Defensive/holding midfielder....

[AyeDubbleYoo]

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.

 

Well sort of, you're trying to prevent your defenders from being exposed to 1-on-1 situations too often, and having to make hero tackles to prevent chances.

 

I think to accommodate a totally defensive midfielder, you need other midfielders who are very mobile so as not to deprive attacks of the numbers they need to work.

 

If the rest of the team is static and unable to attack effectively, then I think you're right about it turning into a five-man defence.

[Ishmael]

Ideally I'd want a split of defence/attack of 6-4 as an extremely defensive outlook. A back 4 and 2 defensive midfielders would be essential - for me.

 

Something similar to Real Madrid under Capello when Emerson would sit very deep and never venture forward (i.e. the player we lack) and Diarra who, although defensively minded, would support attacks from his central position (what I would perceive as Barton's role). That allows for 4 other players, of which two need to operate from wide positions and 2 from central positions.

 

That is the framework of a truly balanced side.

[Dokko]

We need one, especially for tough away games which lets face are all our away games next season where we'd be happy with a point.

[JH]

6-4 is the framework of a balanced side? You sure about that?

[Ishmael]

Yes.

[High Five o]

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.

 

Having a good DM enables the wingback to be more offensive.

So you will not lose som much in attack.

 

And have a DM to protect the back 4 is not like having 1 more defender, not sure how you can say that tbh.

 

I think some people puting to much in the defensive in a DM. A good DM are involved in all aspects of the game, they play a part offensive, like a deep laying playmaker. But their primary role is to take out attacking runs, closing down and deny the attacking team room infront of the back 4.

[Neil]

Having a quality defensive midfielder makes an absolutely massive difference. Call him a deep-lying midfielder, a holding midfielder or whatever you want, having someone who is capable of being strong in the tackle and more importantly see a chance to intercept the ball before it gets into the final third, as well as distributing the ball to those around him, can only be of huge assistance.

 

That's not to say you need to actually have someone there doing that exact role, as having 2 'central' midfielders has its own benefits, but being realistic I don't think many teams are able to have (afford?) 2 quality players who can each perform all the roles required of a midfielder generally.

[polpolpol]

The required defensiveness of the midfield is proportional to the attacking-ness of the fullbacks, so given that: a) we have only one good fullback, b) we will have wingers providing width further up the pitch, c) the optimal shape of our back four is fairly flat; the main effect of forcing the midfield to hold would be a huge hole in the middle of the pitch – a kind of 'O' formation if you will – and the channelling of all of our attacking play down the flanks, leading to the one of the most wasteful forms of attack, the cross.

 

Sure, the holding midfielder has a role to play sometimes, but given every other known factor about how this season will play out, it seems woefully inapt.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There's one know factor that suggests a holding midfielder is required though - the fact that our defence will be horribly exposed through the middle and torn to shreds by most competent attacking sides.

[Cronky]

I think the Nicky Butt - type midfielder is becoming increasingly redundant at the top level. You can't have someone who is purely a ball-winner because a player in that anchor role actually gets a lot of possession and you can't afford to see them waste it, or slow every attack down.

[Guest je85]

I think the Nicky Butt - type midfielder is becoming increasingly redundant at the top level. You can't have someone who is purely a ball-winner because a player in that anchor role actually gets a lot of possession and you can't afford to see them waste it, or slow every attack down.

 

Quite well summed up by Zonal Marking here. Particulary this snippet

 

This is the first part of the story. The second part involves attacking tactics – now more than ever before based around short, quick passing in the final third. Therefore, intercepting is the new tackling. It’s not as spectacular, not as obvious, it won’t get the supporters on their feet (nowhere traditionally cheers a crunching tackle as much as English football terraces), but it’s just as useful. More so, in fact: by intercepting a pass to the player you’re marking, rather than tackling him when he gets the ball, you’re not risking a free-kick or a booking. You’re immediately in possession, whereas after a tackle, the ball can run away to an opponent. And there’s more chance of launching a quick counter-attack, and transforming defence into attack swiftly

[polpolpol]

There's one know factor that suggests a holding midfielder is required though - the fact that our defence will be horribly exposed through the middle and torn to shreds by most competent attacking sides.

