Best Defensive Midfielder you have ever seen

[lo zio]

I'll be turning 21 this October, I haven't seen him live but i've got tons of classic football stuff on my PC(Documentary, articles, full matches, interviews) mainly because of my job i get to have some rare footage the public aren't allowed to access usually.

that sounds nice!
then chances are u've watched redondo much more recently than me.

Forgot to say: according to the way you describe the positions in your reply, i now consider Redondo as a Metodisti

Lol! come to think of it, u may be right... wich also means in english he would probably be described as a defensive midfielder.
i guess i was wrong afterall

 

[LFC Albania]

amineken22 whats your job ? curious to know !

 

[amineken22]

@Ben: see! I knew it

@Valon: I'm a reporter not a big shot one just a junior one at the moment, hopefully i'll be a "real one" soon

 

[LFC Albania]

oh thats cool , good luck with it buddy

 

[Kanouté]

davids was a bit of a jack of all trades, thanks to his insane energy, but yes, i'd say that in his prime, his main focus was on the defensive aspect in the game.
as for vieira, he's what we call a "metodista". again, this is another word that has not proper translation in english, as a metodista is a defensive midfielder who also builds up plays. the main difference between a metodista and a deep-lying playmaker (or regista, in italian) is that deep-lying playmakers are much more creative in their game and do not contribute to the defensive phase of the game as much as metodistas (wich is why i guess a metodista would fall into the defensive midfielder category in english). de rossi is another example of metodista, as well as cambiasso. let's put it like this: deep lying playmakers (registi) are "artists" they light up the team and provide an element of unpredictability (provided their teammates offer enough off the ball movement), whereas metodisti are more like architects, as they're not as creative as deep lying playmakers, but still are able to give their teams some "structure" and "geometry" with their vision , their timing and their passing game.

as I'm not a master in English, I'll try to explain my view a bit differently this time. I repeat, this is only my view and may not be the universal way of categorizing midfielders.

pic #1............................................................................................................pic#2

.......................................

(this is where defensive mfs play.).....................................................................(this is where central mfs play)


example 1.1(makelele/mascherano): plays in the area #1, average at playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

example 1.2(redondo/alonso/cambiasso): plays in the area #1, capable of playmaking, capable of defending.

example 1.3(pirlo/effenberg/guardiola): plays in the area #1, capable of playmaking, average at defending.

example 2.1(vieira/toure/essien/davids): plays in the area #2, capable of playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

example 2.2(gattuso, keane): plays in the area #2, average at playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

1.1 is a DMF, no argument about that.

1.2 is a DMF, I see their playmaking skills as a bonus. (if they would play in a more advanced position, their defensive abilities would be the bonus part of their games that time.)

1.3 is not a DMF, I think we share the same opinion here. not good at defending, not a defensive mf. it is called regista/deep-lying playmaker.

2.1 is not a DMF, but is a box-to-box midfielder(CMF). they're (more or less) equally good at attacking and defending and they cover much more ground than a DMF does.

2.2 is a DMF, unlike the 2.1 type, because this type of players aren't such balanced players but they are much more focused on the defensive end.

I think you call both of 1.2 and 2.1 type of players as metodisti but depending on where they generally play, I call them either DMF or CMF. I guess, the confusing part was this one.

I hope I made it a bit clearer this time. of course, keep in mind that all of these are my subjective opinions.

 

[amineken22]

Exactly! Excellent post bro. This sum up nicely what i had in mind, and yes I think the Keanes and Redondos could take on the same role, just with different results and variations, according to Ben's definition they all fall in the metodisti category.

 

[gabe.paul.logan]

best dmf u ever seen is the one u never seen the best dmfs are invisible on the field, getting balls and starting to build attacks from zero with the first pass wich are often not remarkable but very accurate and important... some of these guys are in the list because of their ...lets say ..competitive personality...

though..
voted for Makelele because when he left Madrid's midfield play instantly became a disaster

and he didnt need fights or glasses, giant ponytails to remembered only ...this

Essien is such a player aswell


btw dont get me wrong those midfielders are all hell of a classics

 

[LFC Albania]

Spoiler

as I'm not a master in English, I'll try to explain my view a bit differently this time. I repeat, this is only my view and may not be the universal way of categorizing midfielders.

pic #1............................................................................................................pic#2

.......................................

(this is where defensive mfs play.).....................................................................(this is where central mfs play)


example 1.1(makelele/mascherano): plays in the area #1, average at playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

example 1.2(redondo/alonso/cambiasso): plays in the area #1, capable of playmaking, capable of defending.

example 1.3(pirlo/effenberg/guardiola): plays in the area #1, capable of playmaking, average at defending.

example 2.1(vieira/toure/essien/davids): plays in the area #2, capable of playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

example 2.2(gattuso, keane): plays in the area #2, average at playmaking/attacking, capable of defending.

