Ben Davies

[billyiddo]

Thats just not true. He is quicker and more aggressive, Ill give him that. Though Im not sure it counts for much when you actually look at the way our play shakes out with Davies. Dynamism? What does that even mean?

By any objective measure Davies is at least as good as Rose, if not better. His defensive metrics are superior and his offensive ones were behind (arguably, theres a quantity vs quality element here) but are rapidly improving.

They have different styles, and some see charging around as superior to Davies more considered approach.

I think the difference was most telling in attack.

Rose has more crosses, more attempted key passes and more shots. At the time I checked, he had however the same assists and only one more goal as Davies.

It was apparent while Davies attempted less, his success rate was higher. And when it came to actual goals/assists there was little between them (Since I looked Davies has scored/assisted 6 in 9 and is now clearly ahead.)

You mention big games, personally I would prefer Davies. He has the better defensive game, and he is much less likely to lose the ball in advanced areas. While his passing/crossing etc is much more likely to complete.

Rose is a better defender for my money, stronger in the tackle and quick to intercept and for someone who plays higher up the pitch when we're in possession his defensive positioning is such that he is rarely caught out.

Rose is a lot more than just pace and power, he wouldn't have been our first choice left back if that's all he had over Davies and it wouldnt been enough to have him starting our big games against top opposition over a supposed better defender/attacker.

Davies has been playing very well during this extended run in the side and he deserves to keep his place should he maintain the form he has managed this season - he has to show he can do it against the better sides still for me, we have a testing run of fixtures coming up so it will be a good chance to see how he fares

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Ive never said he is all that. Just that he isnt "everything Davies is plus..."

Ive said nothing to suggest he isnt a good defender, or a good attacker, or a good player full stop.

Only that I think Davies is a better defender, and is now becoming more productive in attack. And that they have differing styles in achieving their goals - so its a case of choose your flavour for the most part.

Personally I think with Rose there is a real absence makes the heart grow fonder thing going on here.

For sure he is a good player. But, for me, he plays with more risk than I would like. His pace gets him out of a lot of sticky situations he creates for himself, much like Walkers did, which impresses some - but Im always wondering "Why get in bother needlessly?".

He looks good attacking, lots of runs and attempted dribbles - but doesnt actually produce as much as you would expect from someone like that (again, much like Walker).

I think he is an excellent 1 on 1 defender, for sure. He hates being beaten and is really dogged. I think he is well suited to how we play - we cover a lot of his inadequecies. I think he does pose a threat, and I think he is a good defender.

I just think, for me, Davies is better.

 

[billyiddo]

I didn't say you don't think he's a good defender I said I think he is a better defender than Davies - I think he's a better tackler, I think his defensive positioning is better and I think he generally owns the left hand side of the pitch no matter who he is up against, home or away. It's why I think when fit Pochettino always plays him in the big games against strong opposition.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Fair enough. I dont agree - but thats football isnt it?

 

[parklane1]

Because Rose has been world class at times and has that dynamisism that shines against the top sides.

But davies has been generally very good to excellent and is on the upwards curve at the moment. The playing time Davies is getting now is warranted and he his attacking play and support has shown a whole new side to his game too

I am not knocking Rose at all and he has been very good for us over the last couple of seasons. However i believe that Davies is/has shown a lot of improvement (mostly because of the game time he has been getting, i have always been of the opinion the ability has always been there). I am not saying that i want Rose gone ( if Poch decides to keep him) but i really believe that Davies ( who is younger) will turn out to be a better all round player then Rose.

And i am not saying that because of his stupid outburst during the summer, i have said on here many times going back over the years that i believed Davies would turn out to be better.

 

[billyiddo]

Fair enough. I dont agree - but thats football isnt it?

Of course it is, but as someone who doesn't see a better defender in Davies I'm just keen to hear what it is that sets him apart from Rose - because watching him play I don't really see it.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Of course it is, but as someone who doesn't see a better defender in Davies I'm just keen to hear what it is that sets him apart from Rose - because watching him play I don't really see it.

As a defender? Its the difference between Carrick and Palacios.

One is always in the right place doing it quietly and efficiently, the other is throwing in and fighting and winning. How you appreciate either really depends on what you look for in a player/how you enjoy the game*.

Maybe Rose is a better tackler (if so its not by a huge amount), but is it not better to not need to tackle in the first place?

