No midfield vs. no defence

+13
fatman123
Gil
neuro11
Red Alert
Cotes
ExtremistEnigma
Ganso
Grooverider
ErPupone
DeviAngel
EL Patron
futbol
Babun
17 posters

Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Babun Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:08

Which is worse from your point of view? The best examples would be Barca and ManU. The former's defence are in shambles while the later's defence consists of a 31y old Carrick.

I think having no defence is more detrimental than a no midfield team. Superb forwards could grind out results on their on in counter attacks while having ball control with a crap defence in behind would mean a heart attack during every counter attack...
Babun
Babun
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 7221
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by futbol Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:10

No midfield is worse obviously. Spain is winning trophies without a defense and without strikers just with their midfield. Laughing

futbol
World Class Contributor
World Class Contributor

Club Supported : Effzeh Kölle
Posts : 11262
Join date : 2012-11-23

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by EL Patron Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:11

Pretty sure Yanited have Carrick in midfield holding things together hmm 
EL Patron
EL Patron
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Arsenal
Posts : 6465
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 35

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by DeviAngel Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:14

Midfield because the midfield is what what creates and defends even thou its team effort but midfield gives support to defense and attack. Under Del Neri we had Bonucci,Barzagli,Chiellini but our defense was shit....
DeviAngel
DeviAngel
Admin
Admin

Club Supported : Liverpool
Posts : 21324
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 124

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by ErPupone Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:18

Take it from the Roma fan, no defence is worse.
ErPupone
ErPupone
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Roma
Posts : 2422
Join date : 2011-06-08

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Babun Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:26

futbol wrote:No midfield is worse obviously. Spain is winning trophies without a defense and without strikers just with their midfield. Laughing
Spain's defence wasn't that bad. Puyol, Pique, Ramos and Arbeloa were still good. Right now, I'm not sure. Alba and Arbeloa are crap in defence and the results were shown in Confed cup. Pique is past it in my opinion, Ramos isn't that good.
Babun
Babun
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 7221
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Babun Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 18:28

DeviAngel wrote:Midfield because the midfield is what what creates and defends even thou its team effort but midfield gives support to defense and attack. Under Del Neri we had Bonucci,Barzagli,Chiellini but our defense was shit....
Defending as a team!= defender's quality. Both manu and Farca defend pretty well as a team. The problem is they lack individual quality in those areas.
Babun
Babun
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 7221
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Grooverider Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 19:37

..just have a good,long hard look at the England NT..

..They usually play without either lol..

banana 
Grooverider
Grooverider
Banned (Permanent)

Posts : 571
Join date : 2013-02-10

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Ganso Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 19:48

futbol wrote:No midfield is worse obviously. Spain is winning trophies without a defense and without strikers just with their midfield. Laughing
Thats different, Spain dont have just good midfielders, they play tiki taka so that clearly takes a weight off attack and defense.

And tbh Spain had quite a lot of luck on their side.
Ganso
Ganso
World Class Contributor
World Class Contributor

Club Supported : AC Milan
Posts : 15522
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by ExtremistEnigma Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 20:29

As important as midfield is, having a good defense is much more essential.
ExtremistEnigma
ExtremistEnigma
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Lyon
Posts : 2535
Join date : 2013-02-27

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Cotes Sun 14 Jul 2013 - 21:05

Midfield is more essential definitely....
That's the bondage for the defense & Forward line...without it...The strikers will play deep to get the ball & the defence will push up out of position to win ball...
Cotes
Cotes
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Liverpool
Posts : 3597
Join date : 2011-08-30
Age : 32

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Red Alert Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 5:16

Depends on the league.
Red Alert
Red Alert
World Class Contributor
World Class Contributor

Posts : 11625
Join date : 2011-06-06

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by neuro11 Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 5:23

Ofcourse Midfiled (considering Mou is not the coach)....
Otherwise its a free flow from opposition. you just cant make wall for 90 mins giving free ticket all around....they will just climb up...Very Happy 

neuro11
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Arsenal
Posts : 2310
Join date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Gil Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 5:33

futbol wrote:No midfield is worse obviously. Spain is winning trophies without a defense and without strikers just with their midfield. Laughing

Stop it you clown. Spain don't win the 08 Euros or 10 WC without their strikers.
Gil
Gil
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Manchester United
Posts : 9447
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 33

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by fatman123 Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 6:46

Look at barca, their defense is light years behind their midfield, but by controlling the ball in midfield so well they're able to cover up much of their defensive weaknesses
fatman123
fatman123
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Corinthians
Posts : 9616
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Lupi Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 6:57

No defence is worse than No midfield , unless the team plays possession based football and defends by not giving the ball away to opponent
Lupi
Lupi
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Roma
Posts : 2519
Join date : 2012-11-28
Age : 40

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by LeSwagg James Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 7:26

No defense = concede goals

No midfield = concede goals (because you can't control the tempo, so the opposition will most likely dictate the game and have more shots on goal) + difficulty creating goal scoring chances for forwards

No midfield is worse imo
LeSwagg James
LeSwagg James
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Sao Paulo
Posts : 6587
Join date : 2011-06-06

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by ExtremistEnigma Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 14:14

The thing is, Barca have a world class midfield and so they're able to keep all the possession in the world. So having an average defense works for them.

But most of the teams don't. They rely on defenders actually working as defenders.

Having a good defense and average midfield is not worse off than having an average defense and world class midfield especially given the fact that it takes much less finance to assemble the former rather than the latter.

Heck, Man Utd won the league last season with just Carrick in the midfield. Laughing They rely on defending as a unit and wing play.

Barca got humbled 7-0 by Bayern last season by having no defense. If they had, suppose, Lahm, Silva, Kompany, Alaba in the defense and Song, Thiago and Sergi Roberto in the midfield, the result would've been perhaps more in their favour, no?


Last edited by ExtremistEnigma on Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 17:56; edited 1 time in total
ExtremistEnigma
ExtremistEnigma
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Lyon
Posts : 2535
Join date : 2013-02-27

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Harmonica Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 14:59

Just as important, as attack. If you have more quality in midfield they can support and cover worse defense, and/or attack, and so on.
Harmonica
Harmonica
World Class Contributor
World Class Contributor

Club Supported : RO Blank
Posts : 14247
Join date : 2011-06-07

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by BarcaLearning Mon 15 Jul 2013 - 21:07

I was gonna say Real had no midfield in some ways and look what happened when they played us in recent encounters Razz Obviously though theyve strengthen in that area....while we have done nothing yet about our defense, grrrrrrrr
BarcaLearning
BarcaLearning
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Barcelona
Posts : 9668
Join date : 2011-12-08

Back to top Go down

No midfield vs. no defence Empty Re: No midfield vs. no defence

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum