PDA

View Full Version : What's a d-mid?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 04:32 PM
I'd rather gargle Drain-o than try to explain the complexities of the defensive midfield position to the uninitiated, but it's come to be that I have to. I have to. As Chris Knight might say, it's a moral imperative.

A defensive midfielder is charged primarily with three things. In order of importance, they are:

1) Blunt the opposition attack

This is the first line on the job description of a defensive midfielder, and it's more important than items #2 and #3 combined. Teams in the modern game can't win if they're constantly giving up space in the middle of the field, which is why good defensive midfielers are so important. It's a matter of always being in the right place at the right time, never running behind the play, and never letting your defenders be exposed. The positional aspect of this part of the game is as difficult to learn as it is important, which is why you rarely see youngsters as the d-mids on top-level teams.

Think about it: You've seen teenaged strikers, wingers, attacking central mids, defenders, even the occasional goalkeeper excel on the world's top teams. Have you ever seen a 19 year old defensive midfielder lift a trophy?

Now, blunting an attack is not the same as stopping the attack cold. Instead, all the d-mid has to do is be in the right place at the right time to force a lateral or back-pass, giving your teammates a chance to get ahead of the play. Suddenly instead of a counter the opposition is forced to re-organize itself and try to avoid a costly turnover all because the d-mid forced the opposition to make a pass they didn't want to make.

Or because he committed a professional foul. It's cheap, but there's a reason for it.

In recent times nobody was better at this than Fernando Redondo, who I believe was the greatest d-mid of all time. In MLS Chris Armas is unparalelled at this part of the game. And overall, either Claude Makelele or Gennaro Gattuso is the best in the world at this part of the game currently.

2) Link/organize the midfield and defense

If your team is running around aimlessly, never receiving the ball in stride, defenders reduced to pumping long-balls over the top, it's probably your defensive midfielder's fault.

The terms "linking play" and "organize" are thrown around quite a bit by folks who don't understand what, exactly they're actually saying. I'm looking in Eric Wynalda's direction.

"Organizing" the midfield means that the d-mid recognizes when an attacking midfielder, flanker, full-back, or very occasionally a center-back has made an attacking run thereby leaving space for the opposition to exploit in the case of a turnover. It's then the d-mid's job to either cover the gap himself or direct a teammate there. If all the obvious avenues of attack are then covered, the d-mid forces his opponent to make either an extraordinary attacking play, or retreat and re-organize himself.

"Linking" play means playing the ball quickly and efficiently, and always being in a position to act as an outlet. It also means making passes that put the d-mid's team in a position of strength, where they can make a low-risk, high-reward pass instead of a high-risk, high-reward pass. Richard Mulrooney is absurdly good at this, as is Brian Carroll. They never put teammates in jeopardy. Redondo wasn't just good, he was God. Big G.

Some teams, like AC Milan and probably Manchester United this season, have two different players for these roles. Pirlo and Gattuso in Milan, Carrick and quite probably Senna in Manchester. This was also an area in which Claudio Reyna excelled, even though he was in no other way a defensive midfielder.

3) Win the ball

The least important and least understood aspect of a d-mid's game is winning the ball. Simply put, a d-mid will cause more turnovers by forcing a bad pass into his team's position of defensive strength than he will by winning the ball outright. Real Madrid apologists have often pointed to statistical breakdowns that say Guti has a higher percentage of "balls recovered" than Makelele has ever had. That tells me that Guti isn't a d-mid because he's not the one forcing the bad pass, he's the one intercepting it, while the reverse is true for Makelele.

That's not to say winning the ball outright isn't important. It's just not as important as the other aspects of a defensive midfielder's game, especially given the fact that other midfielders have been known to put in a fierce tackle every now and then. In recent years players like John O'Brien, Dema Kovalenko, Stephen Gerrard, Xabi Alonso and Clint Dempsey have been mistaken for defensive midfielders because they have high workrates and would tackle a cripple. But the fact is, none of them are ball-stoppers; they're ball-chasers, guys whose defensive instincts are best shown when paired with, or in front of, a true d-mid.

This was never more apparent than two years ago in the Champions' League final. Rafa Benitez took a gamble and played Gerrard and Xabi Alonso together in the central midfield, and was rewarded with a 3-0 hole at half-time. He then subbed on Dietmar Hamann, a true d-mid, for Harry Kewell, an attacker. Hamann won just one ball outright in the second half, but his positional presence freed up Gerrard and Alonso to harrass the Milan midfield while attacking at will, and the Reds were rewarded with a 3-3 regulation comback.


So, that's it. Read it and remember it, and the next time you see a young kid playing his first game sprint 30 yards crossfield to slide-tackle the ball into touch, don't think "Wow, he's a great d-mid!" Instead, check to see who was covering for that run. Whoever it was is the actual d-mid on the team.

And if it was no one, you're probably a Red Donkeys fan. Like me.

Dan Loney
08 Aug 2006, 04:36 PM
Yes, I know this post was a shot at my ignorance, so let me childishly respond in kind. Richard Mulrooney wasn't the d-mid for San Jose during the championship years, Ronnie Ekelund was. He isn't FC Dallas' d-mid, Simo Valakari is. Mulrooney was drafted as a forward. EDIT - like Rod Carew in a different circumstance, he converted.

I think Didier Deschamps was the best d-mid I've ever seen. Followed by Danny Pena. If he had accepted Sampson's call-up, we'd have won the group in 1998. Counterfactuals are my best friend.

Honore de Ballsac
08 Aug 2006, 04:37 PM
Turn counters into counters.

And not like Freddy.

Honore de Ballsac
08 Aug 2006, 04:41 PM
Mulrooney and Ekelund swapped roles between seasons.

Danny Pena was awesome. Mostly as a center back.

How was it again that that red-bearded hobo lined-up against Brazil, Colombia, Switzerland and Romania, instead of Pena?

Untimely injury and an old skool unwillingness to be treated like a child as I recall.

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 04:41 PM
Yes, I know this post was a shot at my ignorance, so let me childishly respond in kind. Richard Mulrooney wasn't the d-mid for San Jose during the championship years, Ronnie Ekelund was. He isn't FC Dallas' d-mid, Simo Valakari is. Mulrooney was drafted as a forward. EDIT - like Rod Carew in a different circumstance, he converted.
Ekelund was not; he played the Pirlo role before it was in fashion, acting more as a sweeper than a d-mid. And taking shots at your ignorance is really too easy to be fun, anyway.

As for Dallas, I think they're still trying to figure out how Mulrooney and Valakari work together. They're winning on talent more than cohesion.

And what position Mulrooney played when he was drafted is a total red herring in this discussion. Chris Albright says so.

I think Didier Deschamps was the best d-mid I've ever seen. Followed by Danny Pena. If he had accepted Sampson's call-up, we'd have won the group in 1998. Counterfactuals are my best friend.
I think Deschamps is in the top 3 I've seen, with Rijkaard being the other. Pena might be in the top six or so.

Honore de Ballsac
08 Aug 2006, 04:48 PM
Speaking of '94, Dunga was very good.

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 04:51 PM
Speaking of '94, Dunga was very good.
Yes, though like Makelele he wasn't quite the linking player Redondo, Rijkaard and Deschamps were.

JohnR
08 Aug 2006, 04:53 PM
D mid is where a lot of youth coaches hide their kids when they're slow, awkward, and witless.

Put 'em at forward, your team never scores and they embarrass themselves in front of everybody when they are asked to do 1v1s. A mid, that's just too painful. They can't run so they can't play wing. You can't place them in the back because they just get beaten. So there's nothing left but D mid.

Particularly since the coach will probably run a 3-5-2 or 4-5-1 and play two D mids, meaning one truly good D mid who can carry Junior's sorry ass.

Secrets of youth soccer, I have a lot of them.

Ombak
08 Aug 2006, 05:13 PM
Yes, though like Makelele he wasn't quite the linking player Redondo, Rijkaard and Deschamps were.Actually, in 94 he was. Although usually he wasn't that kind of player.

