Attacking midfielder

[sugoinufc]

I think we need a central attacking midfielder (playmaker) type. we havent been able to create enough chances for some time and i see that as our biggest problem for the new season!

 

We have to spend big on a player for that position! but again, what formation will kk go for? we need someone with pace, creativity who also can work in a flat 4-4-2 if we wanna play with wings. im not sure a diamond formation is what we need!

 

another option is 4-4-1-1.....in such a formation diego, arshavin or mouthinho type would be great (know each of them are hard to get) But it would be easy to switch from that formation to a 4-4-2 or even a diamond if we are favorits!

 

 

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Where would Owen & Martins fit into a 4-4-1-1 with Diego, Arshavin or Moutinho playing the hole by the way? Or do you mean them actually being in the midfield four?

[Shak]

If we are going to play a flat 4-4-2 then we really do need a top signing to make it work. None of our current central midfielders to me seem capable of being the man to link midfield and attack, being our primary playmaker who most of the play goes through, to allow the wide men to stay wide and do their damage there.

 

Furthermore, none of our strikers are really that suited to dropping off into the hole and pulling the strings either, so if we're going with a 4-4-2 then I don't think we have the personnel to make it work at all. Whether it's an "attacking midfielder" or a striker who drops off the front and pulls the strings and makes the team tick from there, we need someone, as we've nobody capable of it at the minute as far as I can see.

 

The problem with this though is that you can then rely on that player to make you tick too much, which is why I'd prefer we stuck with the system we used at the end of last season.

 

A sitter, two box-to-box engine room types either side, a player floating between the midfield and attack and then two strikers. Doesn't really overly rely on any particular player to make it work, and is a vastly better fit for the players we have at our disposal at the minute. If there's anything in the Taiwo rumours (though I do tend to doubt it) then we'll have a much better suited full-back to make it work as well, so we'll see.

 

Anyway, I think that we'll make one more first-team signing, either a CM or a CF. That should prove a very good indication of what sort of setup we'll be going with next season.

[sugoinufc]

in difficult matches i think it could be alright to play 4 midfielders and in front of them (central) the attacking midfielder,forward, playmaker and behind the 1 striker (owen or martins).

 

But the new man behind the single striker needs to get forward and at the same time be good at creating chances and score himself.......but such a player is diffcult to find and very expensive!

 

I also think it would be "easy" to change the formation during games if necessary. for example 4-4-2 or diamond

[sugoinufc]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

[madras]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

[TRon]

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...

 

I wouldn't mind seeing Guthrie and Barton given a go together, although Barton was losing posession too easily last season. Hopefully he'll be a bit better without the hangovers.

 

While having a big dominant midfielder is useful, it's not essential. Man U did ok without one for long enough. The key is to get midfielders who will pass well and keep running into space.

[Parky]

What's the obsession?

 

You gimp.

[Shak]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

[NG32]

What's the obsession?

 

You gimp.

 

 

NOW HEY!!!

 

 

We need a play maker.  End of.

 

 

[madras]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

as opposed to having a defensive midfielder sitting back all game and not taking opportunities to get forward. the game is now more about movement than anythiong else and some people are trying make subbuteo players out of flesh and blood.

[Shak]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

as opposed to having a defensive midfielder sitting back all game and not taking opportunities to get forward. the game is now more about movement than anythiong else and some people are trying make subbuteo players out of flesh and blood.

 

Some are I guess, others would just like us to see us sign a player who can actually dictate the play a bit, as it's something we desperately need if we're going 4-4-2. "Attacking midfielder" is just a general term for a center midfielder who can offer a bit of quality going forward, as far as I'm concerned anyway, and that's a type of player we don't actually have IMO.

 

Personally hope we sign a forward and stick with the 4-3-3 myself, anyway.

[Dunedin]

Scott Brown is an improvement over the present bunch. If we do not strengthen the midfield ,I agree with earlier comments, we will watch the present incompetent t*ssers being over-run just like last season.

[johnnypd]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

as opposed to having a defensive midfielder sitting back all game and not taking opportunities to get forward. the game is now more about movement than anythiong else and some people are trying make subbuteo players out of flesh and blood.

 

Some are I guess, others would just like us to see us sign a player who can actually dictate the play a bit, as it's something we desperately need if we're going 4-4-2. "Attacking midfielder" is just a general term for a center midfielder who can offer a bit of quality going forward, as far as I'm concerned anyway, and that's a type of player we don't actually have IMO.

 

Personally hope we sign a forward and stick with the 4-3-3 myself, anyway.

 

exactly. think people are just attacking a straw man when they criticise talk of 'attacking' or 'defensive' midfielders.

[Baggio]

What's the obsession?

 

You gimp.

 

rofl

[sugoinufc]

                          given

 

beye      coloccini      taylor/faye      enrique

 

                ?             guthrie/faye

 

jonas/                                            charles/

milner                                             duff

 

                         ??

 

                        owen / martins

 

 

i would like us to have a compact midfield which also could be very flexible without large adjustments

 

 

 

[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?

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

 

He was an attacking midfielder.

[dustynrg]

Scott Brown is an improvement over the present bunch. If we do not strengthen the midfield ,I agree with earlier comments, we will watch the present incompetent t*ssers being over-run just like last season.

 

You're obviously having a laugh. Apart from fouling people he does nowt, we'd be getting a new Smith who plays in midfield.

