GOAT defensive midfielders?

Yeah but people going as far as naming him in their top 5 DMs of all time is as random as calling van Bommel that. He got his fame status for completely different reasons than his actual performances on the pitch. Despite being a world class player in his prime, which I don't deny.

Re: Busquets and specifically @ CBarca

I never said anything about him not being a great player because of his play-acting, I said that he would never be a favourite of mine due to his play-acting and that legendary players act with integrity. Legendary players do not use diving as a tactic. It is the most cowardly thing a footballer can do.

Re: Gattuso

Yes, he has been involved in many rash tackles and fights over the years, but in my mind that is rather exemplary of his integrity rather than a sign of lack of integrity. The incident when Joe Jordan (somewhat ironically an ex-Milan player) stepped across the touch line and onto the San Siro in his capacity as Tottenham's assistant manager illustrates this point well. Gattuso overracted, yes, and he admitted it later and apologised. However, his reaction came only because it was not Jordan's place to be on the field. In fact, it is a privilege to be on the San Siro - a privilege that Jordan no longer had - and certainly not a privilege afforded to opposition assistants protesting against refereeing decisions. Much was written about the so-called "Milan mafia" in the English press after that game, ignoring the fact that Jordan had literally over-stepped the mark to provoke the reaction. Whilst this doesn't excuse Gattuso's conduct, it does undermine this "lack of integrity" argument perpetuated in this thread.

Although, I can't defend all unscrupulous things that have happened over the years.

El Jefe wrote:

Dante wrote:

El Jefe wrote:I don't understand how Busquets is a fake defensive midfielder. That is a load of rubbish. Lack of defensive skill? No chance.

Look , sure guy. I don't write stuff just for the sake of it. I specifically mentioned , in most cases . I never said Busquests is bad as DMF , or lacks in defensive skill . But since this post wasn't meant about Busquets and was about the very best , compared to other DMFs such as Rijkaard or Makelele , there he lacks in defensive skill , in comparison. In any case, i actually rate Busquets to the death , he's one of my favourite . But when we talk about all of them and try to find as best as possible an answer , then looking at the whole picture Sergio isn't up there with the best ball winners or tacklers or that commanding in the air and in general lines , his destructive side clearly does not overshine his creative side.

And once again , i also specifically mentioned I personally call them fake . I understand very well there's nothing fake with what they do . But these players aren't your typical DMF ala De Jong , for instance. They play in that position for other reasons , in fact for the complete opposite reasons than pure DMfs usually do. Not to help destroy and protect , but to help create and attack. Obviously they will have to do both , but they are different than the norm DMFs and i call them , again that's just a me thing , fake . Like false 9s play where they play because they offer something different to the classic 9 , something similar i value in this case as well. It was not meant to be taken literally or as a standard , lol

Anyway , probably i didn't actually word that post right . I should have been more specific , obviously. In any case , no i don't literally consider Busquets anything fake , just not the typical version of DM. He's not at all bad in his defensive duties but for many reasons i doubt he will ever reach the defensive quality that Rijkaard or some really tough ball winners had. He has a far better creative side than a destructive one and besides , i doubt how much freedom Barcelona's system actually lets him show or be all he can , with regards to the defensive duties of the position.

Busquets' main job is to protect, not create. He does it in a different way to lots of DMs. You see a lot of DMs who cover lots of ground and make lots of tackles, but in my opinion what makes Busquets the best in the world right now is his ability to protect the defence without doing that. He has the ability to prevent an attack from becoming threatening without touching the ball, that is defensive skill.

Since I've been a football fan he is the only player I've seen who can have so much impact on a game so effortlessly. His positioning, awareness, discipline, anticipation and instincts are unmatched.

Defensive midfielders like Busquets will never become the most common type of DM, because it is the most difficult to master. Trying to break up play is much easier than what Busi does.

