Keane was excellent at dictating the play/flow of the game, and was excellent at keeping possession.
Central midfield this season...
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Keane was excellent at dictating the play/flow of the game, and was excellent at keeping possession.
He is such an enigma. There is talent there, but it seems no one can agree how best to utilise it.
Anderson as a defensive midfield player? He has the strength, but is it his forte? Like Pogue said, he lacks real aggression to be a midfield enforcer. In any case, I'm not sure he's positionally aware enough to play such a role and it would be a dereliction of his natural talents.
Anderson as a central midfield player? Does he pass the ball well enough? I always think that he looks a little laboured in this area of his game. I agree that it doesn't come as naturally as say for a Fabregas or a Scholes. He doesn't get the ball out of his feet as quickly and he takes longer to execute the pass which is invariably not as accurate as his peers.
Anderson as an attacking midfield player? Playing him higher up the field with little or no defensive responsibility could be an option. I believe that Anderson shares a lot of Gerrard's qualities. That said, he is no where near as good with his shooting. Can we indulge an attacking midfielder whose shooting is frequently badly eskew? Again, with his passing in question, would this be a suitable position for him? He's not a killer ball type player.
All in all, you'd say his strongest feature is his running power and dribbling ability. You want him running from midfield so he can build up a head of steam. But if he's going to be in the engine room then he needs to add more consistency to his passing game - that means cutting out the Hollywood-ball tendancy. In addition, he badly needs to improve his awareness and off the ball movement. All that said, you have to hope that there is significant time and scope for improvement, given that he is 21.
I'm not all that sure how often it has happened, but I believe that our best option, if we want to play Anderson is to also play Carrick and Fletcher/Hargreaves.
Mozza is talking nonsense re Keane. He was arguably the best all-round midfield player of his generation. Think Steven Gerrard, but with the ability to play in a central midfield two.
It shouldn't be surprising. We are in the process of converting a natural attacking midfileder into a deeper lying central midfieler. It is very hard to make the type of transition Scholes made from attack to center midfield.
I'd say Keane was basically Essien with better positioning. Someone's bound to say that Essien isnt a good passer or attacker either. But that person is wrong.
In fairness, I'd say that Keane was a better goalscorer.
Remember the San Siro game. Without a combative grafter such a midfield can get horrendously lost. The best teams always have some steel alongside creative imagination. That is why the 1999 midfield was simply perfect. Beck's and Keane brought the graft. Scholes and Giggs the extra flair. Yet all of them had vision and passing ability and worked hard to close teams down through out 90 minutes. IMO our greatest weakness is that over 90 minutes we give teams too much time and space on the ball in midfield. Due to most of our midfield lacking the necessary aggression.
Perfection is what describes Barcelona's midfield at the moment. Xavi and Iniesta are amongst the best passers and playmakers in the world. You can't pluck someone out of thin air and expect to beat Barca at their own game. No, not even Modric can do that. When we beat Barca two years ago, we employed Hargreaves and Park and hassled the feck out of them. That's how you beat Barcelona. Trying to outpass the best passers in the world is suicide.
That said, I too wouldn't say no to a playmaker being brought in, however Fergie probably sees Carrick as our playmaker already. I will use Liverpool's model because they had a very successful midfield last year, and a setup that's fairly similar to ours. Carrick is a bit like Xabi Alonso, and our equivalent of Mascherano (the destroyer) should be Hargreaves, but since he's rarely fit nowadays, it would be Fletcher. Gerrard plays a similar role to Rooney, the biggest difference is that since he's a natural midfielder, he can drop back and add strength to the midfield, while Rooney is a natural forward and adds power to our attack. Claiming that getting a Keane would mean less possession is nonsense, Liverpool dominated most of their games last season. Mascherano breaks up opposition attacks, and passes it to Xabi, who dictates play. When you have a destroyer in the midfield, you are very rarely overrun, and you pin the opposition back in their own half. Then you have Gerrard, who can drop back from an advanced position and become the third man, you have a midfield that is very difficult to play against.
On top of being superb at wining back possession.
There's some confusion re Keane, probably between those who saw him from the beginning and younger caftards.
When he started at Forest he was if anything an attacking midfielder, but certainly not defensive. At United until about 2001 he was a proper box-to-box rampaging centre midfielder. (Which in my opinion is what you really want in a two-man centre midfield. Brilliant player though Scholes is/was, we kind of got away with using him there because we had the monster that was Keane there, and because Becks did a huge amount of legwork in midfield.)
Then after his hip injury he became more of a holding player, sitting deeper, orchestrating our tempo and play. He was never a really limited "DM" like Makelele or Mascherano or Hargreaves, he always took more responsibility for attacking play than that. Everything went through Keano, when we were camped around their box it was Keane switching the play from flank to flank, moving them about, looking for the opening.
