Attacking midfielder

[Kasper]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

What would improve the problem is playing midfielders who can give the ball to the wingers or the forwards. Not give it away straight away.  I dont think putting more defensive minded players on the pitch (or "solid") is gonna fix this. Guthrie is a step in the right direction in my opinion. Comfortable on the ball, doesn't panic and passes often find the target.

 

And yes I obviously do think it's mostly the midfield's job to make sure the ball ends up in the right place. As that's where the ball is usually played from defense. Or where the ball is won.

 

I don't think we have to sign an attacking midfielder, but someone who's a good passer of the ball and possesses some footballing brain.  If he can put in a good tackle then even better.

[Baggio]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

What would improve the problem is playing midfielders who can give the ball to the wingers or the forwards. Not give it away straight away.  I dont think putting more defensive minded players on the pitch (or "solid") is gonna fix this. Guthrie is a step in the right direction in my opinion. Comfortable on the ball, doesn't panic and passes often find the target.

 

And yes I obviously do think it's mostly the midfield's job to make sure the ball ends up in the right place. As that's where the ball is usually played from defense. Or where the ball is won.

 

I don't think we have to sign an attacking midfielder, but someone who's a good passer of the ball and possesses some footballing brain.  If he can put in a good tackle then even better.

 

Have you been playing that Fifa game again?

[midds]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th. 

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

I didn't say we needed an attacking midfielder - we need someone to make things happen. If they play behind 2 strikers or in the hole is a different matter entirely. 

 

We should target the player rather than the position and build the attack around them. He'd never come but if we signed Arshavin then I'd play him just behind a single, mobile striker. If, however, we signed the next Fabregas, then I'd still play 2 up front and him just behind them with a diamond in midfield.

 

We need the player to make Keggy's system work - whatever it may be. Get the player and take it from there because we seem pretty impotent atm.

 

 

[Kasper]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

What would improve the problem is playing midfielders who can give the ball to the wingers or the forwards. Not give it away straight away.  I dont think putting more defensive minded players on the pitch (or "solid") is gonna fix this. Guthrie is a step in the right direction in my opinion. Comfortable on the ball, doesn't panic and passes often find the target.

 

And yes I obviously do think it's mostly the midfield's job to make sure the ball ends up in the right place. As that's where the ball is usually played from defense. Or where the ball is won.

 

I don't think we have to sign an attacking midfielder, but someone who's a good passer of the ball and possesses some footballing brain.  If he can put in a good tackle then even better.

 

Have you been playing that Fifa game again?

 

 

 

[Baggio]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

What would improve the problem is playing midfielders who can give the ball to the wingers or the forwards. Not give it away straight away.  I dont think putting more defensive minded players on the pitch (or "solid") is gonna fix this. Guthrie is a step in the right direction in my opinion. Comfortable on the ball, doesn't panic and passes often find the target.

 

And yes I obviously do think it's mostly the midfield's job to make sure the ball ends up in the right place. As that's where the ball is usually played from defense. Or where the ball is won.

 

I don't think we have to sign an attacking midfielder, but someone who's a good passer of the ball and possesses some footballing brain.  If he can put in a good tackle then even better.

 

Have you been playing that Fifa game again?

 

 

 

 

It was a joke man, calm down.

 

Good post too btw which didn't deserve my sarcastic reply.

 

 

[chicago_shearer]

The question that should be asked is whether Butt, Geremi & Guthrie are sufficient for what we realistically want to achieve: 5th-8th place.  (Forget Barton.  Until it's confirmed that he can play a major part this season, you might as well assume that he will face a lengthy suspension and plan accordingly.  No good whining when the inevitable happens.)  Secondly, does the prospect of shifting square pegs like Milner or Faye to central midfield strike you as creating substantial improvement?  For me, the answer is no on both counts.  In fact, it's a stupid idea.

