The Playmaker - Long but interesting read

[avoidconfusion]

It's okay... we still got Robinho....







































TAXI!

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker. Too straightforward to ever run the game as true playmaker and doesn't really have any vision. His style is straightforward running and he has excellent shot (one of the better in the league I must admit).

Toure isn't playmaker either. As a deeplying player, I don't feel he is someone who can take ball forward, powerfull runner, again has great shot but I have never noticed him having any great vision. He CAN every now and then open defences but I don't think he is someone who can regularily do it.

Premium playmakers in Premier League are Fabregas, Lampard and Gerrard. Ireland two seasons back belonged to that group. That is the kind of player we lack imo.

Everything we created against Spurs came from Yaya's feet. He put both SWP and Richards clean through and looked to have more vision than the rest of the team combined.

Yes. But we were poor going forward. And that's why we lack a playmaker.

or perhaps we were poor going forward because we played with two playmakers (sillva and tevez) and no out and out striker (or even three playmakers if you count yaya as a deep playmaker mentioned in the article). just a thought.

Silva at a push, although I've always considered him to be left winger but Tevez????? No fookin way is he playmaker of any sorts.

[King Kev]

Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker....

I will admit that I haven't read the OP (it would take me all week!) so apologies if this has been covered in there.

Milner came 4th in the league for assists last season, surely somebody who creates so many goal-scoring chances for others must be considered a playmaker!?

[Mase]

Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker. Too straightforward to ever run the game as true playmaker and doesn't really have any vision. His style is straightforward running and he has excellent shot (one of the better in the league I must admit).

Toure isn't playmaker either. As a deeplying player, I don't feel he is someone who can take ball forward, powerfull runner, again has great shot but I have never noticed him having any great vision. He CAN every now and then open defences but I don't think he is someone who can regularily do it.

Premium playmakers in Premier League are Fabregas, Lampard and Gerrard. Ireland two seasons back belonged to that group. That is the kind of player we lack imo.

Everything we created against Spurs came from Yaya's feet. He put both SWP and Richards clean through and looked to have more vision than the rest of the team combined.

Yes. But we were poor going forward. And that's why we lack a playmaker.

or perhaps we were poor going forward because we played with two playmakers (sillva and tevez) and no out and out striker (or even three playmakers if you count yaya as a deep playmaker mentioned in the article). just a thought.

Silva at a push, although I've always considered him to be left winger but Tevez????? No fookin way is he playmaker of any sorts.

I wouldn't class Tevez as a playmaker either. He might drop deap most of the time, similar to Rooney for the rags, but that doesn't mean his first through when he gets the ball is to thread through a pass for a team mate. I think he's a goal machine. Simple as.

[Haz]

I'm still trying to figure out how a match with a 2-2-6 formation pitted against a 1-2-7 lineup finished goalless!

[london blue 2]

said before and i'll say it again -Arteta. should have got him in.

[Kladze]

I'd say Robson is also a playmaker. He was played on the left wing in his first season but his best position is definitely behind the front two.

Funny thing that. Robinho himself claims to prefer playing on the left; he plays for Brasil on the left; played for Madrid on the left; played for Santos on the left; and played for City on the left. Yet there are those who claim his best position is centrally, behind a front two - a role he's been tried in a couple of times and failed miserably.

So because someone claims they prefer to play that position that is definitely their best position?? I personally like playing center mid. However I know it's not my best position.

The point being that 1) Robinho doesn't see himself as an out and out playmaker (a bloody prerequisite for the job is believing yourself to be up to it I'd think) ........ and 2) No bugger else seems to think so either - even his national team managers - aside from the odd experiment which has failed.

[Mase]

said before and i'll say it again -Arteta. should have got him in.

I know money doesn't mean a lot to us at the moment, but if people think we're paying over the odds for Milner then there would be a public outcry for the price we'd have to pay for Arteta.

[Mase]

I'd say Robson is also a playmaker. He was played on the left wing in his first season but his best position is definitely behind the front two.

Funny thing that. Robinho himself claims to prefer playing on the left; he plays for Brasil on the left; played for Madrid on the left; played for Santos on the left; and played for City on the left. Yet there are those who claim his best position is centrally, behind a front two - a role he's been tried in a couple of times and failed miserably.

So because someone claims they prefer to play that position that is definitely their best position?? I personally like playing center mid. However I know it's not my best position.

The point being that 1) Robinho doesn't see himself as an out and out playmaker (a bloody prerequisite for the job is believing yourself to be up to it I'd think) ........ and 2) No bugger else seems to think so either - even his national team managers - aside from the odd experiment which has failed.

Which matches for Brazil mate? No being a dick or anything just a genuine question as you seem to know what you're talking about. Which matches was he tried as a 'playmaker' in?

