B2B & B2B vs DM & B2B

[Physiocrat]

Scrappy has made the argument in the past that the latter is superior as it is much easier to coordinate and keep stability in midfield particularly when the opposition counters. Is this correct? @GodShaveTheQueen

I can see the logic in it but is it much different that the full-backs taking turns to bomb up the flank?

I can understand why having two B2B midfielders could stifle the more attacking B2B types such as say Breitner or Falcao but I don't see that you would lose much on an individual level, assuming they could coordinate it properly, if you had a pair of Davids and Keane.

What does everyone else think?

 

[harms]

It depends on midfielders themselves. It's easier to create a DM/B2B partnership but when you're partnering 2 B2B midfielders, you have to carefully choose so that their individual styles fit together well.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

My point of reference for that argument was that I struggled to find teams who won great things without a good holder.

Everything looks bright and shiny with two B2B players offering something in all phases, but in real world, there is very little proof of that.

Even during the attack heavy 50's, the importance of the holder was not lost.

Maybe the way to finish this argument is with real world examples and the kind of opponents they faced and trophies they won.

One thing is for sure, take the 10-20 greatest teams of all time and you'd struggle to find teams without an holder.

You'd have exceptions like Man United '99 or Italy '06, but their dynamics were such that tremendous work was expected of the wingers.

In a standard draft 4-2-3-1, its a big no for me and almost always loses my vote unless the opposition doesn't have a No.10.

 

[Physiocrat]

@GodShaveTheQueen So if I am understanding you correctly, to actually play with two B2B in anything other than a genuine midfield three, you need the wingers or the rest of the whole team to be very hard working for both of the CMs to be genuine B2B players otherwise one becomes the de facto holder.

Is this correct?

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

@GodShaveTheQueen So if I am understanding you correctly, to actually play with two B2B in anything other than a genuine midfield three, you need the wingers or the rest of the whole team to be very hard working for both of the CMs to be genuine B2B players otherwise one becomes the de facto holder.

Is this correct?

That is how I set my teams up, yes.

Missed mentioning in last post, but Germany 1974 is the only great team that came to mind without dedicated holder but had the luxury of the greatest libero of all time sweeping things up and had to have Vogts mark Cruyff throughout the final, almost like a makeshift holder.

 

[Physiocrat]

That is how I set my teams up, yes.

Missed mentioning in last post, but Germany 1974 is the only great team that came to mind without dedicated holder but had the luxury of the greatest libero of all time sweeping things up and had to have Vogts mark Cruyff throughout the final, almost like a makeshift holder.

Ah yes Germany 1974 as well as 1972 thinking about it.

On a more speculative note do you think it is possible for the two CMs to alternate between being a holder and driving forward more or do you think it is too difficult to coordinate?

 

[Gio]

With a designated defensive midfielder alongside a roamer, there's a simplicity and clarity around designated roles in midfield, which can help when decisions have to be taken automatically. You can weigh that up against the advantages provided by a central midfield partnership of two box-to-box players where the attacking threat can come from two players as opposed to one. And secondly the potential to take turns of making forward runs to save energy and maximise physical capacity, rather than running one guy ragged for 90 minutes.

I don't think either system is right or wrong. The key is about securing the right balance between defensive and attacking instincts within your partnership alongside wider factors such as how that complements the rest of the midfield, the ability of the defence to compress the game behind them and the capacity of the forward(s) ahead of them to hold the ball up and defend off it.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

Ah yes Germany 1974 as well as 1972 thinking about it.

On a more speculative note do you think it is possible for the two CMs to alternate between being a holder and driving forward more or do you think it is too difficult to coordinate?

In theory yes, but that leaves a lot of room for mistakes with a holder essentially being missing if the coordination is not to perfection. That bit of liberty to assume it will work to perfection is not my cup of tea.

And then there is the case of goats. You can't have alternating markers with someone like Cruyff or Zico. They'll just roast you. Insult to their intelligence as footballers if people think otherwise IMO.

Again as I said, everyone can make their own theories but real world examples should speak for themselves.

 

[Gio]

My point of reference for that argument was that I struggled to find teams who won great things without a good holder.

Everything looks bright and shiny with two B2B players offering something in all phases, but in real world, there is very little proof of that.

Even during the attack heavy 50's, the importance of the holder was not lost.

Maybe the way to finish this argument is with real world examples and the kind of opponents they faced and trophies they won.

One thing is for sure, take the 10-20 greatest teams of all time and you'd struggle to find teams without an holder.

You'd have exceptions like Man United '99 or Italy '06, but their dynamics were such that tremendous work was expected of the wingers.

In a standard draft 4-2-3-1, its a big no for me and almost always loses my vote unless the opposition doesn't have a No.10.

