• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Defensive Midfielder

Modric THFC

Jimmy McCormick
Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/dec/18/question-holding-midfielders-changing-role

The Question: what does the changing role of holding midfielders tell us?
From the point of view of tactical evolution this has been the year of the holding midfielder, though the term seems outdated

by Jonathan Wilson

Football is always evolving. It twists and turns, repeats and refines, its progression neither cyclical nor linear. Old traits that seemed forgotten, old ways of playing, crop up again, new contexts giving them new life. Roles divide and sub-divide, occasionally reunifying in startling way. Certain playing styles will remain seemingly inviolate for years, and then suddenly undergo change. From the point of view of tactical evolution, this has been the year of the holding midfielder.

At first the development from three-band into four-band formations – in England from a 4-4-2 default to a 4-2-3-1 default – led to the obvious splitting of the midfield role. The complete or box-to-box midfielders of the 80s found themselves consigned to a narrower role as midfield was divided into holders and creators. Over time, though, those roles have themselves become more specialised, in part because of the box-to-box players chafing against the restrictions imposed upon them.

The first development was that the two holding players in a 4-2-3-1 began to fall into one of two schools: the destroyer and the creator, the classic example of which was perhaps Javier Mascherano and Xabi Alonso at Liverpool. As Mascherano clattered about making tackles and collecting bookings, his role almost entirely of regaining possession and distributing it simply, Xabi Alonso, although capable of making tackles, focused on keeping the ball moving, occasionally raking long passes out to the flanks to change the angle of attack like an old-style regista.

Both types of player have always existed, of course – Nobby Stiles, Herbert Wimmer or Marco Tardelli being early examples of the Mascherano type, long before Claude Makelele gave the position a name; while Gérson, Glenn Hoddle or Sunday Oliseh could be seen as early incarnations of the Alonso type.

But as four-band systems have evolved to the point that the term midfielder seems hopelessly vague, so the taxonomy of the holders has expanded. Emirates Marketing Project, this season, provide a fascinating example. Last season they had in Gareth Barry a destroyer-type and while Javi García could play in that role this season, Manuel Pellegrini has tended to pair Fernandinho with Yaya Touré.

Although both can certainly make tackles, and both are capable of regaining the ball, both spent most of last season playing as the more creative player alongside a destroyer. Fernandinho is a fine long passer, but he is not an Alonso or an Andrea Pirlo type; he is not a regista. Rather he likes to make forward surges, just as Touré does, and, as he showed against Arsenal on Saturday, is more than capable of scoring goals when chances present themselves. Whether the similarity with Touré is an advantage in giving City an extraordinary variety of possible angles of attack or a weakness in that it can leave the back four unprotected is arguable – although there are signs that the relationship between the two is developing – but the wider point is that neither fits comfortably into the template of either regista or destroyer.

This is a third way, neither entirely destructive nor creative, and more prone to advancing form a deep position than either a Mascherano or an Alonso type. The third way is to be a carrier or surger, a player capable of making late runs or carrying the ball at his feet. Bastian Schweinsteiger perhaps fits into the same category. Sami Khedira is a destroyer with carrying tendencies. Luka Modric is a carrier with a hint of regista.

There is significance too in that when Javi García has been used it has largely been as a central defender – even if that has been forced on Pellegrini by injury. He may not have excelled in the role, but the use of a destroyer-type in a central defensive role is becoming increasingly common, from Mascherano at Barcelona to Gary Medel with Chile. In fact, it could be argued that the use of a holding midfielder in defence is characteristically bielsista – Marcello Bielsa pioneered the practice with his use of Juan Manuel Llop at Newell's Old Boys and was still doing it with Javi Martínez – emphatically a regista rather than destroyer – at Athletic Bilbao.

That seems indicative of the broadest of all trends, which is initially counterintuitive. As positions become more specialised, as we divide the holder into destroyer, regista and carrier, and all points in between, so the importance of formations has diminished. Terms like 4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 are useful as a rough guide, but only that: the higher the level, the more teams are agglomerations of bundles of attributes; the key is balance rather than fitting to some abstract designation, even if that shape can be useful in the defensive phase.