But Keane in his pomp was fecking everywhere. Watch those games for Ireland against Portugal and Holland, they are masterclasses in how a great midfielder can take control of a football match. He was never nearly as prolific as Robbo, but he was a goal threat and he dominated games if anything more.
When he started at Forest he was if anything an attacking midfielder, but certainly not defensive. At United until about 2001 he was a proper box-to-box rampaging centre midfielder. (Which in my opinion is what you really want in a two-man centre midfield. Brilliant player though Scholes is/was, we kind of got away with using him there because we had the monster that was Keane there, and because Becks did a huge amount of legwork in midfield.)
Then after his hip injury he became more of a holding player, sitting deeper, orchestrating our tempo and play. He was never a really limited "DM" like Makelele or Mascherano or Hargreaves, he always took more responsibility for attacking play than that. Everything went through Keano, when we were camped around their box it was Keane switching the play from flank to flank, moving them about, looking for the opening.
But Keane in his pomp was fecking everywhere. Watch those games for Ireland against Portugal and Holland, they are masterclasses in how a great midfielder can take control of a football match. He was never nearly as prolific as Robbo, but he was a goal threat and he dominated games if anything more.
Eggzackerly. The "Keane=DM" myth does my fecking head in.
Sure. If you never payed close attention to Frank Rijkaard's play.
Absolutely spot on!
Can't say I have.
I've paid very close attention to Roy Keane's play over the years, mind you. Pigeon-holing him as a "DM" is an insult to the contribution he made in our most succesful season ever.
Excellent summation. In the time he was with us, I think he was our best player - certainly from a consistency and inspirational viewpoint. The only thing I would say about the Scholes comment is that in his best days he was not really a central midfielder but more a deep lying attacker whose main purpose was to prompt the attack and get forward and score goals himself. As time has gone by he has dropped deeper and generally become less effective, sadly. Becks never played centrally for us - or very rarely. He tended to be exclusively on the right. His forte, apart from free kicks, was his very effective crossing and in that latter regard he has not been replaced. Step up Mr Valencia
Oh for a young RK now. He remains irreplaceable, seemingly.
I agree, that's kind of what I meant re Scholesy. We kind of got away with playing a third forward, because Keane was like one and a half brilliant players. I also think Becks played a part - I know he wasn't officially central but because he played generally very deep, unlike a traditional winger, and did a great deal defensively, it took pressure off Scholes and Keane.
Strange that box to box midfielders have become such collectors' items these days. Seems to have gone out of fashion, there hasn't been a truly great one since Keane and Effenburg, I don't think. Well, Essien could be one, but is used very conservatively at Chelsea.
Quite simply Anderson needs to step up this season and to do this he needs games. If he can use his undoubted natural ability and become consistent he will become one of the best CM's in the PL or even Europe. I actually think our seasons success depends on this.
Anderson certainly is an engima in the array of strengths in his game. My choice would be to play him almost like a sweeper based in midfield. He should play a box-to-box game, winning possession in deep and running forward with it, before playing another player in.
He has the energy and skills to fulfill that kind of a role, and I reckon it would adhere best to his natural game. Put him alongside Carrick and they would complement each other well I think.
Rijkaard had the exact same game of Roy Keane and Vieira and he was known as a DM. The person who deserves a bullet riddled dome, is the one who dared cough up the idea and pigeon hole the role with the ilk of fecking Makelele. That role was never meant for water carriers or 3rd center backs like him but true midfielders with proper football skills.
They are going out of style due to the intense love for the Makelele's of this world nowadays. The apocalypse of proper midfield play.
So Roy Keane and Viera are a better fit for the definition of a DM than Makalele is/was?
Interesting.
In that case, I reckon the label "DM" is an even bigger bunch of arse than I first thought.
Interesting.
In that case, I reckon the label "DM" is an even bigger bunch of arse than I first thought.
I think that's a load of old cobblers.
At the risk of over-simplifying (though I think that's what is needed here) - Makelele's role was essentially a protective one - hence defensive midfield.
To pigeon-hole Keane and Vieira as DMs would be to deny that they offered anything going forward. This is nonsense, of course. Both Keane and Vieira were the epitome of central midfield players - equally adept at defensive and attacking functions. All round players.
There seems to be a lot of useless jargon floating around the game these days.
It's a shame that Makelele has made those types of players so fashionable. I have always thought they are a waste of a position on the field.
Reprise...
To the tune of They Call Us Run DMC
So we here on the Caf, in the height of summer
To help out this hairless Norwegian bummer
Called CnutofallCnuts, a literal gimp
He be askin’ a question about acronyms:
“What does ‘DM’ mean, this term you use -
Deutsch Marks? Decimetres? BNP shoes?”
So we here to clear shit up, yo can you feel us?