[DoomMerchant]

Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker. Too straightforward to ever run the game as true playmaker and doesn't really have any vision. His style is straightforward running and he has excellent shot (one of the better in the league I must admit).

Toure isn't playmaker either. As a deeplying player, I don't feel he is someone who can take ball forward, powerfull runner, again has great shot but I have never noticed him having any great vision. He CAN every now and then open defences but I don't think he is someone who can regularily do it.

Premium playmakers in Premier League are Fabregas, Lampard and Gerrard. Ireland two seasons back belonged to that group. That is the kind of player we lack imo.

Everything we created against Spurs came from Yaya's feet. He put both SWP and Richards clean through and looked to have more vision than the rest of the team combined.

exactly... i have no idea why Antti thinks what he does, but i know what i've seen from TYY. I hadn't seen that aspect to TYY's game until the WC because the times i saw him play for Barca he had a different job. He's very capable, has vision and definitely links up midfield to attack. Is that a creative mid? or "box to box"? or whatever? hardly matters what you call it. What's Michael Essien do for Chelsea? How different is he than Fabs or Gerrard?

great article and fun read. Antti's is completely wrong however...we aren't lacking that resource at the club...we have a few options -- TYY, Silva, Milner, and as someone else said Robson...even Tevez fits this "creative" role somewhat, albeit at an awkward stretch i suppose, in certain formations if we want him to, doesn't he? He's certainly capable of linking up play, and "defending from the front" in ways that are not a traditional No 9...does that make him more comfy in the hole? we've often complained to each other that he took up Ireland's space on the pitch which was a core problem Stevie couldn't respond to.

sorry for the length of this tasty article as well but this thread has my juices flowing...it's about 16 months old, but is a good read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... lders-gone

The Question: is the box-to-box midfielder dead?

In the latest in our series analysing football tactics, we look at where the Robsons, Keanes and Matthaus's have gone in the modern game

Doing some research into the 1990 World Cup recently, I was struck by a comment made by the England manager Bobby Robson after his captain, Bryan Robson, had picked up his customary World Cup injury, rupturing an Achilles during the 0-0 draw against the Netherlands. Bryan is, Bobby said, "as good a player as we've ever produced".

As good a player as we've ever produced. Even allowing for the magnifying lens of context, for the sense of despair Bobby Robson must have felt to lose his captain at such a crucial stage – and just when England had produced a performance, if not a result, to rebuff their most poisonous critics – that is an extraordinary statement. Not "he'll be a big loss", not "he's been a key player for us over the years", but "as good a player as we've ever produced".

The stats show the importance of Robson the player to Robson the manager. Bobby was in charge for 88 games. Bryan played in 62 of those, of which England lost only 10; of the 26 he missed, England lost seven. So that got me thinking: if Robson really is one of the best ever, where would he fit in the present England set-up?

And the answer is that he wouldn't, not comfortably, not if England continue to play a loose 4-2-3-1. It seems churlish to define such a great player by what he was not, but did he really have the technical ability to operate in one of the three attacking midfield slots? But equally, given his goal-scoring ability, would it not be a waste to play him as a holding player? And, anyway, until his pace had gone late in his career, did he really have the discipline to operate as one of the holding players?

He would probably have to play in the awkward compromise position Frank Lampard occupied against Slovakia and Ukraine, as the freer of the two holders, alongside a Gareth Barry figure. Which would just about work, I think, and yet it seems terrible to circumscribe the role of a player whose greatest assets were his stamina, his courage and his completeness. And anyway, that role seems best occupied not by a shuttler chafing constantly at the reins, but by an intelligent passer such as Xabi Alonso or Michael Carrick.

And then it occurred to me that complete midfielders, those great drivers of teams who could both score goals and make tackles, are generally a declining breed. After Robson there came Löthar Matthaus, David Platt, then Roy Keane and thereafter, well, nobody. The question is why.
Reason one: The decline of the traditional 4-4-2 formation and the rise of the holding midfielder

Perhaps the point is not that complete midfielders don't exist so much as that they are no longer able to play as complete midfielders. Michael Ballack, Cesc Fàbregas and Michael Essien, for instance, have all played this season both as holding midfielders and as attacking midfielders, but rarely, if at all, just as midfielders.

This, surely, is the key issue in the debate over whether Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard, both of whom would seem to have the full range of attributes that in a previous age would have made them Robson-style box-to-box players, can play together in the same midfield.

In a sense, the problem is less the answer than the question. For what the question omits is the assumption that we're taking about them playing together in the centre of a 4-4-2 (for how, until Fabio Capello opened our eyes, could our players possibly have veered from the one true path of 4-4-2?).

