is more of a neat and tidy centre half, not particularly physical.
Thiago is your rolls Royce type defender. Disasi is a penalty box defender, heading away, blocking etc. like Maguire. Would deffo not say they’re like for like replacements at all.

 

[DWelbz19]

Garnacho playing that much isn’t good. That’s verging on Barcelona child abuse stuff. Hopefully we rotate his minutes better next season.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

fair play going through the effort to emphasise your point. Although again I think you’ve massaged this bit here in relation to Chelsea.
Why do you think This? Cos they’re all black?
They're not all similar profile at all.
Fofana is more akin to Rudiger. Aggressive, carries the ball through defence and midfield, likes one on one battles.
Colwill is more of a neat and tidy centre half, not particularly physical.
Thiago is your rolls Royce type defender. Disasi is a penalty box defender, heading away, blocking etc. like Maguire. Would deffo not say they’re like for like replacements at all.

Ignoring your racial comment

I would argue the majority of those players can absolutely play in a similar system to Poch’s desired one of course there will be slight nuances in terms of technical proficiencies but the gap between them, whilst still a gap, is less than that between ours

Id much rather have a squad of CBs like Chelsea than be relying on Maguire, Lindelof and Evans for example.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Ignoring your racial comment

I would argue the majority of those players can absolutely play in a similar system to Poch’s desired one of course there will be slight nuances in terms of technical proficiencies but the gap between them, whilst still a gap, is less than that between ours

Id much rather have a squad of CBs like Chelsea than be relying on Maguire, Lindelof and Evans for example.

Ooh naughty, moving the goalposts a bit there. You twice stated same profile and even stated ‘like for like’ replacements. That’s what I responded based on.
Not whether they suited Poch’s system. Which I wouldn’t even say they did. Poch prefers to press high and have a higher block but Disasi is a walking timebomb outside of the penalty box. And Thiago doesn’t have the legs to be high up the pitch.
I’d also actually say Maguire, Varane and Martinez are better than all Chelsea’s centre backs bar Thiago. Fofana has a high ceiling but not sure I’d want a player who’s missed about three years through injury. Rest of them are very meh. Colwill was exciting at Brighton but hasn’t been great at Chelsea. Rest are just expensive squad filler. Theres a reason Chelsea conceded 63 goals last season.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Ooh naughty, moving the goalposts a bit there. You twice stated same profile and even stated ‘like for like’ replacements. That’s what I responded based on.
Not whether they suited Poch’s system. Which I wouldn’t even say they did. Poch prefers to press high and have a higher block but Disasi is a walking timebomb outside of the penalty box. And Thiago doesn’t have the legs to be high up the pitch.
I’d also actually say Maguire, Varane and Martinez are better than all Chelsea’s centre backs bar Thiago. Fofana has a high ceiling but not sure I’d want a player who’s missed about three years through injury. Rest of them are very meh. Colwill was exciting at Brighton but hasn’t been great at Chelsea. Rest are just expensive squad filler. Theres a reason Chelsea conceded 63 goals last season.

With respect this is what I’ve said throughout the thread on Chelsea’s back line:

alternatives were regularly available for Chelsea of greater quality then ours (Evans/ No LB)

Bigger squad with players of similar profiles = less impact

I would argue their CBs all profile more similarly to one another than Martinez, Varane, Maguire, Lindelof and Evans do.

Chelsea have the following listed as senior team CBs on their website

Silva 6ft (39)
Disasi 6ft 3 (26)
Fofana 6ft 1 (23)
Colwill 6ft 1 (21)
Badiashile 6ft 4 (23)
Chalobah 6ft 4 (24)
Gilchrist 6ft (20)
Sarr* loaned out 6ft (25)

We have

Martinez 5ft 9 (26)
Varane 6ft 3 (31)
Maguire 6ft 4 (31)
Lindelof 6ft 2 (29)
Evans 6ft 2 (36)
Kambwala 6ft 4 (19)

Now look at the profiles of players that Chelsea have VS our CB profiles. Which squad has the more like for like replacements?

I would argue the majority of those players can absolutely play in a similar system to Poch’s desired one of course there will be slight nuances in terms of technical proficiencies but the gap between them, whilst still a gap, is less than that between ours

Id much rather have a squad of CBs like Chelsea than be relying on Maguire, Lindelof and Evans for example.

These are all the comments I’ve made about their profiles. You are completely misrepresenting what I have said by saying I’ve said they are “like for like” I said more like for like than ours when discussing their physical attribute and ages:

Now look at the profiles of players that Chelsea have VS our CB profiles. Which squad has the more like for like replacements?

Regardless I would absolutely argue that Chelsea’s CBs can slot more conveniently into Poch’s preferred system and style of play as opposed to going from Varane and Martinez to any other pairing we have available. Of course there are nuances but the physical profiles of Chelsea’s back line have far more in common than ours do.

We can agree to disagree on the relative quality and ease at which these players can adopt a system. All of Chelsea’s CBs are younger, more athletic and 6ft plus giving them certain similarities in terms of physical ability that our older players will not have.