Check us out, we a posse of centre midfielders.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Makélélé]
I’m the cork in the bottle, I’m Claude Makélélé
I don’t make attacks, I just mark attackers, gayly,
Total stalemate, that's the endgame that I seek
I’m Boring but Important, like that column in The Week
Though I’m growing ancient, like Ben Kenobi
I still dick on Deco and Jon Mikel Obi
Not electric like Cesc, or eclectic like Elano
But I’m even more tedious than - Mascherano.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Keano]
Well I’m a raging bull, a rampaging Corkman
The best – not just decent, like Jonas Bjorkman
Call me ‘defensive’, I be liable to kill ya -
Cuz I'm box-to-box like Stevie G, and Liam Miller,
I gave Holland a lesson, I gave Haaland a limp,
(I fecking hit him hard - the ball was there, I think)
I could tackle and pass, create and score, like -
The complete midfielder, as I said before, like.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Michael Carrick]
Yo I’m the quiet DM, I'm under-rated
But that’s cos my style be understated
I keep shit ticking over, I start attacks
And if you don’t believe me, here’s Mozza with the stats
I may look bemused, and slightly gormless
But without me our play be completely formless
So who cares if I gots a charisma bypass?
Cuz there ain't nuthin rolls as smooth as my pass
I’m like peerless silk, man, I’m of Pirlo’s ilk, man -
If I hadn’t been a playa I’d’ve been a milkman
Dreaming I was Beckham, who can make balls bend
While delivering that semi-skimmed shit, to Wallsend.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Makélélé]
Yih. That's three acute accents, bitches.
To the tune of They Call Us Run DMC
So we here on the Caf, in the height of summer
To help out this hairless Norwegian bummer
Called CnutofallCnuts, a literal gimp
He be askin’ a question about acronyms:
“What does ‘DM’ mean, this term you use -
Deutsch Marks? Decimetres? BNP shoes?”
So we here to clear shit up, yo can you feel us?
Check us out, we a posse of centre midfielders.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Makélélé]
I’m the cork in the bottle, I’m Claude Makélélé
I don’t make attacks, I just mark attackers, gayly,
Total stalemate, that's the endgame that I seek
I’m Boring but Important, like that column in The Week
Though I’m growing ancient, like Ben Kenobi
I still dick on Deco and Jon Mikel Obi
Not electric like Cesc, or eclectic like Elano
But I’m even more tedious than - Mascherano.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Keano]
Well I’m a raging bull, a rampaging Corkman
The best – not just decent, like Jonas Bjorkman
Call me ‘defensive’, I be liable to kill ya -
Cuz I'm box-to-box like Stevie G, and Liam Miller,
I gave Holland a lesson, I gave Haaland a limp,
(I fecking hit him hard - the ball was there, I think)
I could tackle and pass, create and score, like -
The complete midfielder, as I said before, like.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Michael Carrick]
Yo I’m the quiet DM, I'm under-rated
But that’s cos my style be understated
I keep shit ticking over, I start attacks
And if you don’t believe me, here’s Mozza with the stats
I may look bemused, and slightly gormless
But without me our play be completely formless
So who cares if I gots a charisma bypass?
Cuz there ain't nuthin rolls as smooth as my pass
I’m like peerless silk, man, I’m of Pirlo’s ilk, man -
If I hadn’t been a playa I’d’ve been a milkman
Dreaming I was Beckham, who can make balls bend
While delivering that semi-skimmed shit, to Wallsend.
They call us, Cnut, D-
Cnut, D-, D-
Cnut, Cnut, D-
DMs, see?
[Makélélé]
Yih. That's three acute accents, bitches.
Damn that's good. What's scary is how quick you wrote it. What the feck?
Damn that's good. What's scary is how quick you wrote it. What the feck?
Nah, it's a re-release
This DM discussion is one we've had before...
Amazing.
That is where folks go wrong IMO. The problem is not the term itself. But the dumbed down perception of what the role is, that is so prevalent today.
DM's were initially known as the players who allowed the pure number 10's (currently known as attacking midfielders) to be able to play in 2 men center midfields. They did most of the running and combative grafting for them, helping out the defence whenever needed, while also being be able to use the ball themselves in tandem with the 10's, to help control the tempo of the game, launch counter attacks and basically link the defensive side of the team with it's attack. This job they did in between both boxes, which made it by far the hardest role on a football pitch. Because they were always here, there and every where.
People however have in recent times dumbed down what the role is completely. That's how the rubbish of "sitting infront of the back four" started, and 3rd center backs like Makelele became accepted emblems of the position.
Personally, I don't get why people seem to fail to grasp what a midfielder is supposed be. Which is a player who operates in the middle of the field! Which is in between both boxes, and the entire area on both sides of the center circle, reaching either flank.