This, arguably, was the main reason for the farrago of the golden generation: England were blessed with a remarkably talented generation of players; the problem was that Michael Owen and David Beckham needed a 4-4-2, while Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard needed an additional holding player. Neither Sven-Göran Eriksson nor Steve McClaren ever had the clarity of thought to opt for one system over the other and cull players accordingly. It was almost as though football itself were taunting England for its lack of tactical sophistication and its concomitant obeisance to the cult of the celebrity player.

Perhaps in a club situation, working together every day, Lampard and Gerrard could have come to an understanding, but at international level they palpably couldn't. The World Cup qualifier away to Austria in September 2004 showcased the problem. Both Lampard and Gerrard scored, and with 20 minutes to go England seemed comfortable, only for Roland Kollmann to knock in a free-kick conceded by Lampard, and Andreas Ivanschitz to equalise with a drive that deflected off Gerrard and squirmed under David James.

Both goals, ultimately, resulted from the vast space that opened up between back four and midfield as Gerrard and Lampard advanced. That area has always been English football's great weakness. It was from that position that Matthias Sindelar almost exposed England when Austria lost 4-3 at Stamford Bridge in 1932, from that position that Vsevolod Bobrov so tormented Chelsea in their 4-4 draw against Dinamo Moscow in 1945, and, most notoriously, from that position that Nandor Hidegkuti crafted Hungary's 6-3 demolition of England in 1953. Even in the 1990s, Eric Cantona and Gianfranco Zola were able to exploit the stratified nature of the average English set-up, prospering in the space between the lines.

As lone forwards became increasingly common, so it became increasingly necessary for sides to deploy a midfield holder to combat the withdrawn forward, precipitating the gradual shift – at the highest level at least - to 4-2-3-1. Once that formation has been adopted, midfielders are necessarily categorised as either defensive or attacking, and completeness, although it allows a player to play in either role, becomes within the immediate context of the game far less of an asset.
Reason two: modern football is about specialists

The game nowadays increasingly demands universality. It is no longer enough simply to be a winger or a playmaker or a poacher. Full-backs have to be able to attack. Which makes the decline of the most universal player on the pitch paradoxical.

It also explains the distaste of Arrigo Sacchi – along with Valeriy Lobanovskyi one of the two high priests of universality – for 4-2-3-1. "Today's football is about managing the characteristics of individuals," he said. "And that's why you see the proliferation of specialists. The individual has trumped the collective. But it's a sign of weakness. It's reactive, not pro-active."

Sacchi saw that most clearly during his time as sporting director of Real Madrid in 2004. "There was no project; it was about exploiting qualities," he said. "So, for example, we knew that Zidane, Raúl and Figo didn't track back, so we had to put a guy in front of the back four who would defend. But that's reactionary football. It doesn't multiply the players' qualities exponentially. Which actually is the point of tactics: to achieve this multiplier effect on the players' abilities. In my football, the regista – the playmaker – is whoever had the ball. But if you have [Claude] Makélélé, he can't do that. He doesn't have the ideas to do it, though of course, he's great at winning the ball. It's all about specialists."

Sacchi remains as committed to 4-4-2 now as he was when his AC Milan side won successive European Cups in 1989 and 1990. Neither of his central midfield pairing of Carlo Ancelotti and Frank Rijkaard were as prolific as Robson or Matthaus, but both were certainly capable of both destroying and creating. Given players with the physical and technical attributes of Lampard and Gerrard, he would, presumably, play both in a 4-4-2 – if, that is, they had the mental attributes he demanded. He is not sure that Gerrard, in particular, does.

"When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks," he said in response to a question about Gerrard. "We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive, they were hungry. But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision-making. They lacked positioning. They didn't have that subtle sensitivity of football: how a player should move within the collective.

"You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team, and, by doing this, making both you and the team greater. So, situations like that, I just have to say, he's a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player."

Rafa Benítez, who is probably the most Sacchian manager English football has known, seems to have harboured similar doubts. Twice, he was willing to sell his captain (to Chelsea, who would presumably have used Lampard and Gerrard to flank Makelele in a 4-3-3), and his regular deployment of Gerrard on the right or the left of a midfield four was surely evidence of his uneasiness at giving him responsibility in the centre.

It was, of course, the use of Didi Hamann as a holding player that released Gerrard in the 2005 Champions League final, while Benítez's conversion to 4-2-3-1 more recently has given Gerrard licence, because he has two holders behind him. Gerrard started as a complete midfielder, might have become a holding midfielder who get forward, and has become instead an attacking midfielder who can put in the odd tackle.

Lampard's role at Chelsea is slightly deeper-lying, but he is, none the less, more comfortable with a holding player behind him. It will be fascinating to see whether he has the acuity to adapt to the slightly more defensive brief Capello seems to envisage for him with England.

The question then is the extent to which the need to use Gerrard and Lampard in conjunction with more defensive players is a facet of them lacking "knowing-how-to-play-football", and how much it is inherent in the way the tactical evolution of the game has affected the position they grew up playing.

