What's new

Dier or Dawson?

Who was the better defender

  • Dier

    Votes: 67 29.4%
  • Dawson

    Votes: 161 70.6%

  • Total voters
    228

Finchyid

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2017
4,105
12,828
Dier was a better footballer for me...Loved them both and its great to see Daws on sky being positive about us
 

Dzejkob

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2012
787
3,218
Daws definitely. He was captain for long time, starter for few seasons, great partnership with King. He was proper defender. I think Dier career suffered because of him changing position so often. He was not good enough in any position he played. I think he would made very good Premier League level CB if he kept playing as CB. But that would require him to leave Spurs few years ago probably.
 

aliyid

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2004
7,310
21,282
Nice question...

Better player Dier but the question is better defender and for that I have to go Dawson. He was a real body on the line defender who would wear his heart on his sleeve and gave everything. Dier is able to read the game much better and cover many positions but for pure defensive ability I'd have to go Daws every day
 

Real_madyidd

The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
Oct 25, 2004
18,849
12,578
Picking multiple winner of player of the year Michael Dawson is an easy win.
 

Super Pav

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2021
208
418
Have to vote for Daws,lives in our village,got to know him pretty well as know his Dad through work,as everybody knows he's just a cracking unassuming lad.
 

George94

George
Feb 1, 2015
3,740
19,729
Come on now there's only one correct answer here... 👀

Nah, I love them both - Dier for those two seasons he played in midfield was quality, but I'd say Dawson was a much better centre back.

Not to say Dier doesn't love Spurs but Michael Dawson just IS Spurs
 

Hazelton

Unknown Member
Jul 11, 2011
6,312
22,281
Dier is the better player, Dawson was the better defender. I was never really convinced that Dier was a CB, I feel his best form with us was at CDM. Both incredible leaders and great servants.
 

Sophos151

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2016
792
2,559
Was with you right up until the last line. We never had the depth. In 2016-17 we had the best first XI in the league by a mile, the best attack, the best defence. We didn’t win the title because we had more injuries than Chelsea, but also they just had better options. I know Poch fucked up picking Sonny at LWB in the semi, but it was 2-2 and they brought on Fabregas, Hazard and Costa. We brought on Kevin Nkoudou
That’s a bit misleading because they rotated from the start. They had Batshuayi up front where we had Kane. We also had Walker on the bench - and could’ve had Son as an impact sub if we hadn’t randomly used him as a wingback.
 

Locotoro

Prince of Zamunda
Sep 2, 2004
9,727
15,015
Really interesting question.

If we're talking about putting them in our current side I'd take Dawson simply because I think he's a better defender and his passing is underrated.

But I also think we need to judge Dier as pre-injury Dier where he was aggressive and had a bit of speed and then it becomes a different conversation.

Pre-injury Dier at CB is probably a definite rotational option for us
 

Dazzazzad

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,294
4,624
Dawson 4 caps when England weren't very good.

Dier 49 caps when England were a real force.

We were also a much weaker team so I think Dawson held up a bit more because the bar was lower. Dier was in title challenges and champions league regularly - the team around him was superior so he was judged to a higher standard.

I think if they had played at the same time it would be clear Dier was the better player.
 

FuturistiC123

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2021
179
761
With great respect to both players Dier was not only a better defender, he was an infinitely better footballer. When we had the likes of Woodgate available to partner King, Dawson rarely got a look in. Dawson was a poor passer of the ball, his lumps forward to the right wing rarely found their mark.

Dier on the other hand was a more than capable right back, he could play in a back 3 or 4, or as a mid just in front of the back line. He generally used the ball well, unfortunately for him injury and illness took it s toll, but even then he came back and played well under Conte and we made the top 4. On top of that Dawson was a ball watcher, who often left holes for attackers to penetrate.

One of our chief failings down the years has been our constant failure to support the several great players we have had in sides by fielding too many average ones along side them. Great heart and desire are admirable. Daws would run all day, and he had some great moments, but as Greaves used to say about newly promoted players who ran their socks off, effort is great but is he a good player. Fortunately, it looks as if we've finally got the message.
 

XIIIMPC

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2010
406
926
Similar, in that both reached a point where I felt like we'd just evolved past needing them and their time was clearly at an end a year or two before they actually left. But different in the sense that arguably Dier's best time for us was a DM, not at CB.

Overall, hard not to go with Dier given he played at a higher level and was more versatile.
 
Last edited:

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
20,050
50,065
Dawson all day every day but Dier was a top bloke and actually for me was at his best as that CDM under Poch when we played 4-2-3-1 and he'd drop back into make a back 3 in the build up, he did ok under Conte too but I just loved Daws he was a proper out and out defender, Dier if he'd just played one position for us would probably have more respect but I think like most players who have the ability of playing a multitude of positions it takes away from their legacy and perceived quality a bit.
 
Top