 

Last season, the single biggest problem was the inability to retain and distribute the ball in midfield.  We got bossed about and allowed our opponents to dictate the game in the middle.  When we had the ball, we lacked both the creativity to create chances for our strikers and the technical ability to execute.  Your argument seems to be that our attacking players were to blame, and that our strikers and wingers weren't making the runs or getting in the right positions to take advantage.  That may be true to some extent, and the addition of Jonas will fix it.  But I have zero confidence in the abilities of Nicky Butt or Geremi.  I saw enough last season to convince me that you can't build a midfield around them.  This is a league where the top tier means players like Fabregas, Ballack, Essien & Carrick as their counterparts.  Even the second tier has players like Diarra, Modric & Cahill,

 

So you are left with Guthrie - looked good in preseason, but you are asking a Liverpool reject from Bolton to make a big step up in order to compensate.  If we can spend 10 million on a central defender, we should have invested in someone more proven.

 

I agree with you that the distinction between "attacking" and "defensive" midfielder is overdone.  What we really need is quality and we just don't have it. 

[Baggio]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

I didn't say we needed an attacking midfielder - we need someone to make things happen. If they play behind 2 strikers or in the hole is a different matter entirely. 

 

We should target the player rather than the position and build the attack around them. He'd never come but if we signed Arshavin then I'd play him just behind a single, mobile striker. If, however, we signed the next Fabregas, then I'd still play 2 up front and him just behind them with a diamond in midfield.

 

We need the player to make Keggy's system work - whatever it may be. Get the player and take it from there because we seem pretty impotent atm.

 

 

 

I agree with this too, for me Keegan needs to stick with the 4-3-1-2 formation that was so successful for us at the end of last season and I don't see why an attacking midfielder would be needed if that were the case, what he does need is a midfielder who can sit deep and spread the ball around.

[B-more Mag]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not s*** either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th. 

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

Shouldn't an attacking midfielder be skilled enough to link up with the strikers without significantly weakening the midfield?

[midds]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not shit either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th. 

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

I didn't say we needed an attacking midfielder - we need someone to make things happen. If they play behind 2 strikers or in the hole is a different matter entirely. 

 

We should target the player rather than the position and build the attack around them. He'd never come but if we signed Arshavin then I'd play him just behind a single, mobile striker. If, however, we signed the next Fabregas, then I'd still play 2 up front and him just behind them with a diamond in midfield.

 

We need the player to make Keggy's system work - whatever it may be. Get the player and take it from there because we seem pretty impotent atm.

 

 

 

I agree with this too, for me Keegan needs to stick with the 4-3-1-2 formation that was so successful for us at the end of last season and I don't see why an attacking midfielder would be needed if that were the case, what he does need is a midfielder who can sit deep and spread the ball around.

 

That would be very useful.

 

If we're going to go without wingers then a lot of the play is going to be going through the middle of the park. This means shit teams can sit in front of the D and compress the space and close things up. We either need to spread things using wingers or buy someone who can thread a pass. At this moment in time, we've not got either.

 

Ideally I'd like to see us play 4-2-3-1 but we've not got the squad for it. Our 2 would be nowhere near good enough to make it work. 

[Baggio]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not s*** either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th.   

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

Shouldn't an attacking midfielder be skilled enough to link up with the strikers without significantly weakening the midfield?

 

Feel free to throw some names up of who we could attract that could offer this.

[ChezGiven]

Is this thread actually about a new striker? Then i agree.

[Yorkie]

Some really interesting contributions to this thread.

 

So, from those that have seen the pre-season games, is Guthrie not the player that can sit deep and spread passes? For what it's worth, i know for a fucking fact that it's not Nicky Butt. Also, given his goals against Hartlepool and PSV, could Guthrie be capable of charging through into the box and getting a few goals?

 

I wish i wasn't so ignorant.

[B-more Mag]

We need someone who can make things happen. Pull the strings and cause a bit of bother in the final third.

 

We've not got anyone who frightens other teams. We're very much 'run-of-the-mill' going forward - nothing startling but not s*** either. An extra 15 goals could be the difference between 13th and 7th. 

 

Our problem at the moment is that there doesn't seem to be any link up between midfield and attack and I don't think it's necessarily the responsibility of the midfield, but surely that role should be filled by a striker or someone playing in a withdrawn striker role?

 

We've seen for ourselves how much a weak midfield can have on our ability to stop leaking goals, yet people are suggesting playing an attacking midfielder which wouldn't do anything to improve the problem.