To an extent, the comparison of England's 2004 performance against Austria and a Sacchi side is absurd, for no Sacchi side would ever allow the sort of gap between defensive and midfield lines to open up as emerged in Vienna (something that may, in part, have been caused by the defence's desire to prevent David James, who was having one of his more erratic days, from being tempted into leaving his box).
Reason three: the liberalisation in the offside law

That said, Sacchi's ideal was for attack and defence to be separated by no more than 25m, providing a compact structure that facilitated his hard-pressing game, and it may be that such a high defensive line is no longer practicable given the liberalisation of the offside law.

It is impossible to prove, but it seems reasonable to suggest that Sacchi's approach would be undermined today as much by the modern interpretation of offside as by the egos of millionaire modern players. The change in the offside law has stretched the game, so we now tend to see it in four bands, and it is that that has effectively decommissioned the complete midfielder.

Historically, that is entirely consistent. The notion of a complete midfielder itself is far from constant across football's history. It first emerged as the centre-half in the 2-3-5, which came to prominence in the 1880s was a multi-skilled all-rounder, defender and attacker, leader and instigator, goal-scorer and defender, but by the early thirties he had all but disappeared as W-M took hold (the last of the old-style centre-halves was probably Ernst Ocwirk, who continued to mastermind the Austria midfield until the early 1950s, but he was very much an anachronism by then).

The old-style centre-half was replaced by the stopper and, as the inside-forwards dropped off to become advanced midfielders, the resulting 3-2-2-3 neatly split midfielders into those whose responsibilities were defensive and those whose were attacking.

Only in the mid-sixties as the four bands of the W-M were replaced by the three bands of 4-2-4, and then old-style 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 – a development that was soon followed by pressing and the squeezing of the game – did the complete midfielder re-emerge.

Now, as three bands once again become four, midfielders are specialising once again.

cheers

[Kladze]

I'd say Robson is also a playmaker. He was played on the left wing in his first season but his best position is definitely behind the front two.

Funny thing that. Robinho himself claims to prefer playing on the left; he plays for Brasil on the left; played for Madrid on the left; played for Santos on the left; and played for City on the left. Yet there are those who claim his best position is centrally, behind a front two - a role he's been tried in a couple of times and failed miserably.

So because someone claims they prefer to play that position that is definitely their best position?? I personally like playing center mid. However I know it's not my best position.

The point being that 1) Robinho doesn't see himself as an out and out playmaker (a bloody prerequisite for the job is believing yourself to be up to it I'd think) ........ and 2) No bugger else seems to think so either - even his national team managers - aside from the odd experiment which has failed.

Which matches for Brazil mate? No being a dick or anything just a genuine question as you seem to know what you're talking about. Which matches was he tried as a 'playmaker' in?

Blimey! You don't ask for much eh? :p
Was a couple of games in the South American world cup qualifying group.

He was tried centrally for City last season as well, and I can't even remember which game that was ....... but I remember he was abysmal.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

said before and i'll say it again -Arteta. should have got him in.

Absolutely.

[Haz]

said before and i'll say it again -Arteta. should have got him in.

I dread to think what that bug eyed freak would demand for him. Even the good Sheikh's eyes would water!

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Whatever Milner is, he is NOT playmaker. Too straightforward to ever run the game as true playmaker and doesn't really have any vision. His style is straightforward running and he has excellent shot (one of the better in the league I must admit).

Toure isn't playmaker either. As a deeplying player, I don't feel he is someone who can take ball forward, powerfull runner, again has great shot but I have never noticed him having any great vision. He CAN every now and then open defences but I don't think he is someone who can regularily do it.

Premium playmakers in Premier League are Fabregas, Lampard and Gerrard. Ireland two seasons back belonged to that group. That is the kind of player we lack imo.

Everything we created against Spurs came from Yaya's feet. He put both SWP and Richards clean through and looked to have more vision than the rest of the team combined.

exactly... i have no idea why Antti thinks what he does, but i know what i've seen from TYY. I hadn't seen that aspect to TYY's game until the WC because the times i saw him play for Barca he had a different job. He's very capable, has vision and definitely links up midfield to attack. Is that a creative mid? or "box to box"? or whatever? hardly matters what you call it. What's Michael Essien do for Chelsea? How different is he than Fabs or Gerrard?

great article and fun read. Antti's is completely wrong however...we aren't lacking that resource at the club...we have a few options -- TYY, Silva, Milner, and as someone else said Robson...even Tevez fits this "creative" role somewhat, albeit at an awkward stretch i suppose, in certain formations if we want him to, doesn't he? He's certainly capable of linking up play, and "defending from the front" in ways that are not a traditional No 9...does that make him more comfy in the hole? we've often complained to each other that he took up Ireland's space on the pitch which was a core problem Stevie couldn't respond to.

sorry for the length of this tasty article as well but this thread has my juices flowing...it's about 16 months old, but is a good read.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... lders-gone

The Question: is the box-to-box midfielder dead?