Specialisation, paradoxically, enables universality as players are defined less by their positions than by what they can do. How new that is is debatable: Colin Todd, to take just one example, played for Brian Clough's Derby County both in midfield and in the back four, but that sort of versatility fell increasingly out of fashion in the 80s and 90s as squads grew in size and the increase in the number of substitutes made it less important for players to be able to play in multiple positions.

It's almost 20 years since Carlos Alberto Parreira prophesied the future of football as 4-6 – four defenders providing a platform for six creative players who would constantly interchange. The past year or so has seen the resurgence of the out-and-out centre-forward – Robert Lewandowski, Falcao, Gonzalo Higuaín, Asamoah Gyan, Olivier Giroud – but even then a number of those who play as nines have also played or have the capacity to play either wide or as 10s – Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Edinson Cavani, Luis Suárez, Robin van Persie, Mario Mandzukic, Sergio Agüero, Diego Costa: the trend still seems to be towards universality though specialism.

The question, then, is whether, given how modern full-backs play often as wide midfielders, Parreira's 4-6 vision of the future has been overtaken by a 3-7, either as three centre-backs or two centre-backs with a destroyer just in front of them. That is another discussion, but what is true is that to speak of a holding role is merely to describe a player's position on the pitch and not how he interprets it.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

This is a third way, neither entirely destructive nor creative, and more prone to advancing form a deep position than either a Mascherano or an Alonso type. The third way is to be a carrier or surger, a player capable of making late runs or carrying the ball at his feet.

Isn't this the box-to-box midfielder reborn?

Also the destroyer type defensive midfielder dropping into central defence seems to echo how one of the half backs (usually the left) in the WM dropped back to become the second centre back in the 60s (e.g. players like Mackay or Beal).

The WM was also a four band system and the 4-2-3-1 is in someways a modifed WM (with an extra CB on only one insider forward). You could imagine the double team with Blanchflower and Mackay as the two and White in the ACM position. You'd only need to change Allen for an extra CB to have an excellent 4-2-3-1.

Brown

Baker Norman ANother Henry

Blanchflower Mackay

Dyson White Jones

Smith​
 
Last edited:
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

This is a third way, neither entirely destructive nor creative, and more prone to advancing form a deep position than either a Mascherano or an Alonso type. The third way is to be a carrier or surger, a player capable of making late runs or carrying the ball at his feet. Bastian Schweinsteiger perhaps fits into the same category. Sami Khedira is a destroyer with carrying tendencies. Luka Modric is a carrier with a hint of regista.


I would have thought Roy Keane was an earlier example of this third way too. For all his reputation as a destroyer, the number of times he played the assist-to-the-assist ball was incredible. He was also able to carry as per above when there was space or a point of weakness.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

I'm not entirely sure what the point is with all of that, but the conclusion is fine enough. A "holding midfielder" can be thought of as just a position where someone plays. It's certainly better than using "defensive midfielder" as a terminology for those two deeper midfield positions in a 4-2-3-1 for example.

As always the important thing isn't just what words are being used, but what the person means by those words. Unless we get a generally accepted dictionary of football clarifications will be needed.

jts: The way I read it the "surger" is more the classical box to box midfielder whereas a carrier is someone with the ability to run past players fairly consistently like Modric or Dembele. But both will obviously get forward more than a defensive midfielder.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

I read it as Wilson using carrier and surger as alternative names for his third way (Toure, Fernandinho and Schweinsteiger), although I can see your distinction so perhaps they can be used for different styles for this third way. However, the box-to-box midfielders also vary, using these skills/style, some relying more on late runs, others taking the ball with them. For that matter Hoddle would surely be a third way player as he could bring up the ball and arrive later to shoot, as well as playing passes from deep.

