Banter 2009/2010

Originally Posted by GeoTav

Flamini as LB ?
Last season, and in Arsenal in some games, Flamini played as a RB and did well (even if he doesn't like that position). Does that mean he can be a good LB ? He played only once or twice there when he was in Arsenal and wasn't that good, do you think it's a good choice to use him there, to try him in a CL game ? And if Leo did it (the result could have been worse), everyone would have said that the loss was because of Leo's choice ...

Brilliant idea !!

Flamini didn't play RB for Arsenal but LB, and that wasn't for "some games" but for whole season, and it wasn't like "he wasn't that good", he was very good, Ashley Cole was injured for whole season and his absence didn't felt, because Flamini was good.

I've never said that Leonardo should "risk" with Flamini in CL game, I said that he should try him at LB EARLIER! Whatever you or anyone else here think about Leo, you must admit it's not logical to have three good players fight for one position, when we are short for (one) good cover on many positions. At the time, Ambrosini was our main DM, Gattuso was cover, Flamini rarely got the chance, even to come from the bench. He was used in cup games. It was logical that Leo tries him at SB sometimes before most important games of the season (i.e., CL elimination phase), because the man shoved he's capable of playing good, even great, games at both flanks, and at the same time we were short for cover at SB positions, and not just that, but our only good replacement CB was one of the starting side backs.

You don't have to say it, I will say it, Antonini's injury and Favalli's introduction cost us for losing the game we should won by any counts. If we had replacement side back who could step in so that our system stayed intact (which means, high defense and pressure game), we would surely win that game. Favalli's introduction meant that our defense can't play high anymore, which meant no pressure anymore, and a LOT of pressure on our 3-man aging midfield, that was left to fight all alone on enormously big space, with attack too high and defense too low, and that's was the reason we lost that game. If someone don't understand this, with defense playing high there's a LOT less unclosed space on the field, and that's why we dominated in first half and we were outplayed in the second. I drew a simple and quick picture in paint to demonstrate this:

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/6222/field.jpg

Now, with the simple calculation for rectangle, unclosed space surface is 1575 meters (35*45) for A, and 2250 meters for B. Which means, in every defensive action in second half every of our 3 midfielders theoretically had to cover 225 meters of space more than in the first half.

Knowing that, the fact that the cross leading to second goal came from Favalli's side means nothing comparing to what his introduction did with our game overall.