In the latest in our series analysing football tactics, we look at where the Robsons, Keanes and Matthaus's have gone in the modern game

Doing some research into the 1990 World Cup recently, I was struck by a comment made by the England manager Bobby Robson after his captain, Bryan Robson, had picked up his customary World Cup injury, rupturing an Achilles during the 0-0 draw against the Netherlands. Bryan is, Bobby said, "as good a player as we've ever produced".

As good a player as we've ever produced. Even allowing for the magnifying lens of context, for the sense of despair Bobby Robson must have felt to lose his captain at such a crucial stage – and just when England had produced a performance, if not a result, to rebuff their most poisonous critics – that is an extraordinary statement. Not "he'll be a big loss", not "he's been a key player for us over the years", but "as good a player as we've ever produced".

The stats show the importance of Robson the player to Robson the manager. Bobby was in charge for 88 games. Bryan played in 62 of those, of which England lost only 10; of the 26 he missed, England lost seven. So that got me thinking: if Robson really is one of the best ever, where would he fit in the present England set-up?

And the answer is that he wouldn't, not comfortably, not if England continue to play a loose 4-2-3-1. It seems churlish to define such a great player by what he was not, but did he really have the technical ability to operate in one of the three attacking midfield slots? But equally, given his goal-scoring ability, would it not be a waste to play him as a holding player? And, anyway, until his pace had gone late in his career, did he really have the discipline to operate as one of the holding players?

He would probably have to play in the awkward compromise position Frank Lampard occupied against Slovakia and Ukraine, as the freer of the two holders, alongside a Gareth Barry figure. Which would just about work, I think, and yet it seems terrible to circumscribe the role of a player whose greatest assets were his stamina, his courage and his completeness. And anyway, that role seems best occupied not by a shuttler chafing constantly at the reins, but by an intelligent passer such as Xabi Alonso or Michael Carrick.

And then it occurred to me that complete midfielders, those great drivers of teams who could both score goals and make tackles, are generally a declining breed. After Robson there came Löthar Matthaus, David Platt, then Roy Keane and thereafter, well, nobody. The question is why.
Reason one: The decline of the traditional 4-4-2 formation and the rise of the holding midfielder

Perhaps the point is not that complete midfielders don't exist so much as that they are no longer able to play as complete midfielders. Michael Ballack, Cesc Fàbregas and Michael Essien, for instance, have all played this season both as holding midfielders and as attacking midfielders, but rarely, if at all, just as midfielders.

This, surely, is the key issue in the debate over whether Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard, both of whom would seem to have the full range of attributes that in a previous age would have made them Robson-style box-to-box players, can play together in the same midfield.

In a sense, the problem is less the answer than the question. For what the question omits is the assumption that we're taking about them playing together in the centre of a 4-4-2 (for how, until Fabio Capello opened our eyes, could our players possibly have veered from the one true path of 4-4-2?).

This, arguably, was the main reason for the farrago of the golden generation: England were blessed with a remarkably talented generation of players; the problem was that Michael Owen and David Beckham needed a 4-4-2, while Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard needed an additional holding player. Neither Sven-Göran Eriksson nor Steve McClaren ever had the clarity of thought to opt for one system over the other and cull players accordingly. It was almost as though football itself were taunting England for its lack of tactical sophistication and its concomitant obeisance to the cult of the celebrity player.

Perhaps in a club situation, working together every day, Lampard and Gerrard could have come to an understanding, but at international level they palpably couldn't. The World Cup qualifier away to Austria in September 2004 showcased the problem. Both Lampard and Gerrard scored, and with 20 minutes to go England seemed comfortable, only for Roland Kollmann to knock in a free-kick conceded by Lampard, and Andreas Ivanschitz to equalise with a drive that deflected off Gerrard and squirmed under David James.

Both goals, ultimately, resulted from the vast space that opened up between back four and midfield as Gerrard and Lampard advanced. That area has always been English football's great weakness. It was from that position that Matthias Sindelar almost exposed England when Austria lost 4-3 at Stamford Bridge in 1932, from that position that Vsevolod Bobrov so tormented Chelsea in their 4-4 draw against Dinamo Moscow in 1945, and, most notoriously, from that position that Nandor Hidegkuti crafted Hungary's 6-3 demolition of England in 1953. Even in the 1990s, Eric Cantona and Gianfranco Zola were able to exploit the stratified nature of the average English set-up, prospering in the space between the lines.