 

Shouldn't an attacking midfielder be skilled enough to link up with the strikers without significantly weakening the midfield?

 

Feel free to throw some names up of who we could attract that could offer this.

 

No, that was actually a real question.

[johnnypd]

we do need someone positive/creative in midfield, but i also think it's just as important to replace butt as an anchor man. that's not to say midfielders should be strictly pigeonholed into AM or DM positions. if we were to play 4-4-2 i'd prefer two solid players comfortable on the ball. plenty of great attacking sides employ two defensive midfielders who let the rest of the side play. but when you have 3 midfielders it often makes more sense to give each man a more tailored and specific role so that they dont end up getting in each others way. it opens up the possibility that a team can have a dedicated creative midfielder who isnt doing much defensive work because there are two others behind him who can handle that.

 

it remains to be seen what formation we use for the coming season. if it is the 4-3-1-2 then Gutierrez could be the creative spark, tho his ability to cover ground and track back makes me think of him more as a box-to-box, filling in and doing a better job than geremi did on the right of the three.

 

Owen in a way acts as an attacking midfielder in this formation, tho his use of the ball is economical and simple, rather than creative or inspirational. its rare to see him create an opening for another. he's more likely to play a simple pass forward and try to break late into the box for the '2nd phase' of the attack. he's more of a Cahill esque finisher than an Arteta like creator.

 

apart from these two there's very little in terms of 'attacking' coming from midfielders. and anyway one is more considered a forward and the other as a winger, than as central midfielders.

 

in defensive midfield we seem equally light. Butt can do a passable job in a midfield three, but even then it's of a mid-table standard. in a 4-4-2 i think he's finished. last season when he and geremi played in the middle, he took up the role of the more attacking midfielder searching for chances on the periphery of the box and let geremi sit back, perhaps a sign of his inability to fulfill that role. Guthrie i don't see as having the physical strength, tackling ability or game reading nous to fill in as anchor man. he is decent on the ball though so can fill a number of positions if need be. so i still hope we bring someone in for this position, there was talk of Inler and Veloso though this has died down recently.

[TRon]

The question that should be asked is whether Butt, Geremi & Guthrie are sufficient for what we realistically want to achieve: 5th-8th place.  (Forget Barton.  Until it's confirmed that he can play a major part this season, you might as well assume that he will face a lengthy suspension and plan accordingly.  No good whining when the inevitable happens.)  Secondly, does the prospect of shifting square pegs like Milner or Faye to central midfield strike you as creating substantial improvement?  For me, the answer is no on both counts.  In fact, it's a stupid idea.

 

Last season, the single biggest problem was the inability to retain and distribute the ball in midfield.  We got bossed about and allowed our opponents to dictate the game in the middle.  When we had the ball, we lacked both the creativity to create chances for our strikers and the technical ability to execute.  Your argument seems to be that our attacking players were to blame, and that our strikers and wingers weren't making the runs or getting in the right positions to take advantage.  That may be true to some extent, and the addition of Jonas will fix it.  But I have zero confidence in the abilities of Nicky Butt or Geremi.  I saw enough last season to convince me that you can't build a midfield around them.  This is a league where the top tier means players like Fabregas, Ballack, Essien & Carrick as their counterparts.  Even the second tier has players like Diarra, Modric & Cahill,

 

So you are left with Guthrie - looked good in preseason, but you are asking a Liverpool reject from Bolton to make a big step up in order to compensate.  If we can spend 10 million on a central defender, we should have invested in someone more proven.

 

I agree with you that the distinction between "attacking" and "defensive" midfielder is overdone.  What we really need is quality and we just don't have it. 

 

Sums it all up rather nicely.

[madras]

baggio is only re-hashing and creating a thread out of what a few have been saying for a while (and a thread of its own is probably needed) about this seemingly footy manager fueled craze for "attacking" or defensive" central midfielders when we'd be better off with two players who do both (think gary speed/rob lee----even nicky butt when he had the legs was a lot more attacking than given credit for). the need for a player who can make things happen,unlock defences with slide rule passes is about 5%of the centre midfields job and most players can play these balls  IF THE MOVEMENT IS THERE. that is more what has been missing from our play than the player who can pass it there.