 

Well, in that case the whole team is relatively further back, and you look to play through the opposition on the counter rather than go long immediately. Delimiting one guy's position to being 'defensive' and telling him to win the ball back is going to prove futile in stopping good teams attacking anyway, beyond his one opportunity to foul and pick up a yellow card.

[Guest]

I don't know where people are getting that the holding-midfielder only came in post-Makelele. Even when Keegan and the Entertainers were in full flow, he had Bracewell, Venison, converted Clark for a while and then Batty there.

[Dave]

Nobody has said that.

[Guest]

Ok, well that it only became seen as "important". Having one during those years was important for us in those years.

[Dave]

We were a good team then though, we could keep the ball.

[Guest]

I think if we're going to be playing with two out-and-out wingers, a target man and attacking midfielder (be that someone who arrives late like Nolan, or with flair like Ben Arfa), you need someone in there to break up the play and get the ball out wide or into the feet of Ben Arfa.

[Ishmael]

... we don't have one - of Premiership quality at least.  Fuck off Smith!

 

Anyway, as a result it's worrying that we haven't seen a strong link appear this summer.  I mean, there have been rumblings of us signing Arevalo, but it seems like agent gossip, or maybe our new transfer policy is doing what it says on the club statement?

 

Who else shares my fears?  Why isn't there a smiley at hand that can emphasize my worries?

 

Vindicated :smug:

[merlin]

Having a quality defensive midfielder makes an absolutely massive difference. Call him a deep-lying midfielder, a holding midfielder or whatever you want, having someone who is capable of being strong in the tackle and more importantly see a chance to intercept the ball before it gets into the final third, as well as distributing the ball to those around him, can only be of huge assistance.

 

That's not to say you need to actually have someone there doing that exact role, as having 2 'central' midfielders has its own benefits, but being realistic I don't think many teams are able to have (afford?) 2 quality players who can each perform all the roles required of a midfielder generally.

 

Agreed - all the great sides have had good defensive midfielders or ball-winners.

I reckon we would have won the title in 96 if David Batty had joined the club sooner because we were occasionally lightweight away from home...the 2-0 loss at OT was a case in point....

 

The best DMs are not just ball winners though - they can also play a bit. Don Revie's Leeds had Bremner and Giles, both of whom were good footballers but hard as nails. Likewise, Liverpool had Tommy Smith

and Emlyn Hughes under Shanks, then Souness. Clough had Dave Mackay in his first season back in the top league with Derby and even Fergie had Keane. In our best days(50's) we had the likes of Joe Harvey and Scoular.

 

We DO need this type of player to protect the defence, but the problem is we have a very limited budget and we need a striker as well..no good just stopping goals we need to score a few too, but on balance given the money shortage, I would go for the DM.

[Guest newcastleandrangers]

keane was a box to box player not a dm.

[Skirge]

Claude Makelele was the best DCM I have ever seen, not only so dedicated to the role he was immense at it.

 

He never went walk about, never pulled out of a 50/50, could read the game so well, I doubt we will ever see another real proper DCM like him.

[BONTEMPI]

If Tiote can break the oppositions play up and then play a simple ball, that's all i'd want out of him.

[Skirge]

If Tiote can break the oppositions play up and then play a simple ball, that's all i'd want out of him.

 

indeed....  win it play it, but play it short and simple don't fkn hoof it up to Carroll to flick on to no fker.

[madras]

If Tiote can break the oppositions play up and then play a simple ball, that's all i'd want out of him.

 

indeed....  win it play it, but play it short and simple don't fkn hoof it up to Carroll to flick on to no fker.

even better if he just has the nouse and ability to regularly play the right ball, be it long or short.

[Guest Mani]

Absolutely vital that we get a DM,

 

No matter if it's a 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3, 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1 

 

It's essential that a pure DM is present.  Look at all successful teams, past and future, they all have one.

 

This isn't a recent phenomenon.