That alone is an advantage.

 

[Ludens the Red]

With respect this is what I’ve said throughout the thread on Chelsea’s back line:











These are all the comments I’ve made about their profiles. You are completely misrepresenting what I have said by saying I’ve said they are “like for like” I said more like for like than ours when discussing their physical attribute and ages:


Regardless I would absolutely argue that Chelsea’s CBs can slot more conveniently into Poch’s preferred system and style of play as opposed to going from Varane and Martinez to any other pairing we have available. Of course there are nuances but the physical profiles of Chelsea’s back line have far more in common than ours do.

We can agree to disagree on the relative quality and ease at which these players can adopt a system. All of Chelsea’s CBs are younger, more athletic and 6ft plus giving them certain similarities in terms of physical ability that our older players will not have.

That alone is an advantage.

Look, I’ll accept the points you’ve tried to put forward for the injury comparison and some have merit even I disagree with some of the more subjective stuff.

But with this Chelsea cb thing you’re off the mark and you’re coming up with nonsensical stuff. I mean Poch literally prefers a high line defence and they’ve had to play a slow 38 year old and a centre back who can’t defend properly outside of the box and you’re sat there saying you’re going to “absolutely argue’ the point. There’s nothing to argue, that isn’t Poch’s preferred profile of CB for his style of play. That’s just stupid to say.

I think it’s clear that by profile of player you were talking about Chelsea defenders and the way they play as cbs and you mistakingly thought they were quite similar (the same way you mistakingly suggested Mudryk played in the same positions as Nkunku). The idea that you were talking about height, athleticism and age is absolutely ridiculous. As if there’s some sort of tangible difference in the heights and age of Chelsea’s defenders compared to ours. Apart from Martinez all our cbs are roughly the height of most centre backs.
Come on man, like just take that as a mistake and leave it at that.

 

[Di Maria's angel]

No but they are decent PL players and Maguire in particular has been solid this season. I could understand the point if we were talking about lower league level players like having to start a Blackett or McNair but we are talking about good depth players.

They're both inconsistent, and underwhelmed during their time here. Neither are good enough to be starting and no team with top 4 aspirations should have to rely on your back up players unless you're Man City. That said, Maguire has done himself proud.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

Look, I’ll accept the points you’ve tried to put forward for the injury comparison and some have merit even I disagree with some of the more subjective stuff.

But with this Chelsea cb thing you’re off the mark and you’re coming up with nonsensical stuff. I mean Poch literally prefers a high line defence and they’ve had to play a slow 38 year old and a centre back who can’t defend properly outside of the box and you’re sat there saying you’re going to “absolutely argue’ the point. There’s nothing to argue, that isn’t Poch’s preferred profile of CB for his style of play. That’s just stupid to say.

I think it’s clear that by profile of player you were talking about Chelsea defenders and the way they play as cbs and you mistakingly thought they were quite similar (the same way you mistakingly suggested Mudryk played in the same positions as Nkunku). The idea that you were talking about height, athleticism and age is absolutely ridiculous. As if there’s some sort of tangible difference in the heights and age of Chelsea’s defenders compared to ours. Apart from Martinez all our cbs are roughly the height of most centre backs.
Come on man, like just take that as a mistake and leave it at that.

I can assure you that was not what I was saying.

If I believe players are an exact match I usually say they match the “physical and technical profile”.

Thiago is obviously the odd one out being 39. My point is though the physical profile of the rest of the CB options is similar in terms of age and height which naturally gives some advantages that our back line would not have to play certain systems like a high line. But yes I’ll accept Silva is not suited to it anymore.

I said that Nkunku had played in his matches when fit as CF, No10 and LW. With Mudryk being a LW it’s not inconceivable to play him there.

Nkunku hasn’t held a fixed position for Chelsea yet (due to injury) but when he has been available he’s been played in several positions so the suggestion of alternatives is absolutely valid.

If it was ridiculous why would I have gone out of my way to list the heights and ages of the back line while talking about physical profiles?

C’mon man accept this argument at face value for what it is. Maybe I could have made my point clearer to you but my point was my point.

 

[BenitoSTARR]

@Ludens the Red to be fair I didn’t explicitly say “physical” profiles until my last comment so I can understand your confusion. I believe by listing their heights and ages you should hopefully see that was my intention.

 

[saivet]

Happy to take on board feedback.

Villa have chopped and changed formations and line ups quite a bit this season even with the majority fit so I’m genuinely unsure what the best line up is but this is helpful to know an alternative view.

Im confident of Mings not being first choice over Pau now but Ramsey or Buendia in the side is possible. I’ll update the opening posts to reflect your version (I’m assuming you’re a Villa fan or have paid more attention to them than me)

Not a Villa fan or a follower of them but I was just looking at some player stats last season. I completely forgot Buendia existed to be honest and I must admit I was unaware that Ramsey was injured so much.

It's a interesting thread, so just thought I'd chip in on Villa.