After being crowned the Premier League Player of the Season for the 2020/21 campaign, Rúben Dias has been scrutinised and compared with many of the top centre-backs in the league. A lot of Leicester City fans believe Wesley Fofana’s excellent first season in the English top-flight deserves equal recognition.
When comparing the two players, you have to contextualise the roles they play – are they an aggressor in the centre-back pairing (seeking tackles and blocks), or are they the dictator (holding a deeper position, vocal and commanding). You have to outline the quality of the team they feature for, but also how much/little possession they have – teams that reside in the lower half of the table tend to have defenders that are more “active”, completing more tackles, interceptions and blocks per 90 versus the “elite” central defenders – whose team will dominate possession thus limiting chances to perform defensive actions.
It’s through this widen contextualised lens that you can fairly compare two players, and this also highlights why Rúben Dias’ campaign has been honoured with an individual award. I would also like to preface this by saying that I thought Wesley Fofana was Leicester City’s second best player this season – behind Youri Tielemans, and considering this was his debut campaign (of which he started aged 19) is an unbelievable achievement.
If we’re strictly comparing their individual statistics, Fofana leads the Portuguese international for almost all of the “defensive” metrics. Ball recoveries, tackles made, aerial duals won, ground duals won, clearances and interceptions (on a per 90 basis) are all victorious for the Frenchman – with Dias making more blocks. But, had these metrics been, what we refer to as “possession adjusted” – where the amount of possession a team has is calculated in reference with their performances inside an “off-the-ball” metric (tackle, block, interception, etc.), then Dias would’ve performed a lot better.
Because of three key principles; Fofana being the aggressor in the defensive partnership, the Foxes formation (allowing three central defenders), and Leicester City seeing less of the ball than Manchester City, Fofana is perceived to be the “better” defender through these metrics. Realistically, both defenders are exceptional, but to draw assumptions purely over their performances in these metrics – without context – would be disingenuous.
As I’ve already mentioned, Fofana is definitely the aggressive defender inside the partnership at the back, when playing as a two, and is given a lot of freedom to press, tackle, and intercept when fielded as the wide centre-back in a three. In Manchester City’s composition, Dias is the dictator and controller of the backline – allowing either Stones or the defensive-midfielder to initiate in tackles. Instead, he drops off and holds conservative positions – again, hamstringing his ability to score highly in the aforementioned metrics.
This season, Pep Guardiola exclusively utilised formations with a back four, meaning Dias would only play inside of a two. Often, the only “defending” the centre-backs will do is last ditch – in one-vs-one’s with the opposing forwards. With Leicester shifting to a back three for the majority of this season, Fofana could be a lot more active as one of the wide centre-backs. They’re given freedom to occasionally press into midfield and a lot more license to aggressively pursue forwards. Dias is the equivalent of Jonny Evans for the Foxes – a more composed presence at the back, adding assurance.
However, I don’t think Dias’ season would’ve been as influential had the Citizens not provided such an adept level of cover for their defenders. They’re one of the best pressing sides in the league, so a lot of turnovers occur in the opposing half – not reaching Dias or John Stones, and they play with a fixed defensive-midfielder in either Fernandinho or Rodrí (two of the better DM’s in the league). The one example of Manchester City playing without a recognised defensive-midfielder was in the UEFA Champions League final, and I though Dias was quite poor throughout that game. His tracking of Timo Werner vacated the central space that allowed Chelsea to score, and eventually win the game.
Overall, I think the comparison doesn’t accurately portray the players influence on their respective clubs. I think Dias was deserving of an award, especially considering Manchester City’s dominance domestically since his arrival; but I also felt Fofana’s season deserved a nomination for the Young Player of the Season. Ultimately, when you see two players being compared try and contextualise their roles, instead of being fixated on the numbers in any given metrics. You can check the stats for your self by comparing the two here, at WhoScored.