I agree that the biggest problem with some of the terms is different people use them differently. To me, Makelele is the classic holding player, who sits and distributes, but I wouldn't have called him a creative or a destroyer. I'd use holding for that style and destroyer and deep playmaker as described in the article. Then Wilson's third way is a box-to-box player who by definition was a bit of both defensive and attacking midfielder.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

I read it as Wilson using carrier and surger as alternative names for his third way (Toure, Fernandinho and Schweinsteiger), although I can see your distinction so perhaps they can be used for different styles for this third way. However, the box-to-box midfielders also vary, using these skills/style, some relying more on late runs, others taking the ball with them. For that matter Hoddle would surely be a third way player as he could bring up the ball and arrive later to shoot, as well as playing passes from deep.

I agree that the biggest problem with some of the terms is different people use them differently. To me, Makelele is the classic holding player, who sits and distributes, but I wouldn't have called him a creative or a destroyer. I'd use holding for that style and destroyer and deep playmaker as described in the article. Then Wilson's third way is a box-to-box player who by definition was a bit of both defensive and attacking midfielder.

I agree with Wilson that it's important to notice that players will vary along a continuum for each of the mentioned (and other) abilities. Thus any categorization becomes at least somewhat artificial, but still useful.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

I would have thought Roy Keane was an earlier example of this third way too. For all his reputation as a destroyer, the number of times he played the assist-to-the-assist ball was incredible. He was also able to carry as per above when there was space or a point of weakness.

I agree with you and jts that classifying players like Keane (and to a lesser extent Makelele) "only" as defensive midfielders doesn't do them justice. Thus why Wilson's descriptions are at least somewhat useful.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

In some ways it might be easier to separate the positions and style in which the positions can be played. So defensive midfielder is the position and then you have the styles (destroyer; deep playmaker or regista). If you consider box-to-box players as those playing a bit of both defensive midfielder and attacking midfielder, then when playing the defensive part of their role Keane and Vieira were destroyers in style.

Now I think about it, when we consider centre backs we don't tend to try and subdivide the position, but do talk about stoppers and strollers for different styles.
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

Do you guys think our two DM's whether they are Sandro and Dembele or Paulinho and Capoue are a problem for us right now?

Would City still score **** loads of goals if they played Sandro and Dembele in place of Fernandinho and Toure?
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

I agree with you and jts that classifying players like Keane (and to a lesser extent Makelele) "only" as defensive midfielders doesn't do them justice. Thus why Wilson's descriptions are at least somewhat useful.

I agree with you, jts, chancer and for the most part Wilson!
 
Re: Interesting article on "holding midfielders" (considering we have 4 of them)

Do you guys think our two DM's whether they are Sandro and Dembele or Paulinho and Capoue are a problem for us right now?

Would City still score **** loads of goals if they played Sandro and Dembele in place of Fernandinho and Toure?

I really don't think there is a place for Sandro or Capoue in a 442 that is trying to create anything. It would be fine for defensive side.
 
What a debate. Sherwood comes in and suddenly this is the most talked about position at the club.

Do we need one? What type of midfielder do we want? A fierce ball winning shield in front of the back four? (Sandro) A water carrier? (Makalele) A deep lying playmaker? (Pirlo, Javi Martinez, Busquets, Carrick, Strootman).

How necessary is it? Can we be effective without one?

Found this good article just now raises some good points:

http://whitehouseaddress.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-water-carrier-is-essential-for.html

Why The Water Carrier Is Essential For Success
In a conversation this week regarding Michael Carrick and Sergio Busquets, it alerted me to the ignorance and naivety of some football fans regarding the role and importance of the defensive midfielder, this article will therefore seek to highlight the fundamental importance that this player has become for sides to achieve success.


The key to French success
If you had asked many fans after Chelsea had won their first Premier League title in 2005 who their player of the season was you would probably hear names like Lampard or Drogba. Instead, their manager, Jose Mourinho declared Claude Makelele Chelsea’s “player of the year”. The importance that Makelele had on Chelsea’s success would not be seen or understood by many fans or even many pundits.


