Defensive/holding midfielder....

[ponsaelius]

Liverpool's problem once they got rid of Alonso was they had Lucas and Mascherano in midfield. Both of those players are negative and only served to split the team in 2.

yup and without alonso to get the ball to gerrard and torres they were feeding off scraps, aqualini i suppose was the apparent replacement but hes a crock

 

The thing with Aquilani is he's more like Gerrard than Alonso. It was a stupid signing allround.

[Magpie]

Agree with the the posts about it being a luxury position but would much rather prefer having someone in the middle with more defensive capabilities than two box to box midfielders. Especially away from home, someone constantly shielding the defence.

[jdckelly]

Agree with the the posts about it being a luxury position but would much rather prefer having someone in the middle with more defensive capabilities than two box to box midfielders. Especially away from home, someone constantly shielding the defence.

we could always resign nicky butt if that makes you feel better?

[KaKa]

Basically, we could do with a midfielder with a bit more athleticism, energy and mobility to compliment the ones we currently have. We currently have too many of the same sorts at the moment. The likes of Kevin Prince Boateng or Reo-Coker would both be really good, despite not being classic DMs per se.

[Keefaz]

DMs are old-hat. Nee one was interested in them until Makalele starting winning the world. DM tends to mean limited footballer playing predictably. You invite pressure, tbh, unless he's a very capable player.

[Ishmael]

Only the less knowledgeable weren't aware of the role up until Makalele tbh

 

Some shocking opinions and beliefs in this thread.

[TaylorJ_01]

Defensive midfielders can be the most important part of a team. If you have one that can actually play instead of being a thug then counter-attacks etc will be far more effective.

[Keefaz]

Only the less knowledgeable weren't aware of the role up until Makalele tbh

 

Some shocking opinions and beliefs in this thread.

 

Who said people were unaware of the role? There was a time when all your pundits started discussing the 'Makelele role' and it became fashionable. Or did I just dream that?

[Dave]

Nope. Since then it's become the best thing since sliced bread and every team must have one. It's tiresome tbh.

[ElDiablo]

Don't need one. Barton, Gosling, Guthrie and at a push Nolan, Perch and Smith is decent enough for us this season. We need a striker and cover on the wings so we don't have to push one of the above out there.

[Skirge]

Is a DCM different to a holding central midfielder? ?

with our back four we need two, and its a system I like.. I know the Colo debate but I think he would be great in the two man holding CM system.

 

--------------Harper

 

S.Tay----Sol-------Willi------Jose

 

---------Colo--------Guth

Rout--------------------------Jonas

----------------Arfa

 

---------------Carroll

[Dave]

 

Just give it up man. Coloccini isn't going to be playing in midfield.

[Nobody]

Get Colo back to CB and Barton playing where you've got Colo now, and that would be our best team if we sign Ben Arfa.

[Skirge]

I know I know but it was to help the DCM debate as non of our CM players are really defensive minded, not as a natural part of their game anyway. Smith will do the job with dedication but its not really what he about, or any good at.

[ponsaelius]

Colo is our best CB, keep him there.

[Guest sittingontheball]

A lot of successful teams going way back when have had a gritty midfielder. David McCreery was one of my favourite players when I was a kid. I always remember him putting in amazing saving tackles when the opposition had (what looked like from the Scoreboard) a five vs. one break after another hopeless Toon corner.

 

The best gritty midfielders like Souness, Keano etc. all seem to transcend the simple destroyer role and actively contribute to attacks. More recently Essien too can spray it about (that pass to Sturridge yesterday!) and find the top corner from distance.

 

As Barry vs. Ozil showed, don't underestimate pace for any midfielder with major defensive responsibilities.

[Skirge]

He is and I would BUT IF a DCM was a MUST he is the only option is what I am trying to say, he would sit there and defend midfield, protect the back four. Nolan, Barton & Guthrie would at some point go missing and leave the role going looking for glory.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Basically, a DM is a luxury position for the select few teams who will dominate posession in basically all their matches.

 

Like Dave said, even Liverpool couldn't pull it off once they got rid of Xabi.  If we tried it, it would be utter f***ing suicide.

This is nonsensical. Liverpool couldn't pull anything off because they had one striker, one good midfielder other than Mascherano and a poor defence. Javier still didi his job in a decimated team, but the positiion is not some magical elixir. The team's deficiencies in other aspects where far too much to overcome. I think this team would be better off playing some version of 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, in which case a holding player is mandatory. What's suicidal is expecting Barton and Guthrie and Gosling to provide effective cover for the defence at this level of football. If we were a ery athletic side, then I would be perfectly fine with a flat 2, but we are not and players should have fixed roles.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Nope. Since then it's become the best thing since sliced bread and every team must have one. It's tiresome tbh.

It has always been a useful part of the game. People just picked up on it in England when he was at Chelsea because that team was so dominant. He was not an original in any way, and at Chelsea Obi and Essi have taken the same position (both have also been more forward thinking than Claude).

[tmonkey]

I think we could do with someone who sits in front of the defense and looks to check any runs/mop things up, or at least have the option to play someone who can perform that role competently should we want it. The assumption being of course that this "defensive midfield" would also be a semi-competent footballers with good physique (so not like Nicky Butt during our relegation season basically).

 

The problem we have is that with Guthrie, Nolan, Smith, Barton, et all, is that they're all slow, poor in the tackle, and easily overrun by faster/more energetic midfielders. Furthermore, I don't think any of them have the mentality required to actually do a decent covering/defensive job on top of looking to spread the play/get forward/etc - i.e. tracking opposition runs, blocking players off, being aware of those runs or where to position themselves defensively, so on and so forth. It's not a part of any of their games. Hence, I fear that centrally we'll be vulnerable to opposition midfielders waltzing into the box unmarked every game just like they did the year we went down. I'd go so far as to say that it's a sight we've seen so often for years now that we're just used to it, which is something Hughton shouldn't accept. Even in the Championship there were games where opposition midfielders were running untracked freely into our box with our central midfielders looking on 20 yards further back (and we were lucky that we weren't punished for it in that mediocre league).