I can agree with that. But like i said , he has to do both anyway , doesn't matter in what he excells at . It's not just Busquets main job , it's the position's main job to protect , the last midfielder must always do this , in whatever ways possible. The thing is , Busquets didn't oust Toure from there because he was better at protecting the defence than him. His ability to create triangles with Xavi and Iniesta which can result in all sorts of things , to drop back and play deeper when Pique does his stuff, his ability to effortlesly continue circulation on the ball , things like that. Busquets may not create ala Xavi or Iniesta , but he has a huge part in the whole 'creative plan'. I like how you mention his defensive attributes and i totally agree , very few can claim they have done this as much or as good as Busquets . Although i tend to believe that's not just on Busquets tbh. It's Barcelona's system too , that he more or less has to attempt anticipation more than the usuall dm work . That think before you act and not to mention how much of the ball Barcelona keep all game , defenitely has a say here. He still has to protect his backline , doesn't matter if Barcelona have the ball and opponents use pressing , so we can see why Busquets has become so good . Nevertheless , teams do not often attack or press Barcelona the way other dm's have their teams attacked. He's great at what you mentioned , but more often than not , he simply cannot even avoid but react like this. Btw , not using this against him in any way.

The fact that he's so good at it , speaks volumes . The thing is , even though this works to the benefit of his backline , i think it's more his offensive side than anything else . Typical DMs do not that often , not because they don't use anticipation but because if they do find themselves in a "threatening position" during that phase , they can't do what Busquets does with the ball under closed spaces whilst being pressured ; so they do not even try it. I believe it's more his ball playing quality that forces him to throw himself 'in there' before anything , could be wrong though.

Makélélé wasn’t anything special. His reputation far exceeds his actual ability, especially at Real Madrid. There are those who see quotes on Google or Wikipedia and think that it was he who was important at Real Madrid, not his role. If you look at who was actually tested at Makélélé’s role after his departure, and you see the likes of Beckham and Gravesen – two players who were not ball-winning midfielders. Makélélé’s departure wasn’t the reason for Real Madrid’s failures; it was not finding a better replacement.

I remember when Real Madrid were interested in Albelda at the turn of the decade, and when Pérez was chasing after Vieira calling him the best midfielder in the world. Two more than capable replacements, but the moves never happened. Makélélé could have been easily replaced by a sensible owner, but he wasn’t. That’s it. At Real Madrid he was a glorified hatchet man who had a reputation that was above his level.

With Chelsea he was just morphed into a third central defender. He didn’t have the skill-set of a holding midfielder at all. The reason why he had any success in that role was because the Premier League was about a decade or so behind tactically. I don’t recall the exact quote, but Mourinho himself explained how the 4-3-3 had total dominance over the 4-4-2 that nearly every team in the Premier League played with.

From 2004-2006 they had total dominance of the league, and that’s where the individual quality of the players started to show – Robben, Lampard, Drogba, Duff, etc. It’s no surprise that in a revolutionary system in England with an extremely talented side that Chelsea were able to play incredible counter-attacking football and still keep sturdy at the back because of Mourinho’s style.

Then from 2006-2008 Mourinho started playing much more defensively and his fullbacks never pushed as far up as they used to. The midfield was way more shuttled in especially with Ballack and Makélélé. Drogba became more of the focal point and in 2007 he had his best goal-scoring year under Mourinho.

The “Makélélé role” mantra is garbage. You can point out about a dozen examples through history of the anchor man in defense; the “Makélélé role” was the creation of Mourinho which was lapped up by the British media. David Batty played the same midfield role in the 1990s but as a part of the 4-4-2.

In Chelsea’s prime period, many pundits were talking about how every team needs a Makélélé-type player. The next season Manchester United dominated the Premier League using Scholes and Carrick. They ended up winning 3 consecutive titles without a Makélélé-type.

Makélélé would be redundant now.

Edit: I don't think Makélélé is a better defensive midfielder than the likes of Rijkaard, Redondo, Busquets, Dunga, Simeone, Fernández, Deschamps, or Silva.
Edit 2: I forgot Cambiasso in this list.

100% agreed with you, Pippo. Very astutely stated.