 

as someone earlier mantioned about being happy with butt/geremi/guthrie...well not really..butt hasn't the legs anymore,geremi basic passing is suspect and guthrie still an unknown quantity but as i've posted a few times on here i'd rather a rob lee than a riquelme.

 

as for gascoigne...he done it all and to class him as a purely attacking midfielder is silly and shallow.

[captainhaircut]

I'd like to think we might have a word with Valencia re Manuel Fernandes today.

 

He's the sort of midfielder who can do it all. Sit and spray it from deep and get forward and have a crack at goal. He's got bags of quality and his set pieces are handy as well.

[TRon]

baggio is only re-hashing and creating a thread out of what a few have been saying for a while (and a thread of its own is probably needed) about this seemingly footy manager fueled craze for "attacking" or defensive" central midfielders when we'd be better off with two players who do both (think gary speed/rob lee----even nicky butt when he had the legs was a lot more attacking than given credit for). the need for a player who can make things happen,unlock defences with slide rule passes is about 5%of the centre midfields job and most players can play these balls  IF THE MOVEMENT IS THERE. that is more what has been missing from our play than the player who can pass it there.

 

as someone earlier mantioned about being happy with butt/geremi/guthrie...well not really..butt hasn't the legs anymore,geremi basic passing is suspect and guthrie still an unknown quantity but as i've posted a few times on here i'd rather a rob lee than a riquelme.

 

as for gascoigne...he done it all and to class him as a purely attacking midfielder is silly and shallow.

 

I agree it's not really about one player but the midfield as a whole. The benchmark should be Spain whose midfield was head and shoulders above any other nation at the Euros. Obviously we are not going tobe able to buy so many world class midfielders, but we can compare them with what we've got and ask if our players are capable of reproducing anything close in terms of movement, passing, ball retention and invention.

[Tooj]

What's the obsession?

 

I've been saying this for ages.

[madras]

What's the obsession?

 

I've been saying this for ages.

i don't think you're the only one.

[buzza]

If Barton could come back and regain some of that elusive form from his man city days, we could pair him with guthrie and we'd have quite a "dynamic" midfield that should score goals and should also be able to regain possession of the ball when we don't have it...

Personally I'd like to see us buy a big dominant midfielder so that we can "boss" games more easily, I think we have been to lightweight here for a while. Somebody in the Viera/Keane/Essien type of mould...

[hakka]

What?

 

Seems to be the thing on here, how desperate we are for an attacking midfielder.

 

Can't see what the fuss is about tbh.

 

Did you not feel that we severely lacked some flair and creativity from the centre of midfield last season?  I felt it was one of our biggest problems, that we couldn't find a killer pass or spread the ball about quickly and accurately.  Also, we didn't have any driving runs or good dribbling from centre of midfield to put our opposition on the backfoot.  Nicky Butt tried to do both roles at times and it made him looking shocking as he can't pass the ball forward very well and his shooting is awful.

 

I feel that if we had a proper attacking midfielder that can grab the odd goal and can deliver decent set pieces and quality forward passes that we would have scored more goals and also taken the pressure of our defence as we wouldn't have lost the ball so easily higher up the pitch.

[Skirge]

Pre-season we have seen Guthrie split defenses wide open with inch perfect passing, is he a box to box Bowyer type player or a DCM?

In a 4-4-2 he would have to be the one to push on but in a 4-3-3 we would need a more creative player behind a front two and I still say Jonas can do that..

[Thespence]

What?

 

Seems to be the thing on here, how desperate we are for an attacking midfielder.

 

Can't see what the fuss is about tbh.

 

You made a case elsewhere saying we missed Dyer, would an attacking midfielder not do that job?

[Skirge]

What?

 

Seems to be the thing on here, how desperate we are for an attacking midfielder.

 

Can't see what the fuss is about tbh.

 

You made a case elsewhere saying we missed Dyer, would an attacking midfielder not do that job?

We miss Dyers pace and directness he was not exactly creative..