 

Maybe that fear isn't justified as it's based on a slightly different team from 2 seasons ago, but the signs are there that the same problems potentially exist, and ultimately those problems have created this situation where it's hard to criticise the defense and supposed bad defending with conviction when you know that there's zero cover being provided by those in front of them. Would a competent defensive midfielder solve this problem, assuming it exists? Possibly. It should at least go some way to plugging some of the gaps we might be seeing every other week.

[Tachikoma]

Well, going by personal experience, its a nightmare to play CB without a DM who intercepts passes in front of you. So yes, I think we could do with one in the squad.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

I think we desperately need a CM. we're going to be defending to the hilt at times this season, and CH looks to have some organisation going in the way of defending as a unit, but adding someone who will be a defensive link between the back 4 and those in front is crucial. Just another defensive body in there that has tackling, marking and defensive awareness to his game.

 

We will be bombarded by better teams passoing around us. It'll be a damn sight harder against 5 than it would be against 4.

 

Its a must!

[High Five o]

We are going to need to buy a much better DM if we are going to be using 2 wingers, neither will offer the necessary cover defensively to help the likes of Smith at this level.

 

Shame the Arevalo deal isnt real.

 

Barton will do as DM.

 

Barton is a box to box midfielder, as is Guthrie as is Gosling. We need someone to just sit in front of the back 4 and break attacks up. The only person who barely resembles that is Smith, and he's not exactly an expert at it.

 

No we don't. We seemed to do alright when we had Speed and Lee together.

 

That is ages since mate, football evolve.

Pretty much all the good teams have a good DM to offload the defence.

And it allows the fullbacks to go on offensive runs more often.

 

It might be the most important role for our team next season....

if you are going to play two orthodox wide men in a 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1) then don't have a DM. 2 clever box to boxers are much better. yes pretty much all the good team have a good DM, pretty much none of them play a standard 4-4-2 like we look to be sizing up for.

 

I see your point, but i still disagree.

442 old school style did not have a dedicated DM, but most have it now.

They are not so defensive as in a 433 or 4231, but they are there, and they do a job.

When Manu are playing 442, carrick usually play DM. He holds back and play in support.

He is a deep defensive playmaker when in attack, and a "protector" when in defence.

He is there to interupt a counter attack, and try to break down play.

 

Two box-box will leave a massive hole infront of the center backs.

Exposing them for a lot of pressure, especially on counter attacks.

Wingbacks will be forced to stay more in defence due to this.

and i'll disagree here, two box to box men feed off each other and don't leave the gap as they read each others game and one drops into a position where they can get to the protective position (gary speed was excellent at this, getting into positions where he can aid position aswell as help the centre halves or full back.

 

todays game is more about movement and nouse than ever before. having a dedicated DM negates this. you'll find there will be arguments over who are the good DM's as many will say they are just central midfielders doing their job at doing a bit of everything (ie scheinsteiger and khedira above)

 

I agree with you that todays game are more fluent than before, and positions are not that strict are the was before.

 

A good box-box is a player (imo all of this by the way) is a player who bombs into the oppositions box when possible, and track back when ball is lost.

Often they are on the wrong side when a team breaks down play.

They tend to be more a good allrounders, often with a edge in attack. (Gerrard, Lamps, scholes etc)

However they are often missing the "defensive" mindset of a good DM, and thats why i am more fan of two dedicated roles on the middle.

 

Essien is a perfect expample of near perfect box-box imo, he is so much better when he is allowd to go forward for Chealsea. Also, he is good defensive.

But those players are rare.

 

 

I am more found of specializing a play to do a primary job.

A DM dont have to be a bulldozer, and they rearly are in todays game.

What we look after in a DM are a player with a good football head, capable to read the game, and anticipate a situation before it happens.

Be there to intercept the passings, pick up runs, kill open spaces so the attacking team are neglected much room to roam.

Not many players are excellent on this, does who are, tend to be "anonymous" work ants on the middle.

 

What i look after are 2 players, with specializing in two different roles, one primary defensive, and one offensive.

As you say, its very fluid now, and todays top midfields can do both.

So if we break down a attack, and the primary DM is in a great counter position, he will go for it, and the OM will hold back in the more deep role.

But in normal play, the roles are reversed.

 

There are two aspects of this, its the formation on the paper, and they players filling the roles.

 

But this is just how i look at it, and persons and managers have different views of it.

 

*WTF does this have to do with Ben Arfa anyways 

 

 

This is my post on the Ben Arfa tread.

 

My view is that in a 2 man CM we can not afford a so deep role as in a 3 man CM.

But imo we need a player with a DM mindset, who have the football head and the skill to protect the back 4.

He needs to read the game perfect, and be able to pick up attacking play.

 

Modern DMs is not the bulldozer type "all in" tackler as we remember (a little like Mascherano ), but a smart "playing" DMs as

Carrick, Busquets Mikel etc.

 

We dont currently have one of these, Guthrie & Barton is far to often out of possition defensive.

Smith is a old school bulldozer type, he does not have the "smartness" in play to pick up oppositions attack, way to often he rushes into a tackle ,and are quite easy to get out of position.

 

 

[Ishmael]

I think I love Minister Babatunde, he's saved me a lot of time with his excellent posts.

[JH]

I just don't get it - if you want another man 'to protect the back' then you're practically asking to play 5 in defence.

 

It's not as if having someone in the DM position is as important as having someone in the GK position.