As lone forwards became increasingly common, so it became increasingly necessary for sides to deploy a midfield holder to combat the withdrawn forward, precipitating the gradual shift – at the highest level at least - to 4-2-3-1. Once that formation has been adopted, midfielders are necessarily categorised as either defensive or attacking, and completeness, although it allows a player to play in either role, becomes within the immediate context of the game far less of an asset.
Reason two: modern football is about specialists

The game nowadays increasingly demands universality. It is no longer enough simply to be a winger or a playmaker or a poacher. Full-backs have to be able to attack. Which makes the decline of the most universal player on the pitch paradoxical.

It also explains the distaste of Arrigo Sacchi – along with Valeriy Lobanovskyi one of the two high priests of universality – for 4-2-3-1. "Today's football is about managing the characteristics of individuals," he said. "And that's why you see the proliferation of specialists. The individual has trumped the collective. But it's a sign of weakness. It's reactive, not pro-active."

Sacchi saw that most clearly during his time as sporting director of Real Madrid in 2004. "There was no project; it was about exploiting qualities," he said. "So, for example, we knew that Zidane, Raúl and Figo didn't track back, so we had to put a guy in front of the back four who would defend. But that's reactionary football. It doesn't multiply the players' qualities exponentially. Which actually is the point of tactics: to achieve this multiplier effect on the players' abilities. In my football, the regista – the playmaker – is whoever had the ball. But if you have [Claude] Makélélé, he can't do that. He doesn't have the ideas to do it, though of course, he's great at winning the ball. It's all about specialists."

Sacchi remains as committed to 4-4-2 now as he was when his AC Milan side won successive European Cups in 1989 and 1990. Neither of his central midfield pairing of Carlo Ancelotti and Frank Rijkaard were as prolific as Robson or Matthaus, but both were certainly capable of both destroying and creating. Given players with the physical and technical attributes of Lampard and Gerrard, he would, presumably, play both in a 4-4-2 – if, that is, they had the mental attributes he demanded. He is not sure that Gerrard, in particular, does.

"When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks," he said in response to a question about Gerrard. "We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive, they were hungry. But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision-making. They lacked positioning. They didn't have that subtle sensitivity of football: how a player should move within the collective.

"You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team, and, by doing this, making both you and the team greater. So, situations like that, I just have to say, he's a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player."

Rafa Benítez, who is probably the most Sacchian manager English football has known, seems to have harboured similar doubts. Twice, he was willing to sell his captain (to Chelsea, who would presumably have used Lampard and Gerrard to flank Makelele in a 4-3-3), and his regular deployment of Gerrard on the right or the left of a midfield four was surely evidence of his uneasiness at giving him responsibility in the centre.

It was, of course, the use of Didi Hamann as a holding player that released Gerrard in the 2005 Champions League final, while Benítez's conversion to 4-2-3-1 more recently has given Gerrard licence, because he has two holders behind him. Gerrard started as a complete midfielder, might have become a holding midfielder who get forward, and has become instead an attacking midfielder who can put in the odd tackle.

Lampard's role at Chelsea is slightly deeper-lying, but he is, none the less, more comfortable with a holding player behind him. It will be fascinating to see whether he has the acuity to adapt to the slightly more defensive brief Capello seems to envisage for him with England.

The question then is the extent to which the need to use Gerrard and Lampard in conjunction with more defensive players is a facet of them lacking "knowing-how-to-play-football", and how much it is inherent in the way the tactical evolution of the game has affected the position they grew up playing.

To an extent, the comparison of England's 2004 performance against Austria and a Sacchi side is absurd, for no Sacchi side would ever allow the sort of gap between defensive and midfield lines to open up as emerged in Vienna (something that may, in part, have been caused by the defence's desire to prevent David James, who was having one of his more erratic days, from being tempted into leaving his box).
Reason three: the liberalisation in the offside law

That said, Sacchi's ideal was for attack and defence to be separated by no more than 25m, providing a compact structure that facilitated his hard-pressing game, and it may be that such a high defensive line is no longer practicable given the liberalisation of the offside law.

It is impossible to prove, but it seems reasonable to suggest that Sacchi's approach would be undermined today as much by the modern interpretation of offside as by the egos of millionaire modern players. The change in the offside law has stretched the game, so we now tend to see it in four bands, and it is that that has effectively decommissioned the complete midfielder.

Historically, that is entirely consistent. The notion of a complete midfielder itself is far from constant across football's history. It first emerged as the centre-half in the 2-3-5, which came to prominence in the 1880s was a multi-skilled all-rounder, defender and attacker, leader and instigator, goal-scorer and defender, but by the early thirties he had all but disappeared as W-M took hold (the last of the old-style centre-halves was probably Ernst Ocwirk, who continued to mastermind the Austria midfield until the early 1950s, but he was very much an anachronism by then).