Davies seems to just Usher trouble away so simply, its brilliant. He intercepts, closes avenues, shuts down angles, and its all so basic it goes unnoticed.

Look at it this way, Davies is trusted to play in a back 3, nobody would consider Rose in that position would they - does that not speak to being a superior defender?

Similarly, Rose is a born and bread winger who was converted to LB, where it took him a good few years to actually be any good. Davies is a born and bread defender, it is what he is.

They have very contrasting styles, so much comes down to personal taste.

Statistically there is not much to choose between them as at the end of last season. By fine margins Davies the better defender, Rose the better attacker - but as @parklane1 points out - thats before Davies has really had time to develop. Now he is finding new levels with a run of games and I agree with Parklane he will become the superior player (if not already).

And of course, results, goals conceeded and scored - if anything have improved in Roses absence, so at the very least we havent missed him to any great degree.



*No football fan snobbery. Everyone sees and enjoys different things in a game. Personally I love a big tackle that gets people off their seats - but equally I love the subtle 5yard movement that prevented the whole scenario in the first place. Physicality is great, but intelligence is the thing that really makes a game interesting to me.

 

[parklane1]

As a defender? Its the difference between Carrick and Palacios.

One is always in the right place doing it quietly and efficiently, the other is throwing in and fighting and winning. How you appreciate either really depends on what you look for in a player/how you enjoy the game*.

Maybe Rose is a better tackler (if so its not by a huge amount), but is it not better to not need to tackle in the first place?

Davies seems to just Usher trouble away so simply, its brilliant. He intercepts, closes avenues, shuts down angles, and its all so basic it goes unnoticed.

Look at it this way, Davies is trusted to play in a back 3, nobody would consider Rose in that position would they - does that not speak to being a superior defender?

Similarly, Rose is a born and bread winger who was converted to LB, where it took him a good few years to actually be any good. Davies is a born and bread defender, it is what he is.

They have very contrasting styles, so much comes down to personal taste.

Statistically there is not much to choose between them as at the end of last season. By fine margins Davies the better defender, Rose the better attacker - but as @parklane1 points out - thats before Davies has really had time to develop. Now he is finding new levels with a run of games and I agree with Parklane he will become the superior player (if not already).

And of course, results, goals conceeded and scored - if anything have improved in Roses absence, so at the very least we havent missed him to any great degree.



*No football fan snobbery. Everyone sees and enjoys different things in a game. Personally I love a big tackle that gets people off their seats - but equally I love the subtle 5yard movement that prevented the whole scenario in the first place. Physicality is great, but intelligence is the thing that really makes a game interesting to me.

Very good post, and Davies is three years younger then Rose so has still to reach his peak. The comparison you make between tackling and intercepting is a very good one and sums up a real top player. I am still of the opinion that one of the best defenders i have ever seen was Bobby Moore ( probably someone young fans would have never had the luck to have seen).

 

[billyiddo]

As a defender? Its the difference between Carrick and Palacios.

One is always in the right place doing it quietly and efficiently, the other is throwing in and fighting and winning. How you appreciate either really depends on what you look for in a player/how you enjoy the game*.

Maybe Rose is a better tackler (if so its not by a huge amount), but is it not better to not need to tackle in the first place?

Davies seems to just Usher trouble away so simply, its brilliant. He intercepts, closes avenues, shuts down angles, and its all so basic it goes unnoticed.

Look at it this way, Davies is trusted to play in a back 3, nobody would consider Rose in that position would they - does that not speak to being a superior defender?

Similarly, Rose is a born and bread winger who was converted to LB, where it took him a good few years to actually be any good. Davies is a born and bread defender, it is what he is.

They have very contrasting styles, so much comes down to personal taste.

Statistically there is not much to choose between them as at the end of last season. By fine margins Davies the better defender, Rose the better attacker - but as @parklane1 points out - thats before Davies has really had time to develop. Now he is finding new levels with a run of games and I agree with Parklane he will become the superior player (if not already).

And of course, results, goals conceeded and scored - if anything have improved in Roses absence, so at the very least we havent missed him to any great degree.



*No football fan snobbery. Everyone sees and enjoys different things in a game. Personally I love a big tackle that gets people off their seats - but equally I love the subtle 5yard movement that prevented the whole scenario in the first place. Physicality is great, but intelligence is the thing that really makes a game interesting to me.

