2012/2013 Defenders Rumors Thread

[DirettaInter]

We are good with CBs (Rano, Juan, Campagnaro, Andreolli and Samuel)

Now get me some FBs ffs

They say we've almost got Peruzzi and J.Zanetti will mentor him. El Capitano said himself Peruzzi is his ideal replacement. It's like Milito and Icardi.

- - - Updated - - -

Tuttosport said Inter, Juventus and Milan are all in the lead for the Ogbonna race. Back three of Rano, JJ and Ogboner?

 

[Kakaroto]

No.

 

[DirettaInter]

No.

 

[Choppin Onions]

Strangely arousing :work:


But yes, no 3-man defense.

 

[Pajo]

The only way to work 3 men defense is to have leader in it (like Samuel), decent technical RCB (like Rano) and someone like Juan.

However, you also need 5 men midfield, not 4, but all of them to run and press like crazy (Juve like). And we dont ant wont have that, so fuck 3 men defense. 4-3-3 is the way to go, easily adaptable, easily changeable.

 

[I4E]

The only way to work 3 men defense is to have leader in it (like Samuel), decent technical RCB (like Rano) and someone like Juan.

However, you also need 5 men midfield, not 4, but all of them to run and press like crazy (Juve like). And we dont ant wont have that, so fuck 3 men defense. 4-3-3 is the way to go, easily adaptable, easily changeable.

I disagree Pajo for a number of reasons. Although your right that a back 3 needs a leader. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 3 man defense (generally speaking), it's just that I don't think we are quite well equipped for a 3 man defense. Where you say Rano as a RCB, I take it you mean as a RB (on paper) ? effectively that 'role' doesn't really require 'technical' ability but naturally its advantageous.

For the 3 man defence you need the sweeper with the technical ability (we'll use Rano here because he would be/is continuously skinned by strikers as a full back) and 2 man-marking right & left full backs (it doesn't really matter in a game but on paper for line-up purposes we'll call them LB & RB). Obviously if we're playing against an opposition with 2 up front the LB & RB pick them up leaving Rano to drop a couple yards behind their line (and always free). But the LB & RB need to be very quick, speedy players with a very very good defensive ability (tackling, holding etc). the best equipped player we got for that is Juan.

If the opposition plays with 1 up front then what happens is 1 fullback becomes free. This can be very advantageous for a number of reasons. He can play loose around the marked lone striker (making it an extremely difficult day for him), pick up any opposition players making runs into the forward space or close up the/any space. And by being free, can make forward runs as an unmarked player which puts pressure on opposition midfield and defence.

I would play Rano as the sweeper (CB) and Juan & Zanetti as the fullbacks. If the opposition plays 1 upfront, I'd make Juan the free fullback and leave JZ to man-mark.

But of course the 3 man defence has some requirements from the Midfield whether it be a 5 or 4 man, but that's another story.

 

[.h.]

imho 3 at the back is an inherently weak formation because you require the wing backs to be too dynamic almost. They have to be everywhere - up attacking with the team, and then as SOON as possession is turned over they are expected to be in a defensive line with the CBs.

Playing against a side using the Mourinho style 4-2-3-1 with the trident attack means you're completely fucked on the counter attacks


against a team playing something more like a 4-4-2, or 3-5-2, you're probably okay, but against anyone with a trident trio of attacking players, you screw yourself

 

[I4E]

imho 3 at the back is an inherently weak formation because you require the wing backs to be too dynamic almost. They have to be everywhere - up attacking with the team, and then as SOON as possession is turned over they are expected to be in a defensive line with the CBs.

Totally incorrect Bro(wha).

With respect to 'dynamic' wing backs (which are effectively right & left midfielders), that is actually what you expect from them, To be dynamic. But the teams ability to hold off or delay the opposition so to speak is what they rely on and provides them the time to get back.

Works extremely well for Juventus don't you think ?

Playing against a side using the Mourinho style 4-2-3-1 with the trident attack means you're completely fucked on the counter attacks

How ? A quick break effectively puts 3 to 4 against 3,4 or 5 (depending on how the midfield is set up infront of the back 3)

against a team playing something more like a 4-4-2, or 3-5-2, you're probably okay, but against anyone with a trident trio of attacking players, you screw yourself

No you don't. Against a trio, a DM (or one of the DM's) slots himself infront of the back three minding the central attacker and/or closing space.

 

[.h.]

Totally incorrect Bro(wha).