While at Real Madrid Claude Makelele won the Champions League in 2002 and La Liga in 2001 and 2003. After he left Madrid did not win anything till 2007, and after that nothing since 2012. Yet, the club believed that he was surplus to requirements and accepted a bid of £16m from the newly owned Chelsea in 2003. It was to be a grave mistake on the part of Madrid, who although possessed players attacking supremos in Zidane, Ronaldo, Figo and Raul, it was naive and ignorant to think that they Galactico’s would only be successful with a strong defensive base.


When they sold Makelele and replaced him with David Beckham, their intentions were clear, Madrid sought only to profit from shirt sales forgetting that the key to success comes from the balance between attack and defence, with the defensive midfielder being key in proving this balance. In a side which contains such attacking talent, a team must have a midfielder who is willing to be disciplined and allow the players in front of him to attack, while he stays positioned in the middle of the pitch. For many fans they see this type of player as safe, boring and ultimately a waste, this is simply ignorance of the importance that the “water carrier” has.

Eric Cantana once said about Makelele’s predecessor for the France national side, Didier Deschamps that he was the “the water carrier”, meaning his job was to supply the ball to the better players. What Cantana failed to recognize was that there was nothing wrong with a player having this role, in fact it was essential, because how else would these “talented players” get the ball and who would do the work on the defensive side? It shows a complete disrespect and disregard for the importance that Deschamps had in the France squad which won the 1998 World Cup and 2000 Euro’s. Possessing a world class “water carrier” is not a waste, in fact it is a remedy for success, just ask Spain and Barcelona.


A young man from La Masia

In 2008 when Pep Guardiola arrived at Camp Nou, he inherited a talented side which had lost focus and discipline. He sought to improve this with the removal of certain players and the arrival of others. He possessed players like Eto’o, Henry and the young star Messi, along with the talents of Puyol and Xavi. It was a side with the potential to be great. Yet the key role, which Guardiola knew only so well, was the anchor of the side, the defensive midfielder. As a player for Barcelona this is where Pep played under Cryuff, who spoke of Guardiola as his pivot, a key player in the side, keeping possession and setting the tempo.

In that first treble winning season, Guardiola had the option to use Yaya Toure, the strong Ivorian bought from Monaco the season before. However, he instead favoured a young academy player who he had worked with for Barca “B”. His name was Sergio Busquets, many were unsure about Guardiola’s decision making; this young, tall, somewhat gangly player, was surely not good enough to play for Barcelona.


Yet, Busquets had already shown his worth to the players, Xavi says "I've never seen a player with so many tactical options during the game, who's got so much quality as well as physical presence – it's incredible,", adding, “Busi sees you quickly, he always takes the simple option. He reads the game well and moves the ball with precision, in as few touches a possible.” Xavi regards Busquets as the best one touch passer of the ball in the world, a huge compliment, and an indication of his necessity to the side.

There is no escaping the fact that Busquets is a world-class player and is argubaly the best in the world in his position. You can see just how vital he is to the Barcelona way, in the middle of the field it is Busquets more than any other player who dictates the tempo and it is Busquets’ influence that pushes those possession figures above the 70% marker. Guardiola saw in Busquets himself, he simply replicated his role when he played at Barca, no wonder he values and rates Busquets so highly, he sees himself in his position and thus has been able to teach and further Busquets development. He is the modern Guardiola without a doubt.


What makes the defensive midfielder so important?

Busquets has a great ability of knowing where his team mates are before his receives the ball, his vision and awareness allow him to keep possession and play passes quickly, alleviating any pressure from defenders. His role as the “pivot” or “anchor” enables Barcelona to play the expansive football they wish because he offers such solidity and confidence on the ball. He is the modern midfielder; strong, agile, disciplined and excellent in possession.


His mentor Guardiola completes the picture: "The legacy that Xavi, Puyol and other veterans of this team will leave, Sergio will carry on. He will be responsible for integrating new players and will not even need to talk. Just watching his behaviour, everyone will see how things are done in this club."


