There is always a lot of talk about what sort of midfielder we need at United, and what a "balanced midfield" looks like. This is my take which hopefully will prompt some discussion.
Broadly speaking I think you can divide midfielders along 2 axis - how attack/defence minded they are, and whether they are more of playmaker or a box-to-box/workhorse/physical type. Essentially this;
Of course, exactly what type of midfield each team wants will vary depending their formation and style of play etc.
In a 4-2-3-1 you will usually want two defence-minded players in the double-pivot, and can then afford a more attacking player operating as a #10.
Liverpool's 4-3-3 tends to rely on a very hard-working and fairly defensive trio, allowing the front three more freedom and less defensive responsibility.
Barcelona's classic 4-3-3 put a lot of creative emphasis on the midfield, requiring more of a slant towards the "playmaker" side of the axis, and a balance between attack and defence - you wouldnt really call Xavi or Iniesta AMs or DMs.
In any of the examples though, the key factor is balance, based on the role that the midfield plays in each team. Unless you are prime Barcelona, you are usually going to want someone on the "playmaker" side of the grid, and someone on the "box-to-box" side at least. Scholes and Keane. Jorginho and Kovacic. England's Rice/Phillips partnership is criticised because neither are particularly good on the ball, the same criticism levelled at McFred.
Its worth pointing out that this model does nothing to consider the quality of each player. You can have the perfectly balanced midfield, but if the players just arent good enough then it isnt going to matter.
To give a bit more context, this is where I would place some of the current (and past) United midfielders on this grid;
It would come to no great surprise that McTominay and Fred occupy similar spots, but this isnt about whether Fred should be a few inches further along the "defensive" axis, its about the requirements for a functioning, balanced midfield. The above shows quite clearly in United's case that a Carrick-like player would be an ideal partner for either Fred or McTominay (give the relatively defensive nature of the double pivot in the 4-2-3-1) - again, not rocket science. Conversely, Pogba is more of an attacking player - perhaps too much so for a double pivot - but if you stick him next to a completely defensive box-to-box player like Kante (as has been done for France) it balances the equation.
I appreciate that this may all seem like basic stuff, but I think that having a more visual representation can be a big help when understanding why some midfields just naturally work so well, whilst others struggle.
Broadly speaking I think you can divide midfielders along 2 axis - how attack/defence minded they are, and whether they are more of playmaker or a box-to-box/workhorse/physical type. Essentially this;
Of course, exactly what type of midfield each team wants will vary depending their formation and style of play etc.
In a 4-2-3-1 you will usually want two defence-minded players in the double-pivot, and can then afford a more attacking player operating as a #10.
Liverpool's 4-3-3 tends to rely on a very hard-working and fairly defensive trio, allowing the front three more freedom and less defensive responsibility.
Barcelona's classic 4-3-3 put a lot of creative emphasis on the midfield, requiring more of a slant towards the "playmaker" side of the axis, and a balance between attack and defence - you wouldnt really call Xavi or Iniesta AMs or DMs.
In any of the examples though, the key factor is balance, based on the role that the midfield plays in each team. Unless you are prime Barcelona, you are usually going to want someone on the "playmaker" side of the grid, and someone on the "box-to-box" side at least. Scholes and Keane. Jorginho and Kovacic. England's Rice/Phillips partnership is criticised because neither are particularly good on the ball, the same criticism levelled at McFred.
Its worth pointing out that this model does nothing to consider the quality of each player. You can have the perfectly balanced midfield, but if the players just arent good enough then it isnt going to matter.
To give a bit more context, this is where I would place some of the current (and past) United midfielders on this grid;
It would come to no great surprise that McTominay and Fred occupy similar spots, but this isnt about whether Fred should be a few inches further along the "defensive" axis, its about the requirements for a functioning, balanced midfield. The above shows quite clearly in United's case that a Carrick-like player would be an ideal partner for either Fred or McTominay (give the relatively defensive nature of the double pivot in the 4-2-3-1) - again, not rocket science. Conversely, Pogba is more of an attacking player - perhaps too much so for a double pivot - but if you stick him next to a completely defensive box-to-box player like Kante (as has been done for France) it balances the equation.
I appreciate that this may all seem like basic stuff, but I think that having a more visual representation can be a big help when understanding why some midfields just naturally work so well, whilst others struggle.