1.1 is a DMF, no argument about that.

1.2 is a DMF, I see their playmaking skills as a bonus. (if they would play in a more advanced position, their defensive abilities would be the bonus part of their games that time.)

1.3 is not a DMF, I think we share the same opinion here. not good at defending, not a defensive mf. it is called regista/deep-lying playmaker.

2.1 is not a DMF, but is a box-to-box midfielder(CMF). they're (more or less) equally good at attacking and defending and they cover much more ground than a DMF does.

2.2 is a DMF, unlike the 2.1 type, because this type of players aren't such balanced players but they are much more focused on the defensive end.

I think you call both of 1.2 and 2.1 type of players as metodisti but depending on where they generally play, I call them either DMF or CMF. I guess, the confusing part was this one.

I hope I made it a bit clearer this time. of course, keep in mind that all of these are my subjective opinions.

thank you Andy Gray for such a good examples

 

[Aboutreika18]

Good post, Kanoute. I asked Ben about this a few years back in the Serie A thread, so thought it might be worth quoting that in here since it is relevant:

and now the central midfielders... the proper translation of central midfielder would be "centrocampista centrale" . but we don't really refer to central midfielders with that expression, wich is way too vague. so we tend to use a specific word for each type of central midfielder. here they are.
mediano - defensive midfielder. there are 3 types of mediani.
mediano di spinta, who also like to venture foward, from time to time (like diarra or sissoko, for instance)
mediano di rottura, who just take care of the defensive phase of the game and have a specific tackling skill (like gattuso)
and finally mediano di copertura (copertura means coverage), who have a particularly good sense of position (positioning).

regista - deep-lying playmakers... now this english expression is really awful... i'd rather translate it with "orchestra directors" (pirlo, xavi, xabi alonso, just to mention the 3 most famous).

metodista - ther's not a specific translation of this role... probably as there aren't many metodistas outside italy. a metodista is mainly a defensive midfielder (wich is why people often refer to them using the expression "mediano metodista", as if metodista was an adjective to clarify the specific kind of defensive midfielder), with a footballing brain.
the metodistas don't have the flair, the instinct, the vision of a regista, but yet they have an innate "sense of geometry" wich allows them to build the plays, to"create football" and, most important, to dictate the tempo of the plays.
sure u won't see a metodista performing a +30 meters long pass, neither a cracking through ball or a great assist.... but they don't even just sit back and protect the midfield, as a pure mediano.
example: gattuso; arguably the greatest mediano di rottura in his generation... he's pretty much like a "moving wall"... the opponent's attacks tend to bounce off him.
now let's consider cambiasso. fantastic mediano.... but actually he's something more than that; he's a mediano metodista. esteban plays with his "head up".... he doesn't look at the ball, he looks at his teammates (wich is something quite unusual for a pure mediano). he has not the creativity required to be defined as a regista, but still, his above average passing game, combined with his "sense of geometry" allows him to give some structure to the team. his plays, his passes aren't breathetaking, but tidy, neat.
a good metodista is a huge asset to any team, and they usually become the key players of their own team. in italy we have many good and great metodistas (cambiasso, thiago motta, de rossi, cristiano zanetti, palombo, donadel, barone, just to mention a few) but there are also a few great examples outside italy, like senna, toulalan, frings...

 

[Kanouté]

thanks for appreciating my modest effort, guys. also thank you Abou for bringing up that post. it's not easy to find some detailed explanations in english about this topic.

I think now I really see what's confusing with Redondo issue. he had too much flair to be considered as a metodista, was also too good at defending to be called simply a regista (that's what makes him crème de la crème as well). Alonso example there too is a bit inaccurate imho because he doesn't have as much artistry as a regista should have as lo zio said on the first page. but then again, I understand that why he considers Redondo and Alonso as registi, because they have superior playmaking/passing skills (regardless of their defensive abilities) and they play in a deeper role than a metodista does. to me, both players are like a fine mix of regista and metodista.

I think the way Italians give names to midfielders is a bit complex and demands us to study each player's game very detailedly. and then some unique players like Redondo comes up and causes confusion (for me, at least). not that I disapprove the Italian method (who the hell am I to do that) as it even might be one of the key parts in their highly respected football culture and how they produced many great football tacticians over the years but maybe, but just maybe it needs to be updated a little bit, for some certain players.

oh and, Valon, I love British commentators too!