Tactically the defensive midfielder is imperative for the sole reason that he offers solidity to his side, allowing full backs to move up the pitch, who know that their “anchor” will cover for them. Dani Alves is able to attack so much because Busquets provides him cover. The balance of Barcelona is kept through Busquets, a key yet often neglected role, and with Messi in the side, it is hard not to see past him and Barcelona’s attacking qualities, yet the coach knows how fundamental Busquets is to the tactic being effective.

In possession Busquets has evolved his position too, before he was the “pivot” and played in that deeper midfield role, yet last season he became part of the 3-4-3 formation and dropped back into the defensive line, his versatility and ability to do this shows his qualities. However, I would argue that he and Barcelona are better when playing a 4-3-3 with wing backs, the balance of the side is better and the attacks are more potent, the Copa Del Rey final against Bilbao indicated as much.


Vital for success?

Guardiola saw in Busquets the future of the defensive midfielder; the ability to start attacks and dictate play. The players that came before in Deschamps, Makelele and Dunga for Brasil, were regarded as destroyers, yet they were more than that. The defensive midfielder was required to do two jobs, break up attacks and start them. The key attributes of discipline, both positional and tactical, understanding and anticipation to read the game and selflessness, to allow others to get the headlines and glory, knowing that your job is helping the team all important for this position to be perfected. As Busquets says, “The coach knows that I am an obedient player who likes to help out and if I have to run to the wing to cover someone’s position, great. I genuinely enjoy watching the full-back run up the pitch and going across to fill in.”

Mascherano, who would have seen Busquets as his competition when he intitally moved to Camp Nou regards Busquets very highly; “Xavi and Iniesta are the most creative midfielders in the world, but, above all, there is Busquets. He has the talent to play for any team anywhere in the world, but he’s made to play for this team. Literally, he’s the perfect guy. He robs the ball, he has superb technical skills and brings tactical order. I watch him and try to learn from him.”

Cultural issues affecting England


At Man Utd they possess a player similar to Busquets in Michael Carrick, a player very much underrated by many fans in England and whose international career should have far exceeded 22 caps. Busquets at 24 already has 45. Carrick is a mix between Busquets and Xavi Alonso, able to play the short pass and retain possession, yet also willing and able to provide the longer killer pass from deep. Carrick’s critics come from those same people who don’t see the value in the Busquets, who view these players as simple passers, playing safe all the time, believing that they are wasted players on the pitch, this is delusional and completely ignorant.


Carrick would have been perfect for England these past 10 years, playing the deeper role he does so well for United, yet he has been overlooked because of the ignorance of the media and fans. The media has clamoured for the “stars” of Gerrard and Lampard to play in the rigid 4-4-2 this past decade which has meant there has been no place for Carrick in the side. Imagine if England’s midfield had been Scholes and Carrick, like it has been for United for the past several years, could England have done better?

This English mentality comes from the the culture of English football and is a reason why England have not been successful in international tournaments. For a decade the national side had worried over the issue of playing Lampard and Gerrard, never considering the need to perhaps adapt the formation to suit the modern game. A midfield of Lampard and Gerrard offered no stability defensively and provided many sides with the ability to counter attack England.

The 4-4-2 is flawed and most countries apart from England knew that, the successful ones certainly did. Brasil have played with two defensive midfielders for decades, France knew the value in Deschamps when they dominated the world for several years. At this summer’s Euro’s, the winners Spain had two defensive midfielders in Alonso and Busquets and Spain have shown that by not conceding goals in knockout games, makes success much easier.


Del Bosque saw the value in Busquets even at a young age and has been successful because of it, “He is an example of generosity, always thinking of the needs of the team rather than himself.” Busquets offers more than just “breaking up” play, he is simply the key player for a side wishing to keep possession, switch play and feed the ball into tight areas. Without him, Barcelona or Spain would not have won what they have, because although it is imperative to have flair in the attack, you only need to look at Holland to see what happens when your defence and midfield is inadequate.

Key to success? Without a doubt


The disregard of this type of player has meant that internationally English football has suffered, yet English sides who have deployed a defensive midfielder; Chelsea with Makelele, Essien and Mikel, United with Keane, Fletcher and Carrick and Emirates Marketing Project with Yaya Toure and Barry, have all been successful because they possess these key players. Mourinho is not the best coach in world football for no reason, he knows the value in players like Costinha, Makelele, Cambiasso and Khedira who have all brought him success in his managerial career. Although the fans might not see the value and necessity of this player, the best managers do and it is those who end up successful.


Emirates Marketing Project's success this past season came from the balance of attack and defence, notably they possessed the best midfielder in the league. In Yaya Toure Emirates Marketing Project had the league's most dominant defensive midfielder, similar to the influence that previous champions such as Makelele and Essien have been in the league. His strength, positioning and discipline have made Emirates Marketing Project a solid defensive force, enabling success to come to the Etihad.

Why have Arsenal not won anything of note in recent years? It is because they have not had a good enough defensive midfielder and they have thus conceded too many goals, they lack a player who offers solidity and discipline to the side. With the emergence of Gokhan Inler, Javi Martinez, Yann M'Vila and Kevin Strootman coming through, top sides would be smart to look at bringing in this type of player if they wish to achieve success.


In conclusion possessing a world class "water carrier" is arguably the most important part of being a successful side. Many sides possess goal scorers, yet the best sides are those who concede less goals, with the role of the defensive midfielder screening and supporting and covering for players in the attack, a team has more stability and solidity.


It is no surprise that teams have being successful because they possess an excellent defensive midfielder, what amazes me is that people and the media are so ignorant about it.


The Whitehouse Address is on Twitter, come and share your views of the game @The_W_Address
 
Having 2 CMs is the problem. It doesn't matter what type they are if they are always outnumbered.

If we had 3 CMs we could cover all bases - DM, ballplayer, mobile, static etc. - and be able to compete.
 
I'm quite intrigued by Sherwood's refusal to play a DM or water carrier. It's just the kind of potentially 'ahead of its time' type thinking that may give us an advantage over more conventional and traditional systems we are competing against once it clicks.

I'd love to hear from Sherwood the exact tactical rationale behind it because he must have one. It may never work but I suspect that our squad is up to the fitness and confidence to play his way properly, it may do quite well.
 
Having 2 CMs is the problem. It doesn't matter what type they are if they are always outnumbered.

If we had 3 CMs we could cover all bases - DM, ballplayer, mobile, static etc. - and be able to compete.

But if we play 3 CMs how will we possibly play two English traditional wingers, and a big man/little man combo up front?
 
Answer = Sandro

Honestly, considering how shaky our defense can be, I'd be very surprised to see Sandro not picked when available.
 
If you were Spurs manager and you had the chance to build the team in your mould, the way you want football to be played, what type of midfielders would you want?

A water carrier? or someone to aggressively win it back? Or someone like Carrick or Busquets who acts as a pivot and dictates play from deep. Ironically I saw Luka Modric in this role. I think pairing him with Sandro or Dembele would have been just perfect. He and Alonso or Khedeira really works well for Madrid right now.

I guess that's me asking the unthinkable question, would you drop Sandro for a pivot/anchor type player like Busquets or even Carrick if this is how you see how football should be played or not.
 
If you were Spurs manager and you had the chance to build the team in your mould, the way you want football to be played, what type of midfielders would you want?

A water carrier? or someone to aggressively win it back? Or someone like Carrick or Busquets who acts as a pivot and dictates play from deep. Ironically I saw Luka Modric in this role. I think pairing him with Sandro or Dembele would have been just perfect. He and Alonso or Khedeira really works well for Madrid right now.

Carrick, Modric and Sandro in a midfield 3. Would be the absolute sex.
 
Back