Ben Davies

[glorygloryeze]

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

I agree we did play well, but how many times did we get in behind? How many times did they target our wb areas and break on us?

 

[DeleHarry]

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.

i understand that but we are doing fine without them, and have done since Rose has been out for so long. That is not minimising what Walker and Rose offered, its just that Davies and Trippier offer something else. Actually having the four of them was perfect for Poch and he rotated them well

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

@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'?

I think Pochettino always does what is best for the team. I dont think he gets personal.

Rose has had an outburst, if he comes in and is brilliant I have no doubt he will stay in - even if Pochettino hates his guts.

We went with wing backs, relieving defensive duties, we then switched to a player with a far superior passing/crossing ability. Its really not that complicated is it?

Chelsea? We battered them for the most part but were undone by the fact they were more clinical than we were. An issue we have had for most of the early part of the season, nothing to do with the full backs.
By the way, that game we had twice the possession, twice the shots, thrice shots on target (they scored with both of theirs) and 4 times the corners. "Attacking" and "getting in behind" were not issues, "finishing" was.


We got Aurier because we had only one RB/WB and of course needed another. Long term I actually think Aurier will be better than both Walker and Trippier - which lets be honest, is a proper way to improve a squad.

 

[billyiddo]

i understand that but we are doing fine without them, and have done since Rose has been out for so long. That is not minimising what Walker and Rose offer, its just that Davies and Trippier offer something else. Actually having the four of them was perfect for Poch and he rotated them well

im not talking down either Trippier or Davies - i appreciate and value them both and both have an important role to play for us and do their jobs very well.

Trippier and Davies however do not offer the attacking intent that Walker and Rose provided which, imo, made us such a difficult side to defend against - having full backs/wing backs that take the responsibility to make things happen in the final third as opposed to ones which support the central players and wait for the right openings makes us a team harder to defend against, especially against sides intent on parking the bus.

 

[DeleHarry]

I agree we did play well, but how many times did we get in behind? How many times did they target our wb areas and break on us?

imo if Walker and Rose had played that game then Conte would have come up with a gameplan to minimise their effect. Just because we did a number on them earlier in the season at home doesnt mean that the same would have happened again. Conte is a winner, very very clever and he would have anyway stopped Rose and walker getting in behind.

 

[Lemonade Money]

Needs a song.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

imo if Walker and Rose had played that game then Conte would have come up with a gameplan to minimise their effect. Just because we did a number on them earlier in the season at home doesnt mean that the same would have happened again. Conte is a winner, very very clever and he would have anyway stopped Rose and walker getting in behind.

They already sat back to hit us on the break, I doubt he would have changed much at all.

 

[billyiddo]

They already sat back to hit us on the break, I doubt he would have changed much at all.

he would have attacked their defensive lines from deep/wide creating space for players centrally to work in - creating a half yard more of space for Eriksen Kane and Alli can be all it takes. would Walker himself have created an assist or scored a goal? possibly not but his mere presence and intent in the final third would have had a knock-on effect for those around him - it's why, for me, Danny Roses high shots number/low on target % is more of a positive than Davies low shot number/high on target % (and similar stats you will use to highlight Davies as a better attacker) - full backs/wing backs arent attacking midfielders or strikers - they're not going to have high conversion rates, if they did they'd more than likely be playing in those attacking positions as standard - what they bring is giving the opposition defense more to worry about, more to drag them out of position and create space for your attacking talent to cause damage and play off of - Trippier might have better assist stats than Walker and Davies may have a better shot to goal ratio or whatever but Rose and Walker attack with more frequency - which in turn makes us harder and more tiring to defend against as our 'attacking three' get more space and less defensive focus in which to operate.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Except, well, we havent been lacking in attack at all, have we? I believe we scored marginally more goals last season with Davies than Rose. From accross the team, while largely dominating sides. Genuinely, Ive never seen the comment "I wish we had Rose there, we really miss him".

And I do believe Trippier has more of a positive in attack, even if he doesnt explictitly create space like Walker does ("as much", of course he does it).

And heres the thing, the stats with Davies tell me two things only.

Davies is more efficient/effective with the explicit action. His passes and crosses are more reliable because they hit the mark.

Rose throws a lot but only sticks the same amount as Davies.

You infer from that that Rose is creating space and opportunity in doing so. I wonder, what do you think Davies is doing?

Of course some of Roses wayward balls will bounce around and create something. The higher percentage though are going to be lost. Out of play, to the opposition, behind our attackers and so stilting our attacks... All in all the quantity over quality argument falls down, for me.

In the meantime, we know Davies passing and crosses are more likely to be successful. And while he isnt passing and crossing in an intentional attacking capacity he is still in the game. Providing width, keeping posession, linking play. All the while the ball isnt just thrown in its being used by the team in a constructive way.