A lot of these teams played three man midfields which is a different discussion in my view. Better off looking at two-man central midfield units where it's much more of a mixed picture. In fact most British club 4-4-2s of the second half of the 20th century would have had two players who could go box to box. One who would have a more defensive remit like Keane, and one who could play a bit more like Scholes, but it was a model that worked for many years. Some of the better partnerships amongst that lot were Murdoch and Auld, Bremner and Giles, Reid and Bracewell, McMahon + 1 other. Even the gold standard under Sacchi of Rijkaard and Albertini they had all-round and proactive responsibilities, and I certainly wouldn't limit Rijkaard to the DM role he often receives in our drafts.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

A lot of these teams played three man midfields which is a different discussion in my view. Better off looking at two-man central midfield units where it's much more of a mixed picture. In fact most British club 4-4-2s of the second half of the 20th century would have had two players who could go box to box. One who would have a more defensive remit like Keane, and one who could play a bit more like Scholes, but it was a model that worked for many years. Some of the better partnerships amongst that lot were Murdoch and Auld, Bremner and Giles, Reid and Bracewell, McMahon + 1 other. Even the gold standard under Sacchi of Rijkaard and Albertini they had all-round and proactive responsibilities, and I certainly wouldn't limit Rijkaard to the DM role he often receives in our drafts.

tbf he played a lot as a holding midfielder as well and did it greatly but agree in general, his offensive contribution was very good and a lot of his performances came in b2b role which are often forgotten here or just ignored.

 

[Physiocrat]

A lot of these teams played three man midfields which is a different discussion in my view. Better off looking at two-man central midfield units where it's much more of a mixed picture. In fact most British club 4-4-2s of the second half of the 20th century would have had two players who could go box to box. One who would have a more defensive remit like Keane, and one who could play a bit more like Scholes, but it was a model that worked for many years. Some of the better partnerships amongst that lot were Murdoch and Auld, Bremner and Giles, Reid and Bracewell, McMahon + 1 other. Even the gold standard under Sacchi of Rijkaard and Albertini they had all-round and proactive responsibilities, and I certainly wouldn't limit Rijkaard to the DM role he often receives in our drafts.

Wasn't Bremner and Giles more a B2B and DLP combo?

Also on Germany 72 you could view them as having two B2Bs and an 8 in Netzer.

 

[Gio]

Wasn't Bremner and Giles more a B2B and DLP combo?

Also on Germany 72 you could view them as having two B2Bs and an 8 in Netzer.

Well same model as Keane and Scholes if that’s considered as a non-DM partnership. Although I’d defer to @Pat_Mustard on Giles.

 

[Physiocrat]

Well same model as Keane and Scholes if that’s considered as a non-DM partnership. Although I’d defer to @Pat_Mustard on Giles.

I know that Keane-Scholes partnership is revered but how often did they play together at CM in a midfield two? I don't think ti was actually that often

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

A lot of these teams played three man midfields which is a different discussion in my view. Better off looking at two-man central midfield units where it's much more of a mixed picture. In fact most British club 4-4-2s of the second half of the 20th century would have had two players who could go box to box. One who would have a more defensive remit like Keane, and one who could play a bit more like Scholes, but it was a model that worked for many years. Some of the better partnerships amongst that lot were Murdoch and Auld, Bremner and Giles, Reid and Bracewell, McMahon + 1 other. Even the gold standard under Sacchi of Rijkaard and Albertini they had all-round and proactive responsibilities, and I certainly wouldn't limit Rijkaard to the DM role he often receives in our drafts.

If we are talking from draft games POV, they are almost always 3 man midfields (including the number 10) with really expansive wide players So that is where the Crux of the problem lies for me. 4-4-2's are exceptions rather than the norm from what I have seen. The frequency has increased in the large couple of drafts but in general been very low compared to the 4231.

Four man midfields as I said are okay if well built with lots of emphasis on the defensive side of the game from players outside the original back 6. Sacchi's Milan is a classic example of that and hence outside the scope of discussion for me. Same goes with United 99 or Italy 06 as I mentioned earlier.

The kind of teams I have a problem with are as below -

-----------------MVB------------------
Gento-------Kaka-----Matthews
--------Davids----Robson-----------

--------------Romario------------------
Dinho-------Rivera------Garrincha
--------Tigana----Neeskens--------

Would be highly celebrated teams in general but are wrongly set up in my eyes.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

If it's a 4-4-2, I have no objections to a 2 B2B midfield. If we are playing 4-2-3-1, then a DM paired with a B2B or DLP is ideal.

............Cantona........RvN..................
Giggs...Davids....Robson....Beckham

is lovely.

 

[harms]

The kind of teams I have a problem with are as below -

-----------------MVB------------------
Gento-------Kaka-----Matthews
--------Davids----Robson-----------

--------------Romario------------------
Dinho-------Rivera------Garrincha
--------Tigana----Neeskens--------

Would be highly celebrated teams in general but are wrongly set up in my eyes.

I think that while those teams certainly don't exploit those midfielders to the very best of their abilities, the likes of Davids and Tigana are very capable of performing a role like Kante/Makelele/Casemiro. Now, personally, I'd rather go with a cultured ball-playing defensive holder like Busquets/Carrick etc., but many teams have reached significant success with a hardworking runner behind 2 more creative outlets. Tigana especially is not a true box to box (as the original box to box is supposed to make a tackle in his own box and then score a goal from inside the box on the other side of the pitch in one move), since he usually played a pass early after winning the ball away. We just name him a box-to-box midfielder because in our eyes it's a definition of a skilful midfield engine.

 

[Pat_Mustard]

Well same model as Keane and Scholes if that’s considered as a non-DM partnership. Although I’d defer to @Pat_Mustard on Giles.

Aye, I agree with you that both were B2B, albeit with different styles and qualities. Straight from the horse's mouth from 4:35. The whole video (from 2010) is an interesting watch.