That is why the area of operation for a midfielder who takes care of defensive duties (i.e a DM)cannot only be merely, just infront of the back 4, patrolling a line just outside their own box, that stretches between both flanks. Contributing absolutely nothing to the teams attacks. That is the domain of center backs pushing up. Not real midfielders.
I agree with that. Except number 10s are usually second strikers, rather than the more attacking of a pair of midfielders.
I'm not quite as harsh on the 'Makelele role', in that it can be very effective, as he was for Chelsea. It's just not my sort of football.
I'm not quite as harsh on the 'Makelele role', in that it can be very effective, as he was for Chelsea. It's just not my sort of football.
Grammy award
Indeed. That role was invented initially for the 3-5-2, to help cover for the libero's forrays into attack and midfield from central defence, then later, by the Argentine's in 1986, to take out opopnents number 10's. It was also created to enable the 4-3-3 add an extra attacking midfielder to help create play for the 3 man attack. Because the role was a shield against the resultant extra defensive exposure having two 10s in the middle cause.
I agree with this but I think it applies to the vast majority of so-called AMs as much as it does to DMs. Which is why they can be both referred to using the convenient abbreviation, CM.
If a CM operates almost exclusively in defensive areas of the pitch then yeah, I'm ok with labelling them a DM e.g. Makalele. If a midfielder operates almost exclusively in attacking areas, then I'm ok with calling them an AM e.g. Kaka. Otherwise they're just common or garden central midfielders, some of whom are good at creating and scoring goals, some of whom are good at tackling.
That's what fecks me off about the misuse of terms like AM and DM. Positions refer to the areas of the pitch that a player will most likely be found (that's why they're called 'positions', for crying out loud) not their attributes as a footballer. This is why a full-back is a full-back, whether he gets forwards like Evra or defends like O'Shea. Hence, Keano was a central midfielder, full stop. As is Paul Scholes.
Yes. Especially these days. Riquelme is the last of the original breed.
Agreed. Especially in a 3 man midfield. But in a 2 they are murder to progressive play.
That is why for me in a Chelsea set up I'd rather have a Senna or Guardiola playing the role than a Makelele type. Barcelona proved how its so much better.
Which leads to extra center backs like Makelele being wrongly called midfielders, same with seconds strikers of the Bergkamp illk
Which for me it is utterly maddening.
But totally I get your gripe with the whole system though. It would be beter to just stick to fullbacks, center backs, wingers/wing midfielders, center midfielders and forwards, as descriptions.
I still just wish this would come with people like Makelele being called defenders like they are
Yeah Beckham played a part with his ability to tuck in, and he had marvellous stamina(imagine how good a player Scholes would have been if he had this). And Giggs could tuck in and help out as well, there was no Ronaldo like player. I remember as well that Johnsen was used alongside Keane away to Inter in 1999 and Butt away to Juventus and it was Keand and Butt for both FA Cup semis against Arsenal. Even thinking back to 1997/98 for the home game against Juve(just after Keane doing his cruciate), it was Butt and Johnsen together in central midfield, Scholes came on as a sub. And in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 seasons it was Butt who was Keane's regular partner, Beckham was used several times when one or the other was missing.
If you then look at the 01-02, 02-03 and 03-04 seasons Scholes was often the one who played behind Van Nistelrooy or very occasionally he'd even play in a wide role(where he played in the 6-2 against Newcastle where there was a lot of interchanging of positions). In 04-05 and the first half of 05-06 the 4-3-3 was used a lot, with someone like Fletcher in the side with his incredible stamina to do much of the running for Keane and Scholes (and despite criticisms of the system it did work well at times, notably the 2005 FA Cup Final).
Thinking back, the cruciate injury suffered by Keane in September 1997 actually helped Scholes in that he started playing regularly in the side (alongside Butt in central midfield). I remember the following season he started playing regularly alongside Keane (Butt missed a game because of getting wisdom teeth removed or something). He very rarely played in central midfield before Keane did his cruciate.
That's fantastic recollection if true. I'm surprised about Butt and Johnsen being a regular pairing when Roy was out, I only remember that being for a few games.
I think in the 4-2-3-1 like the Newcastle 6-2 it was Ole nominally on the right and Scholes in the middle of the 3, though as you say they swapped round the whole time.
I think in the 4-2-3-1 like the Newcastle 6-2 it was Ole nominally on the right and Scholes in the middle of the 3, though as you say they swapped round the whole time.
Has there ever been better lines in a post than this:
..............
I gave Holland a lesson, I gave Haaland a limp,
(I fecking hit him hard - the ball was there, I think)
....
Plechazunga, you are true genius.
..............
I gave Holland a lesson, I gave Haaland a limp,
(I fecking hit him hard - the ball was there, I think)
....
Plechazunga, you are true genius.
Word to yo' momma, Chief.