With respect to 'dynamic' wing backs (which are effectively right & left midfielders), that is actually what you expect from them, To be dynamic. But the teams ability to hold off or delay the opposition so to speak is what they rely on and provides them the time to get back.



How ? A quick break effectively puts 3 to 4 against 3,4 or 5 (depending on how the midfield is set up infront of the back 3)




No you don't. Against a trio, a DM (or one of the DM's) slots himself infront of the back three minding the central attacker and/or closing space.

And in a team where your midfield has no ability to pressure the opposition, then you get raped. Welcome to Inter.

Because you leave a lot of space on the wings. If you break - as we used to under Mourinho - with 4 (Pandev, Etoo, Sneijder, Milito) you have two players wide out on the wings, the central attacker, and one player in the midfield to orchestrate play. With three at the back, you have to move out to counter the wing play, you have a DM to put pressure on the AM, and then it leaves the striker with a 1 on 1 with respect to the CB. And with 1-on-1 there, the CB has to be lucky every time to neutralize the threat. Which is why we play with more CBs than forwards - so its a 2-on-3 situation, or 1-on-2.


Think of it sort of like this:

3 at the back vs 4-2-3-1

Ranocchia Samuel(Milito) JJ
(Eto'o) Cambiasso(Sneijder) (Pandev)
​

You leave Milito 1 v 1 with Samuel - a situation he's going to score at least 1 goal a game from.


The traditional 4-4-2 approach would be more like

Zanetti Ranocchia (Milito) Samuel Nagatomo
(Eto'o) Cambiasso (Sneijder) (Pandev)
​

Which means you're doubled up on the CB at all times - Samuel can deal with any through balls from Pandev, vice versa Rano/Eto'o, and Cambiasso cuts off the direct supply.


And of course if you move away from playing an attacking trident, to, say, someone using a flat 4-4-2, one of the wingers pushes up (so, say, Eto'o and Milito up front, Stankovic and Pandev on the wings). Play is attacking on the left wing.

(Pandev) Zanetti Ranocchia(Milito) Samuel(Eto'o) Nagatomo
Cambiasso (Stankovic)
​

So your full back on the opposing wing fills in at the "corner" of the box, thus meaning he can cover play if it is switched to the other flank, whilst offering a 3-v-2 situation in the box, and both central defenders are ball-side of their man, with Zanetti there to block the cross.

edit;
I cant align Stankovic properly, he should be roughly infront of Nagatomo

 

[I4E]

And in a team where your midfield has no ability to pressure the opposition, then you get raped. Welcome to Inter.

Unquestionable about Inter, But just stating that 3 man defence is not shit just cos Inter is shit at it.

Because you leave a lot of space on the wings. If you break - as we used to under Mourinho - with 4 (Pandev, Etoo, Sneijder, Milito) you have two players wide out on the wings, the central attacker, and one player in the midfield to orchestrate play. With three at the back, you have to move out to counter the wing play, you have a DM to put pressure on the AM, and then it leaves the striker with a 1 on 1 with respect to the CB. And with 1-on-1 there, the CB has to be lucky every time to neutralize the threat. Which is why we play with more CBs than forwards - so its a 2-on-3 situation, or 1-on-2.

Your speaking of perfect world scenario here. Again this is totally dependant on how the midfield is set up infront of the back 3.

Have a look at how Juve do it.

 

[.h.]

Well, I'm not a huge fan of the 3 CB situation because you simply shouldnt need it. A top team should be able to defend 4 v 7 in the box - something that Liverpool in the 80s were great at, and Arsenal as that ridiculous invincibles nickname people give them.

- - - Updated - - -

i cant remember who, but one of the big ex-italy players said recently (possibly cannavaro?) "The only reason why Italian clubs are playing with 3 CBs is because there are no good defenders in Italy."

 

[I4E]

Well, I'm not a huge fan of the 3 CB situation because you simply shouldnt need it. A top team should be able to defend 4 v 7 in the box - something that Liverpool in the 80s were great at, and Arsenal as that ridiculous invincibles nickname people give them.

It's not a question of need. Defending with 4 is perceived as safer.

Tell me how you think defending with 4 at the back is different to 4 (3-1) against 7 ?

i cant remember who, but one of the big ex-italy players said recently (possibly cannavaro?) "The only reason why Italian clubs are playing with 3 CBs is because there are no good defenders in Italy."

How ignorant of that little cunt. So then why doesn't he say "the only reason why Italian clubs play with 3 CBs is because they have good wide midfielders/wingers/wingbacks" ?

 

[.h.]