Of course Brazil didn't play on the counter-attack for most of 1994, they played in possession, which means that the "linking player" is less noticeable since it might be a dozen passes or more before a chance is created after the ball is stolen.

Crazy_Yank
08 Aug 2006, 05:25 PM
forgive my ignorance, but who is danny pena?

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 05:42 PM
forgive my ignorance, but who is danny pena?
The sixth-greatest d-mid of all time.

Honore de Ballsac
08 Aug 2006, 05:42 PM
Now there's a guy who should have a wikipedia entry.

Zuras
08 Aug 2006, 05:58 PM
I think Didier Deschamps was the best d-mid I've ever seen. Followed by Danny Pena. If he had accepted Sampson's call-up, we'd have won the group in 1998. Counterfactuals are my best friend.


Uhhhh??? Lothar Matthaeus?

Dan Loney
08 Aug 2006, 07:03 PM
And taking shots at your ignorance is really too easy to be fun, anyway.Doesn't stop anyone else.

topcow
08 Aug 2006, 08:34 PM
Uhhhh??? Lothar Matthaeus?

He's a sweeper, which I believe is different from a d-mid.

livestock
08 Aug 2006, 09:24 PM
He's a sweeper, which I believe is different from a d-mid.

He's an ex-international who turned into a blow-hard overnight by coming to the Metrostars in search of ... what? In search of an easy paycheck or two.:mad:
He was not, however, a d-mid or a true sweeper...he was converted to sweeper when he got older at the club level and could no longer keep pace, but he was the creative central mid for the German national team, where back heeling passes in the opponent's penalty area is not the domain of the traditional d-mid, nor is running at the defense with the ball at one's feet (see Chris Armas, above).
Gattuso, yes.
Pirlo...much more the creative role who plays off of Gattuso's positioning.

Dema Kovalenko...shouldn't be put in the same sentence with any of the above mentioned people. He's a plain old f*&^%ing hack. Effective when asked to be the intimidator at Indiana...not so when up against the next level.

DoctorK
08 Aug 2006, 09:33 PM
Lothar played d-mid for the Metros (though I wished he'd have assumed the old creative playmaker role he had for Inter and before the end of his days with Bayern), and nowhere near as poorly as so many seem to think he did. In the ten years of the MetroStars, I don't think anyone played the position better.

Honore de Ballsac
08 Aug 2006, 09:38 PM
Wait, we already established he was a goalscorer before he came to MLS. The kid had fluid skills and he was a deadly sharp shooter who could rip them off quick.

I credit his transformation to Arenaball: the brand of soccer that holds Richie Williams, Chris Armas and Diego Gutierrez in the highest regard. That made skillful scrawny little Ben Olsen what he is today: equal parts punk and thug.
Dema was steeped in Arenaball via Bob Bradley. The success of CJ Brown tells me this was the message at the club: leave the brilliance to Piotr; if you can't be brilliant every game - and who can? - you can always keep your place by being "competitive."

It's no surprise at all that Arena's first move was cherrypicking Dema.

(And for the record Dan he was a really nice kid.)

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 09:53 PM
Doesn't stop anyone else.
They have low standards.

Matrim55
08 Aug 2006, 09:58 PM
Pirlo...much more the creative role who plays off of Gattuso's positioning.
Correct.

Dema Kovalenko...shouldn't be put in the same sentence with any of the above mentioned people. He's a plain old f*&^%ing hack. Effective when asked to be the intimidator at Indiana...not so when up against the next level.
While there's a significant gap in talent, the more significant gap is in terms of positioning and responsibility. Kovalenko shouldn't be in the conversation not because he's untalented; he shouldn't be in the conversation because he's played a distinctly different position with distinctly different positional responsibilities over the course of his career.

As for Mattheus, he was first a creative central midfielder, then as he got older he dropped to sweeper for Bayern. He only regularly played as a d-mid for Metro in his one season with the club. So I wouldn't at all rate him as one of the great d-mids of all time.