Mauro Silva not getting the recognition he deserves here. World cup winner in 94, he was the engine of one of the most romantic squads of all time - Super Depor.

Fernando Redondo is easily top 3 in this list. I still remember his master class at Old Trafford in 2000. And to think injuries curtailed his prime. El Principe

Pippo wrote:Makélélé wasn’t anything special. His reputation far exceeds his actual ability, especially at Real Madrid. There are those who see quotes on Google or Wikipedia and think that it was he who was important at Real Madrid, not his role. If you look at who was actually tested at Makélélé’s role after his departure, and you see the likes of Beckham and Gravesen – two players who were not ball-winning midfielders. Makélélé’s departure wasn’t the reason for Real Madrid’s failures; it was not finding a better replacement.

I remember when Real Madrid were interested in Albelda at the turn of the decade, and when Pérez was chasing after Vieira calling him the best midfielder in the world. Two more than capable replacements, but the moves never happened. Makélélé could have been easily replaced by a sensible owner, but he wasn’t. That’s it. At Real Madrid he was a glorified hatchet man who had a reputation that was above his level.

With Chelsea he was just morphed into a third central defender. He didn’t have the skill-set of a holding midfielder at all. The reason why he had any success in that role was because the Premier League was about a decade or so behind tactically. I don’t recall the exact quote, but Mourinho himself explained how the 4-3-3 had total dominance over the 4-4-2 that nearly every team in the Premier League played with.

From 2004-2006 they had total dominance of the league, and that’s where the individual quality of the players started to show – Robben, Lampard, Drogba, Duff, etc. It’s no surprise that in a revolutionary system in England with an extremely talented side that Chelsea were able to play incredible counter-attacking football and still keep sturdy at the back because of Mourinho’s style.

Then from 2006-2008 Mourinho started playing much more defensively and his fullbacks never pushed as far up as they used to. The midfield was way more shuttled in especially with Ballack and Makélélé. Drogba became more of the focal point and in 2007 he had his best goal-scoring year under Mourinho.

The “Makélélé role” mantra is garbage. You can point out about a dozen examples through history of the anchor man in defense; the “Makélélé role” was the creation of Mourinho which was lapped up by the British media. David Batty played the same midfield role in the 1990s but as a part of the 4-4-2.

In Chelsea’s prime period, many pundits were talking about how every team needs a Makélélé-type player. The next season Manchester United dominated the Premier League using Scholes and Carrick. They ended up winning 3 consecutive titles without a Makélélé-type.

Makélélé would be redundant now.

Edit: I don't think Makélélé is a better defensive midfielder than the likes of Rijkaard, Redondo, Busquets, Dunga, Simeone, Fernández, Deschamps, or Silva.
Edit 2: I forgot Cambiasso in this list.

And the problem is why was Cambiasso released?

Superstone Mariomintsch wrote:

Pippo wrote:Makélélé wasn’t anything special. His reputation far exceeds his actual ability, especially at Real Madrid. There are those who see quotes on Google or Wikipedia and think that it was he who was important at Real Madrid, not his role. If you look at who was actually tested at Makélélé’s role after his departure, and you see the likes of Beckham and Gravesen – two players who were not ball-winning midfielders. Makélélé’s departure wasn’t the reason for Real Madrid’s failures; it was not finding a better replacement.

I remember when Real Madrid were interested in Albelda at the turn of the decade, and when Pérez was chasing after Vieira calling him the best midfielder in the world. Two more than capable replacements, but the moves never happened. Makélélé could have been easily replaced by a sensible owner, but he wasn’t. That’s it. At Real Madrid he was a glorified hatchet man who had a reputation that was above his level.

With Chelsea he was just morphed into a third central defender. He didn’t have the skill-set of a holding midfielder at all. The reason why he had any success in that role was because the Premier League was about a decade or so behind tactically. I don’t recall the exact quote, but Mourinho himself explained how the 4-3-3 had total dominance over the 4-4-2 that nearly every team in the Premier League played with.