[madras]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

as opposed to having a defensive midfielder sitting back all game and not taking opportunities to get forward. the game is now more about movement than anythiong else and some people are trying make subbuteo players out of flesh and blood.

 

Some are I guess, others would just like us to see us sign a player who can actually dictate the play a bit, as it's something we desperately need if we're going 4-4-2. "Attacking midfielder" is just a general term for a center midfielder who can offer a bit of quality going forward, as far as I'm concerned anyway, and that's a type of player we don't actually have IMO.

 

Personally hope we sign a forward and stick with the 4-3-3 myself, anyway.

 

exactly. think people are just attacking a straw man when they criticise talk of 'attacking' or 'defensive' midfielders.

but if he can offer that going forward aswell as strong defensivly why call him an "attacking midfielder" ?

[chicago_shearer]

The obsession about an "attacking midfielder" probably stems from the fact that we rely on Nicky Butt & Geremi, neither of whom are capable of attacking play, so we feel we need an attacking midfielder, because our present regulars are too old and slow to do the job themselves.  "Defensive midfielder" can be a kind way of labeling players that are too old and too slow to be of any use. 

 

In this league, it seems like all the best midfielders (with very rare exceptions) are capable of doing a bit of everything. 

 

 

 

[ujpest doza]

lets keep making threads just for the sake of it.

I thought that was the point of a message board/Forum?

[madras]

The obsession about an "attacking midfielder" probably stems from the fact that we rely on Nicky Butt & Geremi, neither of whom are capable of attacking play, so we feel we need an attacking midfielder, because our present regulars are too old and slow to do the job themselves.  "Defensive midfielder" can be a kind way of labeling players that are too old and too slow to be of any use. 

 

In this league, it seems like all the best midfielders (with very rare exceptions) are capable of doing a bit of everything. 

 

 

 

nah it's got more to do with kids watching highlghts of european games which onkly highlight on the goals and exciting bits which make big names out of players who turn it on for 2 mins but have been carried for the other 88. also i believe in footy manager type games a lot of players are marked  down as ACM or DCM.

[wor jackie]

Anyone from Diego, Moutinho, Skejlbred, Larsson and ad be happy. Modric would have made us complete. A really creative midfielder would see us looking very good in my john humble...

[chicago_shearer]

I'd look at Benayoun (Liverpool might let him go), Kranjcar (Pompey need the money, and out left isn't his best position) & Larsson (most likely).

[johnnypd]

dont believe in a flat 4-4-2 either....but i do like us to have 2 wide wingers. we need a person to link midfield (central) and attack. that should be first priority! these players could be hard to find because it a very important position if we go for that formation. He MUST be able to score himself or set up others!

 

 

 

why not...and heres a novel,blue sky,out of the box type idea.....have two box to box midfielders,who do it all ?

 

Sounds great in theory but they need to develop a very good understanding for that to work. You can't have two guys bombing forward all the time getting into the box, get it wrong and you'll empty out the midfield and get bummed on the break all day long.

 

I'm all for having good all-round midfielders who can interchange and not be just restricted to one role, but I do believe it's beneficial to have one guy who is instinctively more likely to sit and one whose more inclined to get forward.

as opposed to having a defensive midfielder sitting back all game and not taking opportunities to get forward. the game is now more about movement than anythiong else and some people are trying make subbuteo players out of flesh and blood.

 

Some are I guess, others would just like us to see us sign a player who can actually dictate the play a bit, as it's something we desperately need if we're going 4-4-2. "Attacking midfielder" is just a general term for a center midfielder who can offer a bit of quality going forward, as far as I'm concerned anyway, and that's a type of player we don't actually have IMO.

 

Personally hope we sign a forward and stick with the 4-3-3 myself, anyway.

 

exactly. think people are just attacking a straw man when they criticise talk of 'attacking' or 'defensive' midfielders.

but if he can offer that going forward aswell as strong defensivly why call him an "attacking midfielder" ?

 

you need a good balance/mixture of players in the middle of the park, two or three who can complement and dovetail with each other. at the moment we're short on players who can create from midfield and have been since the time of Solano, Dyer and Robert. from what i've seen Jonas can replace the strong running and pace Dyer offered but we're lacking Solano's ability to unlock a defence with a clever pass and the sheer end product of Robert. So people are focusing on a midfielder who can do some of these things and use the term attacking midfielder or creative midfielder (or centrocampista if you're parky) as short-hand. likewise with the term defensive midfield, i think people are looking for another gary speed, someone who tends to sit back but who is good on the ball and not averse to getting forward now and again.

 

i don't really think there's many people saying we should get an attacking midfielder who does that and nothing else. if there was such a player, they'd be pretty shit. far from doing nowt all game i find that attack minded midfielders tend to be at the centre of the game, always looking for the ball and making themselves available.

 

anyway a lot depends on the kind of formation we're likely to use. if it's a 4-4-2 then we might be better off focusing on two box to box types rather than one of this and one of the other. in a 4-3-3 tho there is more scope for specialist roles like when you have Makelele (DM), Essien (Box to box) and Lampard (attacking) or at liverpool with Mascherano, Alonso and Gerrard.  and again, not to say that a frank lampard or diego type does nothing all game and can be reduced down to a couple of highlight reel moments, or that Mascherano does nothing but tracking opposition players all game, it's just a short-hand to make discussions about types of player easier to understand.