 

[lo zio]

yeah, i agree. ever since michel's ajax, (and even more in the last 10 years) the separation between roles has become more blurred, wich makes very specific "labels", like the ones italian use, quite unaccurate. infact even in italy theese days journalists pretty much abandoned many of those terms (u often hear italian journalists simply using the word "mediano" to describe any type of defensive midfielders).
more encompassing labels (like the english ones) are probably more appropriate today. the problem with vague definitions though, is that u end up putting in the same category players who are quite different (like gattuso and redondo), wich is what confused me in this poll.
not to mention the fact that sometimes even the word defensive midfielder is too narrow (try and define players like de rossi or yaya tourè for instance... it's pretty much impossible).

thanks for finding that old post of mine abou. it kinda makes me look like even more of a "smarty pants" but it also explains why i was so confused to see rendondo described as a defensive midfielder (great memory btw buddy! i didn't even remember writing that stuff... it must be years old!)

Alonso example there too is a bit inaccurate imho because he doesn't have as much artistry as a regista should have as lo zio said on the first page. but then again

looking at the other players i mentioned in that post (frings, cristiano zanetti), i probably wrote that back when xabi was at liverpool.... those days xabi was more of a pure playmaker, as the defensive midfielder's duties were on mascherano..... but yeah, u're probably right and he's another of those "border-line cases" u can't quite tag with a specific label.
btw nice post kanoute

 

[jonnyluvrod]

Lothar Matthaus followed closely by Claude Makelele.

The two very best defensive midfielders I have ever watched.

Depends how far you go back but these two were exceptional and I remember them both very well as the stand outs in this position.

 

[Kanouté]

i probably wrote that back when xabi was at liverpool.... those days xabi was more of a pure playmaker, as the defensive midfielder's duties were on mascherano

ah, that's right. and even before mascherano came to the team, it was hamann who was assigned to the dmf role as well. alonso had always been (kind of) a regista at liverpool, indeed. so, my fault. but nowadays, he's more than a regista for madrid as you'd agree, though, as well as in his sociedad days (footnote: I was closely following sociedad then as they had two turkish players in the team, nihat and tayfun, so I know alonso since then ). so, the best is to conclude that he's another special case as you said.

 

[amineken22]

Just wanted to point out that I was wrong regarding Guardiola's position, I've been watching some 90's footage for the last two weeks and I can definitely say he's not a DM.
It's almost impossible to give him a role, I'd say he resemble to today's Sergio Busquets but not as good defensively (had more of a layed back feel to him); he was positioned in the same way on the field but had a different approach to keep the possession: he just stood there made some simple short passes most of the time and long ones to switch sides or open up for a team-mate, but when he wanted to make something happen he'd generally give the ball to Laudrup whom made sure of it, and in terms of defensive work he never intervened unless he had to (like when he's one on one with an opposition player).

 

[ALBICELESTE2010]

The Argentina formation of 4-2-3-1 has space for two defensive midfielders.

One is numbered 5 the other 8. One is more defensive than the other. Simeone would deserve mention.

He was a destroyer type who would then pass the ball to someone more gifted.

Redondo was sheer class. He could build play , was an accurate passer of the ball short and long, a decent dribbler and a player who was quite prepared to go from one box to another.

But he still had plenty of defensive qualities in cutting lanes, putting his foot in if required.

He was more a 8 than Simeone a 5. It's unfortunate his injuries and his falling out with Argentina managers have left him on the shelf in the memory of many.

As far as I am concerned he would get into an Argentina all time XI ahead of someone like Rattin such was his versatility.

 

[elensar77]

İ think Patrick Viera

 

[ImpossibleYesbutitsTrue]

De Rossi, in good shape he is a bit of Nesta/Gattuso/Pirlo all in one, Kaiser'esque.
His last good season was under Luis Enrique, after the slight system switch, he played 3 Roles in one, no Busquets or anyone comes close to this complete package.

 

[lo zio]

De Rossi, in good shape he is a bit of Nesta/Gattuso/Pirlo all in one, Kaiser'esque.
His last good season was under Luis Enrique, after the slight system switch, he played 3 Roles in one, no Busquets or anyone comes close to this complete package.

i have 2 observations.
1- de rossi seems to be always in good shape. to be honest his only poor season in his entire carreer was last season... and even then his poor form was the inevitable consequence of zeman's decision to not play him as a starter (honestly i still laugh about that when i think of it.... de rossi on the bench.....it's like a bad joke really).
as soon as zeman left, de rossi found his shape again, and with it, his usual performance standards.
infact, come to think of it, there can't be many midfielders out there as consistant as de rossi.... that's an aspect of his game i never considered.