Rose intercepts at almost three times the rate of Davies (last season's numbers) - that'd suggest to me the angle you are coming at to talk Davies up over Rose is all wrong - better to not make the tackle at all? Better to usher away the trouble? Rose for me does all that and the interception numbers would go someway to backing that up.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Thats a shocking stat and certainly not one Id believe on the evidence of my own eyes.

Rose is regularly out of position and chasing back and getting into battles accordingly.

Davies most often just doesnt get in that position. He doesnt lose the ball as much, and is almost always perfectly positioned.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Just looking on here
http://www.squawka.com/comparison-m..._suffered/fouls_committed/total_duels_%#total

Its an odd one.

Thats premier league only.

Clearly more interceptions to Rose, though theres nowhere I can see to see where they happen. Also more fouls drawn and committed, and tackles lost.

Davies more clearances, more aerial duels won, blocks.

Its interesting.

 

[billyiddo]

Thats a shocking stat and certainly not one Id believe on the evidence of my own eyes.

Rose is regularly out of position and chasing back and getting into battles accordingly.

Davies most often just doesnt get in that position. He doesnt lose the ball as much, and is almost always perfectly positioned.

It's a similar argument that was made against Walker and a rather lazy one imo - that he uses his pace to get out of trouble and that he is constantly out of position - do you really think Pochettino would trust a player as first choice if they were constantly out of position? Much more likely is that pace is an attribute as much as any other and if a player possesses it they should use it to their advantage - Rose attacks higher up the pitch and gets in to scoring position inside the opposition box at 4-5 times that of Davies, he takes people on much more frequently higher up the pitch and create a more chances higher up the pitch in and around the box - he does all that because he has the pace to get back in to position and defend when required - which he does all game every game, that leads to a higher tackle count but the fact we concede very few chances down his side (note as well here he plays more games against stronger opposition) coupled with his higher interception numbers suggests he has the balance spot on - for me he's the perfect modern attacking full back/wing back (as was Walker)

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Its not lazy at all. His recovery skills were exceptional and were regularly used because he was easy to disposes and expose, or be played in behind.

I think it is telling that we switched to a 3-5-2 to accomodate both Walker and Rose more - to cover their weaknesses. And that in the case of Walker Trippier was then preferred as he is much better in attacking areas. Having covered the defensive frailty* his lack of attacking contribution was really exposed.

The case of Rose hasnt been resolved yet because he has been injured - though my suspicion now is that he is far from a cert to be first choice on his return. In fact I think he is going to be back up, and ultimately sold. With us buying a younger player to develop behind Davies much like Davies developed behind Rose.

Honestly, I do believe with the new shape Rose's lack of genuine attacking quality will also be exposed and he will befall a simlar fate. If its another £50m+ deal to fund some major squad improvements like Walker I wont shed a tear at all.

That said, if he comes in determined to win his place it can only be good for us.

 

[billyiddo]

what?!? lack of attacking quality? changing formation to cover defensive frailties? we switched to 352 to give us more attacking threat, not to cover defensive frailties - the switch to wing backs stretched our opponents as the full backs were given more licence to attack the final third, we went from struggling to break down stubborn teams to blowing them away and having Walker and Rose bombing up and down the wings was a huge part of that process. It's no surprise to me that having no Walker and no Rose in the lineup has seen a return of opponents being able to frustrate us by sitting back and crowded out their defensive third. Davies and Trippier are both solid support players but when teams intend on frustrating your play you need attacking intent from the wide areas, give them both an opening and they are more than capable of punishing you - defend deep and crowd out the middle and they dont have it in them to counter that.

Stick Rose and Walker in our line up for the Burnley and Swansea games at Wembley and we score more than 1 goal in 180 minutes, they'd be running at opponents and making things happen - not pushing up in support of a congested central area where we were being crowded out of and waiting for an opening that was never going to come to them - they'd be beating their men and/or running in behind getting on to the ball in dangerous positions, forcing the opposition to leave gaps and create space for our central players.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Plus how do you think Conte would have reacted in the semi-final (plus at Wembley earlier this season) when he saw that we had Davies and Tripper instead of Rose and Walker? That combination totally made Chelski ineffective at WHL in January as they are full-backs who can attack AND defend in equal measure as opposed to Moses and Alonso who are either a) more defensive an can attack (Alonso) or b) actually an attacker who can run back but more often than not doesn't need to (Moses).