This is my preference. Clearly you like Roses style more, as I said previously - we disagree, and thats football. Im quite comfortable with that.

 

[billyiddo]

Except, well, we havent been lacking in attack at all, have we? I believe we scored marginally more goals last season with Davies than Rose. From accross the team, while largely dominating sides. Genuinely, Ive never seen the comment "I wish we had Rose there, we really miss him".

And I do believe Trippier has more of a positive in attack, even if he doesnt explictitly create space like Walker does ("as much", of course he does it).

And heres the thing, the stats with Davies tell me two things only.

Davies is more efficient/effective with the explicit action. His passes and crosses are more reliable because they hit the mark.

Rose throws a lot but only sticks the same amount as Davies.

You infer from that that Rose is creating space and opportunity in doing so. I wonder, what do you think Davies is doing?

Of course some of Roses wayward balls will bounce around and create something. The higher percentage though are going to be lost. Out of play, to the opposition, behind our attackers and so stilting our attacks... All in all the quantity over quality argument falls down, for me.

In the meantime, we know Davies passing and crosses are more likely to be successful. And while he isnt passing and crossing in an intentional attacking capacity he is still in the game. Providing width, keeping posession, linking play. All the while the ball isnt just thrown in its being used by the team in a constructive way.

This is my preference. Clearly you like Roses style more, as I said previously - we disagree, and thats football. Im quite comfortable with that.

well no that's not true, he throws more and as a result more of it sticks, not as a % of course but in pure numbers he creates more chances than Davies and has a higher scoring rate too (last season and beyond at least) he also gets in to the box to shoot 4 to 5 times as much as Davies which would highlight that he gets in to the opposition box to cause trouble much more overall and is thus a bigger threat to the opposition defense and in games like Swansea and Burnley where we struggle to make things happen due to being crowded out i think that's important to have in the team, in the wide areas

Davies supports the attacking players, he relies on them to create him openings and he relies on them making space to create chances for them - as we saw against Burnley and Swansea if the attacking three arent on their game or are being crowded out then Davies becomes peripheral to proceedings in attack (imo) as he doesn't have the attacking intent that Rose has to make stuff happen off his own back - i dont think ive ever left a game thinking Rose was quiet in attack

no worries if we disagree and am happy to leave it there - i just wanted to counter the idea that because Trippier and Davies perhaps have a better effectiveness individually in areas like shooting/crossing - it doesn't mean that they are the better attackers as for me it's more important to see intent, for the reasons already stated.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Thats not true at all.

Chances created last season - Rose 26, Davies 27 (Davies 15 so far this season).
Goals: Rose 2 and Davies 1 (Davies 2 this season)
Asists: Rose 2 and Davies 3 (Davies 2 this season)
Shots: Rose 23 and Davies 13 (Davies 10 this season)
Shot Accuracy: Rose 33% (so 7.59 on target?) and Davies 67% (so 8.71) (50% this season, 5)
Shots inside area: Rose 11 and Davies 3 (this season 6)
Shots outside area: Rose 12 and Davies 10 (this season 4)

The only thing Rose does considerably more than Davies, on the evidence of last season (which Ill add to below*) is shots, though his goals and assists are no better and his accuracy far worse. While I accept that a shot in itself, even a failed one, can make a difference, I dont really buy it as a real strength to define one player over another. It could be argued every missed shot is lost possession for example, and there are plenty of consequences of that. Hardly a set in stone thing either way, if you see what I mean?

Same as getting in the box. Yes he makes runs, shows intent and "makes things happen". At the same time he leaves our flank exposed or someone has to fill in for him. What of the counter argument that Davies more supporting style (in your words) allows the likes of Eriksen/Alli MORE freedom to get into the box and REALLY make things happen? This kind of argument is easy to switch back and forth, isnt it?

*I think its not an unfair observation to say Davies wasnt particularly attacking when he came into the team, and that he has consistently improved this aspect of his game. Adding Davies numbers from this season supports this, I feel. He created 27 chances in 23 games last season, this season he has 15 in 6 - thats clearly a steep upward trend. Most other stats support this.

Davies wont dribble past players and whip in a cross. At least, rarely. He will prefer to play a triangle, move into space recieving the 1-2 and cross. Theres a case for preference there, but either way a defender is getting pulled around, a player is finding space and a cross is being made - so really whats the difference?

Ultimately I actually think Davies is grossly underatted as an attacker because of style/aesthetics.

Unsurprisingly I actually think Rose (like Walker) is rather over rated as an attacking player, largely for the same reasons.

Thats not to say I dont rate Rose, or that I think he isnt any good in attack. Theres a gradient, isnt there?

Our difference here is as I said orignally, choose your flavour. What do you enoy in the game? What is it that grabs your attention? What is it you notice?