The old-style centre-half was replaced by the stopper and, as the inside-forwards dropped off to become advanced midfielders, the resulting 3-2-2-3 neatly split midfielders into those whose responsibilities were defensive and those whose were attacking.

Only in the mid-sixties as the four bands of the W-M were replaced by the three bands of 4-2-4, and then old-style 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 – a development that was soon followed by pressing and the squeezing of the game – did the complete midfielder re-emerge.

Now, as three bands once again become four, midfielders are specialising once again.

cheers

Look, box-to-box midfielder can be a playmaker but often isn't Box-to-box describes the area where player is most efective, playmaker describes what player does with ball. For example, Barry is (or would be if he had any pace) a box-to-box midfielder but despite some people making same allegations about Barry that they are making about Toure now, isn't a playmaker. Gerrard and Fabregas are box-to-box players but playmakers. Toure is a box-to-box player but most certainly not a playmaker.

Gerrard -Toure
Fabregas - Toure
Xavi - Toure
Snejder - Toure
Pirlo - Toure

Starting to get the picture? Toure CAN make good passes and is technically good but is not a playmaker. If we continue to play with midfield of De Jong-Barry-Toure we can kiss top four goodbye.

[DoomMerchant]

Look, box-to-box midfielder can be a playmaker but often isn't Box-to-box describes the area where player is most efective, playmaker describes what player does with ball. For example, Barry is (or would be if he had any pace) a box-to-box midfielder but despite some people making same allegations about Barry that they are making about Toure now, isn't a playmaker. Gerrard and Fabregas are box-to-box players but playmakers. Toure is a box-to-box player but most certainly not a playmaker.

Gerrard -Toure
Fabregas - Toure
Xavi - Toure
Snejder - Toure
Pirlo - Toure

Starting to get the picture? Toure CAN make good passes and is technically good but is not a playmaker. If we continue to play with midfield of De Jong-Barry-Toure we can kiss top four goodbye.

i believe you are missing the basic point about the players and the system that i thought was really interesting in that second article. it's not just about individuals, it's about how much the player can make those around them better and "create."

i don't believe terms like "box to box", attacking, "creative" or the like really describe properly some of the players that compose our squad that can create and make players around them better -- those who can create scoring chances and minimize attacking options from the opponent by passing well and communicating effectively in transition.

i wasn't asking for a lesson in your perception of midfield roles, values or terms, etc. but i appreciate you taking me to school. Related, did you walk to school or take a bus?

cheers

[Im_Spartacus]

Look, box-to-box midfielder can be a playmaker but often isn't Box-to-box describes the area where player is most efective, playmaker describes what player does with ball. For example, Barry is (or would be if he had any pace) a box-to-box midfielder but despite some people making same allegations about Barry that they are making about Toure now, isn't a playmaker. Gerrard and Fabregas are box-to-box players but playmakers. Toure is a box-to-box player but most certainly not a playmaker.

Gerrard -Toure
Fabregas - Toure
Xavi - Toure
Snejder - Toure
Pirlo - Toure

Starting to get the picture? Toure CAN make good passes and is technically good but is not a playmaker. If we continue to play with midfield of De Jong-Barry-Toure we can kiss top four goodbye.

i believe you are missing the basic point about the players and the system that i thought was really interesting in that second article. it's not just about individuals, it's about how much the player can make those around them better and "create."

i don't believe terms like "box to box", attacking, "creative" or the like really describe properly some of the players that compose our squad that can create and make players around them better -- those who can create scoring chances and minimize attacking options from the opponent by passing well and communicating effectively in transition.

i wasn't asking for a lesson in your perception of midfield roles, values or terms, etc. but i appreciate you taking me to school. Related, did you walk to school or take a bus?

cheers

Where does De Jong fit in all this. Is there a description of "limited ability" that can be apportioned to him?

[DoomMerchant]

Look, box-to-box midfielder can be a playmaker but often isn't Box-to-box describes the area where player is most efective, playmaker describes what player does with ball. For example, Barry is (or would be if he had any pace) a box-to-box midfielder but despite some people making same allegations about Barry that they are making about Toure now, isn't a playmaker. Gerrard and Fabregas are box-to-box players but playmakers. Toure is a box-to-box player but most certainly not a playmaker.

Gerrard -Toure
Fabregas - Toure
Xavi - Toure
Snejder - Toure
Pirlo - Toure

Starting to get the picture? Toure CAN make good passes and is technically good but is not a playmaker. If we continue to play with midfield of De Jong-Barry-Toure we can kiss top four goodbye.

i believe you are missing the basic point about the players and the system that i thought was really interesting in that second article. it's not just about individuals, it's about how much the player can make those around them better and "create."

i don't believe terms like "box to box", attacking, "creative" or the like really describe properly some of the players that compose our squad that can create and make players around them better -- those who can create scoring chances and minimize attacking options from the opponent by passing well and communicating effectively in transition.

i wasn't asking for a lesson in your perception of midfield roles, values or terms, etc. but i appreciate you taking me to school. Related, did you walk to school or take a bus?

cheers

Where does De Jong fit in all this. Is there a description of "limited ability" that can be apportioned to him?

that's i think the point being raised in that 2nd article that i quoted...there is a trend to specialization which isn't held in high regards by some. Kung Fu Killer is fantastic example of specialization in the role he plays and he is limited, but it's been critical against top teams.