The pace of Rose and Walker meant we penned them back and often created more space in the middle for Wanyama, Demeble and by proxy Eriksen who was floating. That then led to one of Costa, Hazard and Pedro having to play deeper just to try and make up their cm numbers. It was a tactical masterstroke by Poch that only worked because of Rose and Walker's qualities in defence, attack, pace and drive.
I'm convinced that we would have won the semi-final had we had both playing.

Don't get me wrong i like all four of last year's full-backs but let's not belittle Rose and Walker's qualities and how key they were for us against the big boys when we went to 3 at the back.

 

[DeleHarry]

Stick Rose and Walker in our line up for the Burnley and Swansea games at Wembley and we score more than 1 goal in 180 minutes, they'd be running at opponents and making things happen - not pushing up in support of a congested central area where we were being crowded out of and waiting for an opening that was never going to come to them - they'd be beating their men and/or running in behind getting on to the ball in dangerous positions, forcing the opposition to leave gaps and create space for our central players.

there was no space for the full backs in those games to run into. Rose and Walker wouldnt have made much difference. You cant run into space when the opponents are sitting so deep and are unwilling to commit men forward.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Neither Rose nor Walker are particularly good in an attacking sense. Ill stand by that, have done for years.

The difference between Walker and Trippier in attack is night and day. Walker could play a nice ball inside the full back but thats about it. No intelligence in his passing, crossing haphazard at best, too ponderous on the ball. As an attacker he is limited.

Compare to Trippier who plays the ball smartly and accurately, has a hell of a cross, passes early when it really makes a difference...

Offering pace and width is only part of the equation. Doing naff all once you get there kind of negates it. When we play City, if Walker breaks past our LB I will not be worried, put it that way.


The 3-5-2 switch was obviously somewhat nuanced - but I dont think its unfair to point out that reliving defensive duties on the FBs made us stronger at the back. Its also made the like of Vertonghen a much more impactful player. With 3 at the back he doesnt have to babysit the LB area so much and look what he is doing now.

And having released Walker of his defensive duty, we promptly replaced him with a better attacker. So what does that say for him, really?

I dont buy that Rose and Walker would have got us more goals in those games. The players we played offered the same width, and offered better use of the ball in forward areas - the problem was the park-the-bus attitude of those teams. Something we have struggled with for years.

 

[DeleHarry]

Plus how do you think Conte would have reacted in the semi-final (plus at Wembley earlier this season) when he saw that we had Davies and Tripper instead of Rose and Walker? That combination totally made Chelski ineffective at WHL in January as they are full-backs who can attack AND defend in equal measure as opposed to Moses and Alonso who are either a) more defensive an can attack (Alonso) or b) actually an attacker who can run back but more often than not doesn't need to (Moses).

The pace of Rose and Walker meant we penned them back and often created more space in the middle for Wanyama, Demeble and by proxy Eriksen who was floating. That then led to one of Costa, Hazard and Pedro having to play deeper just to try and make up their cm numbers. It was a tactical masterstroke by Poch that only worked because of Rose and Walker's qualities in defence, attack, pace and drive.
I'm convinced that we would have won the semi-final had we had both playing.

Don't get me wrong i like all four of last year's full-backs but let's not belittle Rose and Walker's qualities and how key they were for us against the big boys when we went to 3 at the back.

but didnt we play quite well in the semi? we dominated Chelski and they simply scored some outstanding goals to win the game.

 

[billyiddo]

there was no space for the full backs in those games to run into. Rose and Walker wouldnt have made much difference. You cant run into space when the opponents are sitting so deep and are unwilling to commit men forward.

run with the ball i meant, not purely running in behind looking to be thread through - Walker and Rose both commit opposition players in to closing them down when they run in with the ball - it was a clear benefit of the switch in formation that helped stretch tight opposition defenses creating space enough for other players to cause damage.

 

[glorygloryeze]

@nayimfromthehalfwayline do you honestly think Walker's apparent attitude problems over wages and wanting to move to City had no bearing on why we "replaced him with a better attacker"?
Did you not see the Chelsea game earlier in the season and the fact that Moses and Alonso were more on the front foot as they didn't fear Trippier or Alonso getting in behind them?

Also, do you think we just bought Aurier for 23m 'for a laugh'?