Great teams with a poor defence?

[Elite]

The hallmark of a great team is a great defence but are there any anomalies?

 

I'm trying to think through the teams that dominated from when I started watching football in the mid-90's and I can't think of any successful team without at least 1 or 2 world class defenders complimented by other good defenders.

 

I don't mean a team that won the odd trophy, I'm talking about teams that had consistent success over at least 2 seasons.

[Trumo]

Brazil 1982. Fantastic midfield and attack, but a defence comprised of 4 David Luiz's and a CL-final level Karius in goal.

[manwiththestick]

City.

[KMD7]

51 minutes ago, Trumo said:

Brazil 1982. Fantastic midfield and attack, but a defence comprised of 4 David Luiz's and a CL-final level Karius in goal.

First team I thought of. Fucking Junior 

[Lee909]

4 minutes ago, KMD7 said:

First team I thought of. Fucking Junior 

Junior was the best of them though not really a defender at club level. 

 

You look at that team and its pretty overrated. They played some good football but very few great players in it. 

 

Socrates and Zico aside it's not brilliant 

Falcao and Cerezo where very good but not going to win you much. 

Eder, Serginho. 

 

 

You do wonder though if Careca hadn't got injured with the attacking trio of Socrates, Zico and Careca covered up the rest

[KMD7]

6 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

Junior was the best of them though not really a defender at club level. 

 

You look at that team and its pretty overrated. They played some good football but very few great players in it. 

 

Socrates and Zico aside it's not brilliant 

Falcao and Cerezo where very good but not going to win you much. 

Eder, Serginho. 

 

 

You do wonder though if Careca hadn't got injured with the attacking trio of Socrates, Zico and Careca covered up the rest

Not sure I agree with you mate. They were the top rated team going into it and had been pretty much unbeatable for a few years before it. 

 

Agree with you on their defense though. 

[Kevin D]

Guardiola's Barca team springs to mind. 

 

They were wide open defensively, had Mascherano as a CB and it didn't matter, because nobody could get the ball off them.

[Lee909]

17 minutes ago, KMD7 said:

Not sure I agree with you mate. They were the top rated team going into it and had been pretty much unbeatable for a few years before it. 

 

Agree with you on their defense though. 

For me, a lot of these national teams where overrated as they were not watched all that often. 

 

7 players of that starting 11 where not anywhere close to the quality of the other 4. That's what I mean about overrated. We have seen enough how having 4 players can often get you over the line but fail at the highest level. As I said Careca might have been enough to get them over line despite how poor elsewhere

[KMD7]

3 minutes ago, Lee909 said:

For me, a lot of these national teams where overrated as they were not watched all that often. 

 

7 players of that starting 11 where not anywhere close to the quality of the other 4. That's what I mean about overrated. We have seen enough how having 4 players can often get you over the line but fail at the highest level. As I said Careca might have been enough to get them over line despite how poor elsewhere

Fair enough Lee. Still played tremendous footy though. Careca was a loss alright. 

[TheHowieLama]

Falcao wasn't going to win you a match?

Easily one of the best midfielders of his time.

[Lee909]

4 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Falcao wasn't going to win you a match?

Easily one of the best midfielders of his time.

He wasn't really a match winner in terms of goals etc is what I mean. He wasn't a Gerrard etc, turning games. I know it wasn't really his role. But without other talent he wasn't doing it on his own the way Socrates or Zico would for them. That's not meant as he's crap, just he needed talent in front of him to do his job. 

 

The main point was that 7 of that 11 where not that great at all. That's purely what I meant by overrated. Zico and Socrates absolutely top class all time XI players. Falcao and Cerezo both top players at that time but a step down from the other two. The rest not even close to either level

[TheHowieLama]

@Lee909

Everybody in the world was a step down from Zico and Socrates - I think Falcao chipped in for a fair few important goals for both club and country but I take your point.

 

The first team I thought of was the early Napoli side with Maradona the first year, then add Careca.

It had a very young Ferrara in it but he was not yet the player he would become.

 

TBH I don't think you can be a great side with a poor defence. Guess it depends on your definition of great though.

[Harry Squatter]

Newcastle under Keegan.wouldt say they were the definition of great because they never won anything. Good to watch and should have won the league in 1996 but the defence was shite.

[Trumo]

You can be a great side with a mediocre defence, but you need a style of play that masks your defensive deficiencies without compromising your potency in attack. It's true that Guardiola has been the one in recent years come the closest to doing it that way, and largely because he looks to dominate possession. If the opponents never see the ball, or only get the ball in non-threatening positions, they can't get at you and hurt you. There's always the tactical foul if/when the opponents actually manage to threaten.

[TheHowieLama]

As to what Lee had said, national sides can get away with it. Argentina in 86 was really not that good.

 

Pep had Pique/Puyol and Alves in defense at Barcelona - at Bayern he had Lahm, Boateng, Alaba. That is better than mediocre.

Really only this last season without LaPorte has he not had very good players at the back - and that is after he spent nearly 200m on his fullbacks.

[Captain Turdseye]

2 hours ago, Doctor Troy said:

Newcastle under Keegan.wouldt say they were the definition of great because they never won anything. Good to watch and should have won the league in 1996 but the defence was shite.