All this informs how you view a player/situation. Clearly we see these things differently.

 

[billyiddo]

don't want to be a pedant mate but you really should use 'per 90' to get the relevant totals number - Davies played a good few games more than Rose last season and adjusting for per 90 puts Rose top in those areas i believe and it's only shooting accuracy that Davies would come out on top in.

it ultimately comes down to fine margins - we're a very good team and Rose and Davies are both very good players regardless which one you prefer and the majority of the time it isn't going to make a bit of difference to the overall result who plays as i think Pochettino sets the team up differently to compensate for whichever full back is playing and their particular strengths and weaknesses - however fine margins can be the difference between success and failure, i personally see us struggling more against packed defenses this season with Davies playing than if Rose were and games against the big teams where Rose usually excels (imo - as much of a 'big game player' as anyone else in this squad)

we've already dropped 7 points in the types of games im talking about (v the top teams and packed defenses) obviously it's not as simple as comparing like for like but at the same time with Rose in the team v those three sides at home we collected 9 points

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Looking at that squawka page Rose played 1530 minutes and Davies 1739, a difference of 2.3 games.

So while you make a fair point I dont think it breaks the logic in my post at all.

Funnily enough the squawka pages says Davies had 5 more games, so this improves my view of the numbers!

 

[parklane1]

Both players have their strengths and have supporters of which one is the best, Stop! Hammer time and i doubt anyone will change theirs. The thing Davies has going for him is that he 3 years younger and not at his peak yet, if some think he is already better then Rose ( and imo he is) then IF he keeps improving their is a very good chance that he will outstrip him.

 

[Bullet]

Woah that escalated. Son played left back vs Chelsea.

 

[Alaric]

As much as I have been impressed with Davies, I really would prefer to have a fit, in-form Rose for lfc, man u, city, chels, arse and city. Rose has an aggression that I like to see in big matches.

 

[LCLC]

End of the day it's football and it's typical fan behaviour. He hasn't played in 8 months so People forget just how good rose is and has been since 2015. So far Davies has been excellent this seaon so people forget just how average has been at times over the same period. If Davies has a dip in form then people will probably go over the top on how good rose is/was. Fans are fickle and have short memories.

The one thing I do agree with Billy on is that Davies plays a supporting role whereas rose can often take the game by the scruff of the neck. Rose sets the tempo, lifts the side during a lethargic period and makes and creates chances for himself. That is worth its weight in gold. Both are good options to have and we really don't want either to leave, especially to a rival.

 

[braineclipse]

we've already dropped 7 points in the types of games im talking about (v the top teams and packed defenses) obviously it's not as simple as comparing like for like but at the same time with Rose in the team v those three sides at home we collected 9 points

You're right. It's absolutely not as simple as that. Small sample size? I really struggle to see what you think looking at those 3 games is supposed to do for this conversation.

 

[billyiddo]

You're right. It's absolutely not as simple as that. Small sample size? I really struggle to see what you think looking at those 3 games is supposed to do for this conversation.

It was a tidbit at the end of the conversation rather than its sole focus mate, just used to highlight the type of games I am worried about dropping points in that I mention in the post you took that particular sentence from - the type of games I think swing things in favour of Danny Rose are small in sample size; home games v defensive sides and games v top 4 rivals - probably only looking at ten(+/-) games over the course of a season. If come the end of the season we have done well in the rest of those types of matches without Rose in the side then I will be more than happy to hold my hands up.

Games where opponents are more open to attack and are not as capable defensively to do so without leaving space for our attacking players to cause damage aren't the types of games that I expect the full back positions to matter a great deal with regards to who plays.

 

[braineclipse]

It was a tidbit at the end of the conversation rather than its sole focus mate, just used to highlight the type of games I am worried about dropping points in that I mention in the post you took that particular sentence from - the type of games I think swing things in favour of Danny Rose are small in sample size; home games v defensive sides and games v top 4 rivals - probably only looking at ten(+/-) games over the course of a season. If come the end of the season we have done well in the rest of those types of matches without Rose in the side then I will be more than happy to hold my hands up.

Games where opponents are more open to attack and are not as capable defensively to do so without leaving space for our attacking players to cause damage aren't the types of games that I expect the full back positions to matter a great deal with regards to who plays.

5 other top 4 rivals is ten games. Many teams sit back against us at home too. Add domestic cups and Europe and I think we're looking at a lot more than 10 games a season.

Dortmund are as good as several of our top 4 rivals. Saudi Sportswashing Machine sat back. APOEL sat back... And the points dropped you talk about were down to fine margins as much as anything, trying to pin that pin Davies seems very strange to me.

Like others have pointed out, they played about as much as each other last season. What happens if we look at all of that instead of the 3 games you cherry picked?

Just to be clear, I like Danny Rose a lot.