From 2004-2006 they had total dominance of the league, and that’s where the individual quality of the players started to show – Robben, Lampard, Drogba, Duff, etc. It’s no surprise that in a revolutionary system in England with an extremely talented side that Chelsea were able to play incredible counter-attacking football and still keep sturdy at the back because of Mourinho’s style.

Then from 2006-2008 Mourinho started playing much more defensively and his fullbacks never pushed as far up as they used to. The midfield was way more shuttled in especially with Ballack and Makélélé. Drogba became more of the focal point and in 2007 he had his best goal-scoring year under Mourinho.

The “Makélélé role” mantra is garbage. You can point out about a dozen examples through history of the anchor man in defense; the “Makélélé role” was the creation of Mourinho which was lapped up by the British media. David Batty played the same midfield role in the 1990s but as a part of the 4-4-2.

In Chelsea’s prime period, many pundits were talking about how every team needs a Makélélé-type player. The next season Manchester United dominated the Premier League using Scholes and Carrick. They ended up winning 3 consecutive titles without a Makélélé-type.

Makélélé would be redundant now.

Edit: I don't think Makélélé is a better defensive midfielder than the likes of Rijkaard, Redondo, Busquets, Dunga, Simeone, Fernández, Deschamps, or Silva.
Edit 2: I forgot Cambiasso in this list.

And the problem is why was Cambiasso released?

He was not played enough in his contract year, so he wanted to move. I think that was the year Beckham was tested as the holding midfielder at one point. When Cambiasso played, he was exceptional. He had a strong engine and was much better technically than Makélélé.

Cambiasso joined Internazionale and from the 2004-05 season to the 2010-11 season was always rated as one of the two best holding midfielders in the Serie A. He was an incredible player in his prime form, with the same defensive abilities as Makélélé but he could actually create plays offensively -- what a true holding midfielder should be doing.

I think because of the Sky pundit bs use of the term "Makelele role" and was subsequently overrated, some of you are now underrating him.

He was never really exploited in the air because his great timing and overall strength. But more important than that, he read the game extremely well and it was common to see him rotate to a position a pass ahead of play because he knew exactly where the ball would end up. He made a ton of (and important) interceptions look basic and simple because of his extraordinary understanding of space.

And while he wasnt a progressive or spectacular passer, he was a fundamental one who could make the easy short pass to the nearest man.

Some make it sound like he had hopeless technique and couldn't pass at all.

I have seen all the guys spoken about and there is no chance guys like Simeone were better in my opinion.

Makélélé wasn't a good passer. He was an accurate passer, but that's because he just shuttled the ball to more capable teammates. Between 2004-2006 he had one of the best passing percentages in Europe for midfielders, I recall. If you rate that as a skill, then it's fine by me. To me though, it just shows how limited he was as a player.

At Real Madrid, he did have hopeless technique. He was a specialist and he was called a broomstick player for that reason. He never had amazing positioning; he was a pure hatchet man who would always chase after the ball without possession. For every 2 completed passes, there was almost always a missed pass from what I recall.

If he was replaced by someone like Albelda rather than Beckham, then Makélélé would have never had a reputation like that. But he wasn't, and that was how his reputation transcended his level. The amount of times someone has told me that he was the most important player, etc. at Real Madrid is mind-bogglingly high and simply wrong.

Albelda in his prime was a player in the same vein as Makélélé at Chelsea, but he was a much better passer. He regularly could launch 30, 40 yard long-balls, but he was best leaving attacks with Baraja. Valencia were consistently a well-organised defensive side and that had to do with Albelda leading the team in the middle, something Makélélé became known for at Chelsea.

I do think Simeone was better as a holding midfielder. He was nowhere near as limited as Makélélé was, and in his prime period he was capable of scoring long-shots, dictating play, as well as leading from the back. This is something Makélélé couldn't do. Makélélé was a system player. I am a bit biased, but even in his final years at Internazionale and his first season at Lazio he was just incredible. He played more of a box-to-box role at Atlético, but he showed remarkable consistency at the highest level.

Makélélé had the skill-set of a central defender. I remember in the mid-2000s, there was a match where Sir Alex Ferguson played Ferdinand as his lone defensive midfielder, and it didn't work because Ferdinand always had the attacking tendency. Ferdinand had a more rounded skill-set than Makélélé for instance. I don't see what ability Makélélé had that someone like Carragher or Vidic didn't have.

He did his job, pass the ball to the nearest midfielder. The players he played with at Madrid, why on earth would he even attempt more ambitious passes?

Limited? As an overall player yes, for his role, not in my opinion. Nothing more was required of him, thats why he was put in that position.

Hopeless technique and no great positioning? I have no idea what you were watching, not the same player I was. hatchet man? Incredibly inaccurate and borderline disrespectful.

And he wasnt replaced by Beckham, he was replaced by Guti and then Graveson but whatever.

Albelda? Was nothing the player Makelele was, not in his prime and certainly not post 30.

Giving him the entire credit for Valencia's superb defending is just superficial. The entire team was compact and disciplined and if you want to look at individuals, none come before Ayala anyway.

The amount of times someone has told you that he was the most important player was mind boggiling and wrong?

What if one of those people was Zidane? Perhaps you would change your opinion, considering he played with the guy and said the same thing.

Simeone wasnt better, the guy was a decent player, even a good player..but special, not even a little bit.

Makelele a system player or not, played at a level above him easily.

I dont care what skillset Makelele had, it important to what was asked of him by various coaches. Just like its not especially strange to field a forward with poor defensive skills, it was not strange to play someone with limited skill in his position, because you put him with the correct conditions and his true skills become invaluable.

Maybe you have taken Sacchi's opinion too much to heart, it sure sounds like it.

The beast has awakened....

Dani

He wasn't capable of doing ambitious passes consistently. It's that simple. At Celta he would rarely, if ever play a long pass.

At RM, his role was to sweep up the midfield. He wasn't a single anchor man the majority of the time. His role was unheard of in the Premier League. That's what Makélélé was good at, and that's why when he was put in an uncomfortable position (i.e. 4-4-2) he notably struggled.

Hopeless technique is a bit harsh, I suppose. Mediocre is a better word. I never said he didn't have great positioning, so I'm not sure where you got that from. He regularly made unsporting and overly aggressive tackles. It was a by-product of his role.

It's funny, because you look at Beckham, Gravesen, and Guti, and you see that none of them are ball-winning midfielders. There was nobody capable of playing Makélélé's role in the team.

Albelda was nothing like Makélélé. He played with more finesse and intelligence on the pitch, and had better technique. I didn't give him the entire credit for the defense.

Hierro said the same thing as Zidane, I still disagree. His role was the most important part of the team, and there were many capable replacements, but none were acquired.

It's your opinion on Simeone, but I completely disagree with it.

His skill-set had everything to do with it, and that's why he was such a limited player. His various coaches asked him to play the same role because that was all he was capable of.

There was a reason why at times against bigger teams, Mourinho used to drop Makélélé as deep as Carvalho. There was a reason why when Mourinho used Mikel and Essien as deputies to Makélélé, they almost always struggled.

I don't understand how that analogy is relevant. Makélélé was a niche midfielder, just like how some forwards are niche forwards. Comparing Makélélé as a holding midfielder is like comparing Crouch as a centre forward.

Not sure how the Sacchi comment is relevant.

Yes, he wasnt capable. So what? Every player has strengths and weaknesses. Unlike many he recognised his quickly and didnt try things he cant do. Many players could do with some of that, even great players. Perhaps if someone like Pique for example realised, he isnt that great a long passer, he would be better for it. Many examples like this.

You said just a post before he didnt have amazing positioning. Anyway, we dont need to get caught up in semantics, the point was you/were making him sound like Lee Carsely or something. Thats not on, he was much better than that.