2nd observation. yes, de rossi is on a class of his own. i can think of a few who came close to him (cambiasso, vieira, busquets... perhaps tymoshuk are the first names that pop into my head), but none of them really reached his level or remained on that level for as long as daniele did.
but the reason is because, just like redondo, daniele doesn't belong to the "defensive midfielders" category. he's something different (something more, if u will).

so rather than throwing into the bunch de rossi and redondo, i would keep those 2 out of the discussion. it would also be fair to players like vieira or makelele or gattuso, who were much closer to the definition of defensive midfielder than de rossi and redondo, and who wouldn't stand a chance to get on top of the list, were redondo's and de rossi's names on that list.

 

[Kanouté]

completely agree to that. de rossi and redondo do also play too aggressively on the pitch to be labelled as just a dm, although they usually play in that dm area and also have great dribbling skills which let them run past their opponents till their penalty area and make great assists a la central playmakers such as iniesta, deco, fabregas etc.
imho, in terms of completeness and class, xabi alonso is the best dm I've ever watched. in terms of defensiveness, it's makelele, obviously.

 

[gerd]

I was also going to mention Redondo, but already did and i always mention Redondo...ahh that is really one of the alltime greats imo...

 

[ImpossibleYesbutitsTrue]

i have 2 observations.
1- de rossi seems to be always in good shape. to be honest his only poor season in his entire carreer was last season... and even then his poor form was the inevitable consequence of zeman's decision to not play him as a starter (honestly i still laugh about that when i think of it.... de rossi on the bench.....it's like a bad joke really).
as soon as zeman left, de rossi found his shape again, and with it, his usual performance standards.
infact, come to think of it, there can't be many midfielders out there as consistant as de rossi.... that's an aspect of his game i never considered.

2nd observation. yes, de rossi is on a class of his own. i can think of a few who came close to him (cambiasso, vieira, busquets... perhaps tymoshuk are the first names that pop into my head), but none of them really reached his level or remained on that level for as long as daniele did.
but the reason is because, just like redondo, daniele doesn't belong to the "defensive midfielders" category. he's something different (something more, if u will).

so rather than throwing into the bunch de rossi and redondo, i would keep those 2 out of the discussion. it would also be fair to players like vieira or makelele or gattuso, who were much closer to the definition of defensive midfielder than de rossi and redondo, and who wouldn't stand a chance to get on top of the list, were redondo's and de rossi's names on that list.

yes i agree, by shape i meant more the psychological side, especially with zeman

as for the position, off course he is way more, but still he plays nominally as a DM :p

 

[ZeroTheHero]

Fernando Redondo and there's no room for discussion about it in my opinion. He controlled matches almost like Pirlo and was almost as solid defensively as Mascherano. Redondo was as close to perfection as possible to get in that position and it was tragic that his career got cut short. He could probably kept going until 40 since he didn't really rely on pace or youthful energy in any way but his intelligence and positioning was brilliant.

I think that there are several other DMF's that should be mentioned before some of those on the list and I also agree completely with Kanouté's post about different (and not) DMF's.


PS. What I mean by 'no room for discussion' is simply that there doesn't exist an argument against my opinion that I will accept in this discussion. If you don't agree that's fine of course but I will think you're wrong

 

[fd1972uk]

Easy peasy, Marcel Desailly in his Milan days. Only took 2 seconds either to decide.


FD

 

[Glavisted]

I'd vote for Frank Rijkaard.

 

[Kanouté]

oh and btw, I find javi martinez awfully similar to de rossi in terms of ability and versatility. both can (and did) play as a centre back, box to box, anchor man, and even as the 'hole' player. both have great technique and passing skills besides their excellent defensive attributes. pretty similar players physically (-not so quick- speed and strength) as well.

this just sprung to my mind these days, so I'm just saying...

 

[brunnoce]

Tough between Keane and Davids but i voted Edgar because for me he was too unique and influential in his peak(one of the first 99 stamina players ive seen) but i do admit Deschamps/Tacchinardi/Conte were the ones doing the real dirt work in his best seasons.

My overal pick as defensive midfield would be Dunga though

Edit: agree about Kanoute in his definition of DMF etc, Davids would be pic2 for me.. Dunga for instance pic1.. Although Dunga did a wonderfull job distributing the game ala Pirlo nowdays(spreading the ball around the pitch to initiate the offensive move).

 

[dplane]

Phil Jones

 

[beachryan]

It's not fair to include Phil Jones. He transcends positions.