If you’re going down that road then our 13/14 side beats them 6-5. 

[Ron B]

Cruyff’s Barcelona. 
 

I won’t deny that they had good footballers at the back. What I do question is how good those players were as defenders. The entire side was attack-minded, and the defence was built around Ronald Koeman - a converted midfielder who was never really fast enough to be an obvious fit for a team who weren’t dominating. Even Graham Taylor’s England made him look a mug at the heart of defence.

 

Obviously the 1994 Champions League final stands out, when they lost 4-0 to a Milan team who were missing Baresi, Costacurta, Van Basten and Lentini through injury, and who couldn’t feature Jean-Pierre Papin or Brian Laudrup because of the three-foreigner rule. 
 

That Barcelona side were never tight at the back. They won the title on goal difference that same season because they scored 91 and conceded 42, whereas Deportivo were 54 for 18 against. They actually won four titles on the bounce from 1990-91 onwards, and were always top scorers, but their nearest challengers always had tighter defences. Then the hole fell out of their arses from 1994-95, when they finished fourth, and only two side in the top half of the table leaked more goals. 

[aRdja]

United before Stam arrived? Their centre backs were Pallister, Ronny Johnsen and David May.

[TheHowieLama]

19 minutes ago, Ron B said:

Cruyff’s Barcelona. 
 

I won’t deny that they had good footballers at the back. What I do question is how good those players were as defenders. The entire side was attack-minded, and the defence was built around Ronald Koeman - a converted midfielder who was never really fast enough to be an obvious fit for a team who weren’t dominating. Even Graham Taylor’s England made him look a mug at the heart of defence.

 

Obviously the 1994 Champions League final stands out, when they lost 4-0 to a Milan team who were missing Baresi, Costacurta, Van Basten and Lentini through injury, and who couldn’t feature Jean-Pierre Papin or Brian Laudrup because of the three-foreigner rule. 
 

That Barcelona side were never tight at the back. They won the title on goal difference that same season because they scored 91 and conceded 42, whereas Deportivo were 54 for 18 against. They actually won four titles on the bounce from 1990-91 onwards, and were always top scorers, but their nearest challengers always had tighter defences. Then the hole fell out of their arses from 1994-95, when they finished fourth, and only two side in the top half of the table leaked more goals. 

Good shout here, they scored a shedload of golas.

M Laudrup, Romario and Stoichkov tought to beat.

 

Deportivo was anti football at the time. Like a negative Atletico

[Lee909]

56 minutes ago, aRdja said:

United before Stam arrived? Their centre backs were Pallister, Ronny Johnsen and David May.

Pallister doesn't deserve to be on the same list as them two. He'd be shown up today but so would most mid 90s Premier league defenders. Not as good as Stam obviously but if we would have signed him and a better goalkeeper than that useless twat James we would have won at least one title under Evans

[VladimirIlyich]

7 hours ago, aRdja said:

United before Stam arrived? Their centre backs were Pallister, Ronny Johnsen and David May.

Pallister was an excellent centre half and Bruce was a very good defender too. They had Schmeichel in goal too.

I hate United as much as anybody but Pallister,Bruce,Irwin and Schmeichel were solid and very effective.

[aRdja]

26 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Pallister was an excellent centre half and Bruce was a very good defender too. They had Schmeichel in goal too.

I hate United as much as anybody but Pallister,Bruce,Irwin and Schmeichel were solid and very effective.

Excellent centre half is pushing it IMHO. He was serviceable at best. I know NT caps ain’t everything but Mark Wright has more caps to his name than both Pallister and Bruce combined.
 

Yes @Sugar Ape, I read your excellent post regarding NT caps, but has to be be said 22 caps between May, Pallister and Bruce, to me, seems poor.

[VladimirIlyich]

1 minute ago, aRdja said:

Excellent centre half is pushing it IMHO. He was serviceable at best. 

No,he was very good,definitely excellent. It was why Kenny Dalglish made him a target but was forced to sign Glenn Hysen to replace Hansen instead of Pallister. United had an excellent defence at the time and it cannot be denied.

[Kevin D]

11 hours ago, TheHowieLama said:

As to what Lee had said, national sides can get away with it. Argentina in 86 was really not that good.

 

Pep had Pique/Puyol and Alves in defense at Barcelona - at Bayern he had Lahm, Boateng, Alaba. That is better than mediocre.

Really only this last season without LaPorte has he not had very good players at the back - and that is after he spent nearly 200m on his fullbacks.

 

Puyol and Pique were good players, but that's not what makes a good defence. There has to be positioning, discipline and cohesion amongst the whole back 5/6 and there seldom was. There were bits of brilliance from Puyol/Pique occasionally, but just as often they were scrambling all over the place and left in 2 on 1's because Abidal had been skinned or Alves was 35 yards out of position.

 

This Liverpool team would eat them alive on the counter.

[KMD7]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

No,he was very good,definitely excellent. It was why Kenny Dalglish made him a target but was forced to sign Glenn Hysen to replace Hansen instead of Pallister. United had an excellent defence at the time and it cannot be denied.

Yeah this. Bruce and Pallister were a good partnership.