Yes, nobody at Madrid was was capable of doing what he did when he left. They insisted (a little like you are) his simple passing was easily replaced and they could bring in someone who could play more ambitious passes (why they started Guti there). Completely ignoring that his simplicity is often what is required there. I dont know why anyone would even want someone who plays those types of "glory balls" from his position. To me its only common sense you want someone who sacrifices thoses for simple balls. Its not going to get you praise but it sure as hell is better for the team. And what better player for that than someone who doesnt have the want, need or even ability to play those balls?

You speak about Albeda with reference to his fantastic intellegance...while you speak about Makelele like a oaf who charged around the pitch fouling everyone and misplacing passes. Not what I recall at all.

And on Albeda, if his game was based on finesse and such (it was) then why post 30 years old was he such a disaster and why in his last 5-6 years were coaches and fans quickly realising how much of a liability he was? This was not a man who relied on physical tools, why so terrible? No question in his best years he was a very good player, but I feel like your terribly overrating him. He wasnt ever that good.

Makelele was getting dropped by Chelsea not because of his ability, you speak as if he was still in his prime by this point.

And my analogy is relevant because just like certain players have flaws to their game, coaches and teammates still love them because they focus on what they did and can do, not want they cant and dont.

You pick players and build a team on what players can do, not what they cant.

The Sacchi comment is relevant because you like to speak in terms like he does, things like "specialist".

this thread is about DMs.... yet people criticize a player(s) for not being great as a CM. I don't think the role is well understood by some.

Kamikaze692 wrote:Mauro Silva not getting the recognition he deserves here. World cup winner in 94, he was the engine of one of the most romantic squads of all time - Super Depor.

Yup, not much love for him but in my humble view, he was better than Makelele or as Sid Lowe would say, "The Original Makelele".

The original destroyer was Claudio Gentile imo...

sportsczy wrote:The original destroyer was Claudio Gentile imo...  

Maradona: VAGI

Would Bozsik be called a DM or a DLP?

Bozsik cannot be considered a DM for the pure reason that he was complimented by Zakarias, who burst from deep in a sweeper role to protect Bozsik, often to make up for the latter's complete lack of pace. Bozsik was an excellent tackler yet only used during the oppositions counter attacks or situations where Zakarias was far too deep within his own half. Purely, Bozsik was a creative player, echoing a role closer to modern players such as Pep Guardiola or Xabi Alonso, though with more panache.

The Franchise wrote:Yes, he wasnt capable. So what? Every player has strengths and weaknesses. Unlike many he recognised his quickly and didnt try things he cant do. Many players could do with some of that, even great players. Perhaps if someone like Pique for example realised, he isnt that great a long passer, he would be better for it. Many examples like this.

Was it Makélélé who recognised this, or was it his coach at Celta? Compare Makélélé in early-Celta to late-Celta, and you will see that he was not the same type of player. I do not know about his style at Nantes, but I do believe he never played the same anchor man role he did later in his career.

The Franchise wrote:You said just a post before he didnt have amazing positioning. Anyway, we dont need to get caught up in semantics, the point was you/were making him sound like Lee Carsely or something. Thats not on, he was much better than that.

Exactly, because he did not have amazing positioning. There was a huge difference between how he played for RM and Chelsea. Once he lost his speed as he got older, he developed a more acute positioning ability.

The Franchise wrote:Yes, nobody  at Madrid was was capable of doing what he did when he left. They insisted (a little like you are) his simple passing was easily replaced and they could bring in someone who could play more ambitious passes (why they started Guti there). Completely ignoring that his simplicity is often what is required there. I dont know why anyone would even want someone who plays those types of "glory balls" from his position. To me its only common sense you want someone who sacrifices thoses for simple balls. Its not going to get you praise but it sure as hell is better for the team. And what better player for that than someone who doesnt have the want, need or even ability to play those balls?

You're arguing against something I've never actually stated. I never insisted that there should ever be a player who would spray long passes on a regular basis. Guti was an immaculate passer, but nowhere near the defensive ability as potential replacements. A year or so before that, Guti was playing as a SS and he always had the attacking intent.