Because you pair up at CB, rather than having an odd shape. RB takes the right box edge to defend crosses, LB is a bit more advanced at the edge of the box to block people cutting inside/a switch of flank in play. The two CBs pair up to check for runs, and then you have a floating DM at the edge of the box (the 5th player, but he's not technically in the box, just defensive around it) looking for the clearance, or a late run.

with a 3-1 situation, you have one DM picking up people at the edge of the box, one full back blocking the play where the ball is coming from, the other defender is halfway between blocking a switch in play and defending the centre of the box. It means you can get torn out of shape really easily with repeated switches of play, and you easily get taken apart.


Thats the fundamental issue, as far as I can see anyway.

 

[I4E]

Think of it sort of like this:

3 at the back vs 4-2-3-1

Ranocchia Samuel(Milito) JJ
(Eto'o) Cambiasso(Sneijder) (Pandev)
​

You leave Milito 1 v 1 with Samuel - a situation he's going to score at least 1 goal a game from.


The traditional 4-4-2 approach would be more like

Zanetti Ranocchia (Milito) Samuel Nagatomo
(Eto'o) Cambiasso (Sneijder) (Pandev)
​

Which means you're doubled up on the CB at all times - Samuel can deal with any through balls from Pandev, vice versa Rano/Eto'o, and Cambiasso cuts off the direct supply.


And of course if you move away from playing an attacking trident, to, say, someone using a flat 4-4-2, one of the wingers pushes up (so, say, Eto'o and Milito up front, Stankovic and Pandev on the wings). Play is attacking on the left wing.

(Pandev) Zanetti Ranocchia(Milito) Samuel(Eto'o) Nagatomo
Cambiasso (Stankovic)
​

So your full back on the opposing wing fills in at the "corner" of the box, thus meaning he can cover play if it is switched to the other flank, whilst offering a 3-v-2 situation in the box, and both central defenders are ball-side of their man, with Zanetti there to block the cross.

edit;
I cant align Stankovic properly, he should be roughly infront of Nagatomo

Hey you added more to the post...

That's nice, if you assume that 'whoever' has the ball in that counter-attack beats his man 'everytime' and plays the inche perfect pass 'everytime' to a lone, marked striker. All before he is held up or delayed long enough until wide mids have dropped.

Again, I'm commenting on playing 3 at the back generally and not the back 3 Inter has currently shown.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you pair up at CB, rather than having an odd shape. RB takes the right box edge to defend crosses, LB is a bit more advanced at the edge of the box to block people cutting inside/a switch of flank in play. The two CBs pair up to check for runs, and then you have a floating DM at the edge of the box (the 5th player, but he's not technically in the box, just defensive around it) looking for the clearance, or a late run.

with a 3-1 situation, you have one DM picking up people at the edge of the box, one full back blocking the play where the ball is coming from, the other defender is halfway between blocking a switch in play and defending the centre of the box. It means you can get torn out of shape really easily with repeated switches of play, and you easily get taken apart.


Thats the fundamental issue, as far as I can see anyway.

Have you seen Juventus play this season ?

 

[.h.]

The point is exactly that you dont have to do it 'every time', just once.
With the four at the back you offer much more defensive cover and its much harder to score.



Yes, I have seen juventus play this season? They benefit from having a very good ability in counter attack (as well as other things) which lends itself well to the other team not applying as much pressure as they can, so they are more weary about the counter attack. This, again, all stems from midfield. Our midfield is dreadful and we cannot support this sort of thing. If they could learn to pressure, we'd probably be alright.

 

[I4E]

Our midfield is dreadful and we cannot support this sort of thing. If they could learn to pressure, we'd probably be alright.

But that's why I said in my first post, we aren't well equipped for it. A 3 man defence or 3-5-2 (or 3-4-1-2 or 3-4-3, all the same shit) is NOT a shit or weak formation/set-up. When played right, it is extremely good. Eg: Juventus

 

[.h.]

Well, yes, the inter implementation of it is dreadful

But overall I do not like it as a formation, for the reasons I've also explained. You can make it look not quite so bad, but theres a reason why all the big clubs play four at the back.

 

[DirettaInter]

I still want Ogbonna...

 

[Pajo]

Ogbonna is totally the same type of player and Jesus. That being said, no i do not want him, i believe in Jesus!

 

[DirettaInter]

Ogbonna is totally the same type of player and Jesus. That being said, no i do not want him, i believe in Jesus!

Yes, but:

Rano - Ogbonna - JJ

:notbad: