I have traditionally looked at tackles + intercepts total.

however yesterday I looked at the stats for the melbourne victory sfc game and if you just looked at tackles + intercepts you would think mv were significantly better defensively. Funny enough most stats sites dont even include missed tackles so it is hard to keep track of this aspect of overseas aussie defenders

Also some player considered good defenders have relatively low tackles + intercepts

What was unusual was the number of missed tackles in the mv sfc game where mv were way way way above normal. Here only Geria was a good performer by that metric

One way to include missed tackles is to look at 1v1 defensive duels (tackles - missed tackles) however I'm starting to wonder if even this underestimates how detrimental missed tackles are to a defense

Iirc our best defenders that I have looked at (all positions) for missed tackles are spira mooy and franjic. Of these only mooy does well on tackles + intercepts metric whereas spira does ok and franjic does poorly

valeri and sfc's italian defender both have very low tackling rates but don't make many mistakes and they are considered good defenders at least by many on this forum

what are peoples thoughts :-k

Edited by grazorblade: 28/1/2014 02:46:39 AM

I've always been taught that the best defenders don't tackle until they absolutely need to. So in my opinion if you are making a lot of tackles shows either you're poor in other defensive aspects or your teammates are letting you down.

here is an interesting article which partially answers my question

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/10/defensive-metrics-an-introduction/

perhaps missed tackles and tackles+intercepts per opposition pass are more informative metrics although difficult to use

Goals conceded.

yes thats obviously a good way to judge a teams defense but im talking about individuals

Could always watch the game and make an assessment from what you see instead of what numbers on a page tell you.........

Back 4 plus DM - attack situations created by opposition.

It's all very subjective of course.

It was a bit facetious of me but I really can't see what other metric is of use. People boil down an attacker to being good by their goals per game, defenders should be the same.

Agree 100%, except if a striker scores it's a stat in his favour while if a defender makes an error but the striker fails to finish it doesn't mean it isn't the defender's error.

Not fair to judge a Right back on goals conceded if the rest of the defence is useless. By that reckoning, all 4 players in the backline are of equal ability.

Also many goals are conceded due to the midfield being overrun. So the main blame of certain goals could be the DM letting his player run through.

Tackling 1v1 duels.

Heading 1v1 duals.

General strength 1v1 duels.

1v1 duels in terms of speed.

Intercepts.

Causing turnovers for one's team.




Positioning is hard to measure in statistical calculus.

Lucas Neill looks okay in many of the aforementioned criteria, although declining in 1v1 heading and tacking over the last few years, but is often out of position as a part of a collective unit.

Also, ability to organise players around oneself as a cohesive unit, particularly when the team is in Ball Possession Opposition and Defensive Transitions.

Organisational ability of others is also significant in Attacking Transitions and Ball Possession.

It may be a question of losing tackles. If a defender stays on one's feet, using sound jockeying and showing technique, and is rarely beaten, like Culina and Jade North in their Socceroo tenures, it is better than committing and losing. These two players were mobile, nimble on their feet and able to change direction quickly.

Players like Grella, Neill (earlier in his Socceroo career) Milligan, Ogger, Moore, Jedinak and Holland, win a lot more tackles than they lose. They risk the challenge more often, but can cause effective accelerated attacks when the other team is unprepared when they are in Ball Possession, then being in a Defensive Transition.

A player like Carl Valeri, is not particularly good in either aforementioned category. As Australia's midfield depth increases, he will struggle for a position in the squad.

When Valeri played there was less competition for the DM position, although Grella and Culina were probably our best to play the position and kept him out of the team.

As a Socceroo in the 1v1 defensive aspects , causing turnovers and making intercepts, Valeri struggles in all except intercepts. His reading of the game has improved in this facet of the game.

Valeri probably doesn't make many mistakes, and stays part of a team unit in a compact defensive structure. However, he doesn't cause turnovers from defensive pressure in his team's BPO enough. To compound this he is weak in the air and not a good tackler or jockeyer.

Valeri looks good when the ball is given to him from behind to play forwards. He makes diagonal passing lanes so he can receive the ball in an effective body shape to play forwards on both sides of the body.

A player in his position needs to be able to cause the other team to lose the ball in his team Ball Possession Opposition phase of play and the transitions.

There's a difference between measuring a player's defensive attributes (tackling, interceptions, heading) and their defensive ability (positioning, awareness, decision making).

It's the same problem that people have when measuring intelligence - measuring things like education, IQ, etc can get you close but you're not quite measuring intelligence.

Just keep in mind what criteria you are using to measure players when you start making comparisons and then use your subjective knowledge of football to fill in the rest.