Albelda didn't have that intent, but he did have the passing ability which is the difference. It's about adding more to your game, and since Makélélé was a niche player who only had a handful of abilities in abundance, he was limited.

Albelda and Vieira were both easily capable playing short and long passes, because they were nowhere near as limited as Makélélé, and that is what made them -- especially Vieira -- so appealing to Pérez.  

The Franchise wrote:You speak about Albeda with reference to his fantastic intellegance...while you speak about Makelele like a oaf who charged around the pitch fouling everyone and misplacing passes. Not what I recall at all.

He had the ball-playing ability of Scott Parker and the technique of Joey Barton, if I were to think of modern-day players. He did commit a lot of fouls, and he did misplace a lot of passes. That's why there were so many times where he would just pass back even if there were relatively open options ahead of him.

The Franchise wrote:And on Albeda, if his game was based on finesse and such (it was) then why post 30 years old was he such a disaster and why in his last 5-6 years were coaches and fans quickly realising how much of a liability he was? This was not a man who relied on physical tools, why so terrible? No question in his best years he was a very good player, but I feel like your terribly overrating him. He wasnt ever that good.

Some players peak early, some players get better with age. Albelda was better when he was younger, Makélélé when he was older.

Albelda forged an elite partnership with Baraja; they were arguably the best midfield partnership in the world at one point. I don't think I am overrating him at all, he was that good at his peak.

The Franchise wrote:Makelele was getting dropped by Chelsea not because of his ability, you speak as if he was still in his prime by this point.

Not sure what you mean by this. When Makélélé was injured or suspended, it was either Mikel or Essien that usually took his place. David Silva destroyed Mikel in 2007 when he tried playing Makélélé's position.

The Franchise wrote:And my analogy is relevant because just like certain players have flaws to their game, coaches and teammates still love them because they focus on what they did and can do, not want they cant and dont.

You pick players and build a team on what players can do, not what they cant.

You're understating Makélélé's flaws; he was a niche midfielder who specialised solely in defensive work. Compare him to a forward like Pippo or Sánchez, for instance. Makélélé should be rated beneath complete holding midfielders, but his reputation supersedes his ability.

Makélélé restricts the playstyle of a team and I would not want someone like him in a team, just like why I would not want a limited poacher in a team, just like why I would not want a kick-and-rush, get-it-to-the-touchline-and-whip-it-in winger in a team.

The Franchise wrote:The Sacchi comment is relevant because you like to speak in terms like he does, things like "specialist".

Specialist is not a word exclusive to Sacchi. I have used the term once, the same amount of times that I used the term "niche". So how am I taking Sacchi's opinion too close to heart?

You realize that the 2001-2003 Madrid team didn't need more than someone to win the ball for them ? He was more than perfect for that team. After he left, we couldn't replace him. (because of Perez' incompetence, I agree)

I dont know who recognised it, but does it matter? As I said many players could use some of the same stuff because they dont stick to what they can do exclusively.

Dont agree, always had positioning. Neither of us changing opinions here so lets move on.

Dont argue that Veira is better than Makelele, your wasting your time, I already believe Veira is better. However, I certainly dont agree with the leap to Albelda. I am done speaking about him anyway, again I dont agree with your opinion on him.

As for Makelele and Chelsea, seemed to me like you were saying he was eventually dropped and replaced at Chelsea because of his ability. That was not the case.

TBH we are going off in various different directions here, Mikel, Inzaghi, Sacchi, all sorts. I think its better to drop those side issues and keep on the topic, Makelele.

But we are clearly more or less at the end of the debate anyway, we dont agree here.

Doc wrote:An honourable mention to the Prince of Rome, Falcao.

Ehhh considered more a CM with AM tendancies than a DM tbh.

Magnificent player nonetheless.

Vieira was not a DM though... he was a B2B. Vieira and Makalele partnered next to Zidane in 2006 WC. Makalele was the DM, Vieira the B2B and Zizou the CM.


Peeps are really mixing up the players' positions.

Can you see why I didn't want to get involved sports. Half the posters here know *bleep* all.