What do you think our "creative" options at City right now?

cheers

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Look, box-to-box midfielder can be a playmaker but often isn't Box-to-box describes the area where player is most efective, playmaker describes what player does with ball. For example, Barry is (or would be if he had any pace) a box-to-box midfielder but despite some people making same allegations about Barry that they are making about Toure now, isn't a playmaker. Gerrard and Fabregas are box-to-box players but playmakers. Toure is a box-to-box player but most certainly not a playmaker.

Gerrard -Toure
Fabregas - Toure
Xavi - Toure
Snejder - Toure
Pirlo - Toure

Starting to get the picture? Toure CAN make good passes and is technically good but is not a playmaker. If we continue to play with midfield of De Jong-Barry-Toure we can kiss top four goodbye.

i believe you are missing the basic point about the players and the system that i thought was really interesting in that second article. it's not just about individuals, it's about how much the player can make those around them better and "create."

i don't believe terms like "box to box", attacking, "creative" or the like really describe properly some of the players that compose our squad that can create and make players around them better -- those who can create scoring chances and minimize attacking options from the opponent by passing well and communicating effectively in transition.

i wasn't asking for a lesson in your perception of midfield roles, values or terms, etc. but i appreciate you taking me to school. Related, did you walk to school or take a bus?

cheers

I thought it was long but quite poorly written recycle of opinions I've read million times before. And as is often the case, it overlooked the facts and took things out of context.. Like that Sacchi's Milan side DID have playmaker in Ruud Gullit and DID have box-to-box midfielder in Rijkaard (a fucking prototype one as well!). And again, as a big admirer of Valeri Lobanovski I know full well that he had profile players in his team. For example his great Dynamo Kiev and Russia sides of mid- to late-80's were built around "Maradona of Soviets" Igor Belanov.

All of the great managers have over the time built their side around movement as a team. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be profile players. I mean even the Rinus Michel's sides always had profile midfielders, for crying out loud, and it doesn't get much more free flowing than that.

And what sort of nonsense is talking about "good players making other players around them better"???? Doesn't that go without explanation? Every time I MYSELF play with better players I feel I'm playing better. Because they make me look good and help my passing game with their movement and create chances for me to score. When I play with players who are worse than me I get frustrated and my own level of performance drops. I'm sure that is the same in just about all team games in all levels.

I used to walk when I was in elementary school. For upper elementary and high school I took the buss because the school was in City and it was quite a distance.

[Ted Hughes]

My definition of a modern playmaker: someone so lacking in other areas of his game that he gets noticed for just the one because people can't think of a word to describe him.

The line about Brazil having 2 deep lying playmakers & 2 attacking playmakers shows what a load of bollocks the whole thing is. Thery had 4 great footballers in the midfield who weren't brilliant at defending, end of story.

Wonder if Dave Beasent was a playmaker? Half Wimbledon's goals came from his lumps upfront. Rory Delap is definitely Stoke's.

The best sides don't need a playmaker as they ALL do it, some players do it a bit better than others for sure but they all do it, even the defenders. That's what we need to aim for & are doing imo.

[brite blu sky]

i cant take nqdp's comments seriously, nothing personal but seems to me to be looking to make sweeping statements from the perspective of fixed roles for players. I would agree with Ted's ultimate comment - it is just a label for people to try and talk about the dynamics in football. Some teams do seem to operate with the same pattern with the play started or going through the same players all the time, but then a lot of teams dont. In relation to City i really dont think any of us know what Mancini is going to try and engineer and if anything it appears he is going for flexibility and fluid formations that change. IF that was the case, then i would suggest that different players would all take on the role of starting moves, changing the pace of the game and taking responsibility for distribution. Again IF that is the case we may see more of combinations appearing throughout the team, rather than us looking to put everything through a classic 'playmaker'. I think the advantage of shifting players around is quite obvious, it is more difficult for the oppo to isolate and nullify any one key player. The disadvantage as such is that it requires players to be well integrated with each other and consistently on form. City had 60+% of possession in the second half at WHL but for all that couldn't effectively move the ball into the final 3rd and find a player. That to me just suggests that we are not practised enough or have enough players on form. Also that is not giving Spurs any credit for doing a good job in the final 3rd.
As for the idea of Yaya not being able to take the ball forward.. complete tosh.