Well it is the first time in a long time that we have been able to actually do the business in the beginning. It has been for the past few years the "easy" fixtures that have been our stumbling block.
I understand what you mean, the DM role has become almost essential to some mangers in modern football and the traditional DM tends to lack certain qualities that a standard midfielder has. Is that down to managers looking for a player who is a specialist in tackling and breaking up play? I'd say yes DM is now a position in itself and where that player lacks in the attacking capabilities of a standard box to box midfielder he is much better at breaking up play and positional defensive play than that box to box player.
Maybe dropping Gerrard will wake him up and get him hitting form big time again. I do also feel that Lucas should not be guaranteed to come back in. Stick with Henderson and Gerrard.
The style of choice for most managers these days is a 4-2-3-1 formation or close variation on. In this formation the 2 holding players have the responsibility to break up play, protect the back 4 & thus give licence to the more attacking midfield players to get forward & support the lone striker. This doesn't mean that the holding midfield player hasn't got the ability to carry out other roles within the side, it just means that the position he is being asked to play, will restrict the times he can get forward & carry a threat in the oppositions final third. To deny the existence of the position or to label those filling it as being somehow lacking in ability is therefore ill conceived nonsense.
Look I tell you want. I will say three things. 1. anyone setting me straight and making a point i would find interesting is fine by me. "with respect" kind of comeback means to my mind that the original post was a wum attempt which is fine. 2. I should rephrase to be less black and white. where I said "do not believe that there is such a thing as a DM or a AM" I should have said I do not believe there should be a thing like a DM or AM" That makes it a more aspirational statement which it was I guess. I do see that Makelele won a lot of things over his career but looking at him do you really think he's ideal for anyones team? score 21 goals over his entire career including a whole 5 for PSG, cheslea and Real. This is just a pure footballing philosophy question now mind, is a negative approach the best approach where a guy like that can sit there and be purely negative? Yes he made it his art form... but how about sides like Bayern and barca. Is sergio busquets a purely destructive player? yes he sits deeper that iniesta but xavi is not higher up that him on many occasions. Is Martinez or the like at bayern doing purely the same? Not Makelele's job to score goals but I think others like alonso and the like provide way more. Perhaps I am wrong in picking him as an example of bad but i just see the defensive football and how then lesser sides pick up a lot more limited players (like poulsen for us) and go buy them to do the same job. As much of a mad B Roy Keane was he was a fabulous player and contributed hugely going forward, would he be an example or would alonso who could do just about anything? 3. So ok If i change it to an aspiration rather than a black and white no such thing is that fairer? yes there ARE players who are DMs. Maybe its wrong to call them all limited but i just feel that the best sides get more out of players that that. Then again one mans midfield donkey (yaya toure at barca) is other mans midifeld genius (yaya toure at city) if managers put a guy out to stand i nthe middle and not go forward then thats what they do. 4. My main point was midfielders ought to stay with the ball. if its in the oppositions half they are there if its in their own half they are screening the back 4. If its out wide about to be crossed someone is joining the box (not everyone)
I agree, I'm a fan of the position their ability is reading of the game which enables them to be in the correct position, tackling, with the pace of modern players being able to time a tackle is not as easy as it once was and finally being able to make a simple pass (not as easy as it seems). I agree that they may be lacking in other areas of the game (some are not) but that doesn't make them bad players just specialists.
I do also feel that Lucas should not be guaranteed to come back in. I'm not playing Henderson and Allen.
Firstly, apologies if my glib original response offended you, I should have posted something more constructive than that. As for that post, I can see where you're coming from now, albeit I think you're being a tad optimistic. Cantona once described Deschamps as nothing more than a 'water carrier'. The expression stuck & players like Makelele went on to make an art from out of the DM position. In his pomp the man was fantastic imo, the best exponent of that role I've ever seen. Despite it not being a glamorous position, it's nonetheless vital to a team that might leave themselves open to the counter by pushing bodies forwards. The 2013 versions have probably developed further - at the pinnacle of the game - with players like Martinez doing that job, but also offering more all-round contribution in a positive sense. That said teams like Barca & Bayern now play in a different manner to the top sides of 10-15 years ago, with ALL of the midfield now tasked with chasing down the ball when not in possession. The role of the DM is maybe no longer as crucial to them, as the burden of winning the ball back is now more of a shared task. The 'dream' of having CM players who are capable of being a top quality No.10 one minute & a Claude Makelele the next is the ideal, but with very few exceptions, they just don't exist, so we end up putting square pegs in square holes, it's a team game afterall.
thats fine. might i jsut offer that perhaps way back when before tactical flexibilty and deep thought abuot the game in 4-4-2 the central midfielders were playing rather like at least in style if not intensity or speed of game as those players... how about steve mcmahon... a kicker, sideways passer. or a guy who could realy contribute something.. go back futher to the likes of say bremner and giles or souness and mcdermott and so forth and so on. I think perhaps my thought is if a side at least desired 50% of the ball then having a purely destructive player for the 50% of the game you odn't have the ball is not a great thing. How about essien, ballack and lampard for chelsea? whos the DM there? I dunno... perhaps Tobes is the only perosn on not606 to ever call me optimistic.
Glad I have Tobes on ignore given the lack of on-topic discussion on this thread... I don't think there's much wrong with Lucas (besides his habit of picking up yellows every game) besides him having to do two jobs since we swapped to a 3-5-2 formation (or 5-3-2, whatever you call it). He does break up some play, he holds the ball well and tries to get it forward early and covers a lot of ground. He just can't do it for everyone. Gerrard is a passenger defensively. When we play with Hendo, Gerrard and Lucas, we have great balance and plenty of cover for Stevie to play more of a free role which gets the most out of his passing. We're hampered somewhat by who we have and how we get the most out of them. Coutinho needs to play in the space between midfield and attack as the creator with Sturridge and Suarez ahead. That means we can't play with wide forwards so need Enrique and Johnson to provide the width (luckily they're both good at that). Our problem comes with CBs and CMs. If you play 3 at the back, you can't (imo) play Gerrard as one of the two unless it's a poor team because that leaves Lucas to solo cover the midfielders. If you play 3 in the middle of the pitch, BR needs to grow a pair and drop Agger.
I read an article recently that questioned whether Arsenal needed a dedicated DM as it was a waste of half a position, which is sort of what you're saying. They play with two deep seated who double pivot attack or defence as needed. Wilshere, Ramsey and Diaby (when available) can play box to box, getting stuck in at the back, but also driving forward safe in the knowledge that they haven’t left a hole.
IT doesn't matter what you call the ****ers, the midfield is there to screen in front of the backs (full and centre), and create the ammunition for the forwards to fire. It's as simple and as complex as that. No matter what formation we play, Rodger's task is to make the most of the midfield options open to him to do just that. If we go back to the classic W formation then the Inside Forwards and the Wing Halves are what we now refer to as Midfielders. So developing players to meet the defensive and attacking requirements of the team is nothing new. Neither is the idea of using midfielders for specific roles. Jimmy Case and Brian Hall were not called water - carriers for nothing. Tommy Smith moved backwards from his inside forward role to become our most famous midfield enforcer. Digger Barnes moved from being an out and out winger to being one of the most individual and creative midfielders in the history of the game and KK himself wrote at least half of the creative textbook! Above people have identified some of the prime personnel but you must now also add whoever is playing at full back and any wingers that we may have on the pitch. I'm not going to argue about the comments upon Gerrard and Lucas. You know I beloieve that the criticisms are manily wrong so I'm not going any further with that!
The expression 'water carrier' was in use well before Cantona used it - see my reference to Case and Hall
