Redcafe's All-Time Top 30. Box-to-box and defensive midfielders | Finally done!

[Fortitude]

http://pythagorasinboots.com/greatest-defensive-midfielders/

@Fortitude that is the way I categorised it. Would you prefer a separate countdown for each type of CDM or would the categories listed be similar enough to merit a worthwhile best overall CDM ranking...

For me our redcafe one encapsulated far too much range of players but it is an interesting first attempt and with more practice it will become more refined.

Something like that, Raees. I do understand it is convoluted and extensive, but at the same time, isn't that what these lists should be attempting to do? How can Beckenbauer not being top 3 - at least - in numerous categories be representative when he's the most skilful player of his ilk that has existed?

A compendium of DLP's, DM's, CM's etc. would be magnificent and give each type of midfielder their due, independent of one another - something that cannot happen when the pot is melted together and the eye-catching dynamos pretty much dominate. Who the better DLP is between a Pirlo and a Van Hanegem or Ocwirk (for example) would make more sense than comparing them to all-action maurading dynamos, I think. Sorting dynamic runners and all-rounders amongst themselves also has you comparing like for like and seeing how a Gerrard matches up to a Neeskens, Robson or what have you, at which point goals, and contribution to both boxes is paramount and pre-requisite where it shouldn't be for DLP's and DM's.

I know this was concluded in February and my timing on bringing this up makes no sense, but it has bothered me for some time and I guess because I'm in this forum a lot more now, I thought I'd just post up instead of thinking the same thing over and over.

 

[Gio]

Something like that, Raees. I do understand it is convoluted and extensive, but at the same time, isn't that what these lists should be attempting to do? How can Beckenbauer not being top 3 - at least - in numerous categories be representative when he's the most skilful player of his ilk that has existed?

A compendium of DLP's, DM's, CM's etc. would be magnificent and give each type of midfielder their due, independent of one another - something that cannot happen when the pot is melted together and the eye-catching dynamos pretty much dominate. Who the better DLP is between a Pirlo and a Van Hanegem or Ocwirk (for example) would make more sense than comparing them to all-action maurading dynamos, I think. Sorting dynamic runners and all-rounders amongst themselves also has you comparing like for like and seeing how a Gerrard matches up to a Neeskens, Robson or what have you, at which point goals, and contribution to both boxes is paramount and pre-requisite where it shouldn't be for DLP's and DM's.

I know this was concluded in February and my timing on bringing this up makes no sense, but it has bothered me for some time and I guess because I'm in this forum a lot more now, I thought I'd just post up instead of thinking the same thing over and over.

I think the main challenge was creating separate categories that 20-30 voters would all follow consistently. The more categories, the greater the chance for confusion. Or put simply the higher the chance that Beckenbauer might get ranked 1st or 2nd by half the voters, but not picked at all by the rest. There was also the added challenge with the midfielders that one person's DM is another's all-action B2B. As Harms says the pure destroyers are a rare breed at the top level and most of the best defensive midfielders had a box-to-box game. I think the pre-allocated lists for the advanced midfielders has helped to clarify matters though. It does introduce bias by pointing folk to certain players but it reduces the categorisation problems that arose for the centre-halves and in the scenario above.

 

[Fortitude]

I think the main challenge was creating separate categories that 20-30 voters would all follow consistently. The more categories, the greater the chance for confusion. Or put simply the higher the chance that Beckenbauer might get ranked 1st or 2nd by half the voters, but not picked at all by the rest. There was also the added challenge with the midfielders that one person's DM is another's all-action B2B. As Harms says the pure destroyers are a rare breed at the top level and most of the best defensive midfielders had a box-to-box game. I think the pre-allocated lists for the advanced midfielders has helped to clarify matters though. It does introduce bias by pointing folk to certain players but it reduces the categorisation problems that arose for the centre-halves and in the scenario above.

What you say is, of course, correct and explains why the procedure became what it did, but the outcome has ultimately not worked out, wouldn't you say? Whatever or however it happened, Beckenbauer is 10th in this list, which means somehow, some way he wasn't correctly voted for despite the blending of positions. I won't be anal and point out all the anomalies, not least because it is a bit of a subjective exercise, but there are talking points throughout, which even as is, haven't given the correct reflection of the outlined roles.

It's also so difficult to say a CM is better than a DM and vice-versa - what is the criteria there? And is everybody using the same? If I want someone to studiously and impeccably sit in front of a defence and defend it like their life depended on it with all the nuance and intricacies of the position, I'm not going to be picking a bunch of the CM's in that list - on the other hand, if I want a box-to-box guy who is going to be a serious contributor in offensive elements, a bunch of the DM's here wouldn't even be a consideration. I think by avoiding one set of confusions, another set have materialised.

I'm thinking if this is a lock/compendium for the ages, you're going to have posters who don't get this particular process or have joined after it concluded, asking how it is possible for Beckenbauer (standout) to sit 10th in any list he's eligible for, before perusing the overall list and questioning the whys and wherefores of so many different types being grouped together.

 

[Synco]

Whatever or however it happened, Beckenbauer is 10th in this list, which means somehow, some way he wasn't correctly voted for despite the blending of positions.

That was just a matter of confusion about which bracket he should be included in, and harms not having quite taken on the role of benevolent dictator yet.

Since then, there's clarity about which player is included in which category, and a repeat of the problems with Nesta and Beckenbauer has been avoided. At least as far as I can see.

I think by avoiding one set of confusions, another set have materialised.

That's what we're saying all along, but I also think it would be like that for any alternative solution. You fix one problem, another one pops up. That was the general experience. If you can think of a solution that avoids that, please share it. The forward/winger categories won't be any less problematic.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

@Fortitude where do you think he should have finished? Personally i had him sixth so obviously i think he should be a bit higher but thats the thing, just a bit. As much as i love the Kaiser and i reckon im one of the biggest fanboys here that midfield version wasnt the GOAT tier player. He didnt develop fully yet but the bigger reason was that he was waaaay ahead of his time so very rarely he found a teammate on the same wavelength as he was just much smarter then them - put him in a modern game for example and even the midfield version would be the GOAT.

Bigger issue IMO that fecking Hoddle and Albertini are on the lists, not just on the lists but higher then some great players. Ohh wait thats on the other category, ignore this

 

[Fortitude]

@Synco I personally feel like-for-like, or at least attempting to compare like-for like, is the solution and working the parameters amongst pre-determined selections (if needs be) to be voted upon. At best, it avoids cross-contamination, as it were, and gets down to the nitty gritty of who is better at a specific role that all candidates are pooled from. I'd certainly be interested in seeing who the best actual CM's are, for example. Some players naturally go across categories - Beckenbauer ostensibly contending for DM, DLP, B2B but is obviously nowhere to be seen as a 'harrier/runner', so why not then pit him against each specialist and see how he fairs, equally so for anyone else it applies to?

Gerrard is not going to get into any list other than B2B, but as a B2B, his merits to the postive and negative can be compared and contrasted. Gattuso might rank as one of the best harriers there's ever been, doesn't make him any good at the other roles, but acknowledges if you want to look at who were the best at getting after the opposition, he's right up there. Dunga was a great DM and so-so DLP, he's obviously going to rank well in one category and be a non-entity in others, but it highlights perfectly what his specialist qualities were. Makelele or Deschamps are going to be prominent figures in a DM list, but get nowhere in any other category.. Someone like Guardiola could easily feature in a DLP list, yet he'd get nowhere in any of the others, but it perfectly highlights his tremendous qualities at doing what he did - and was on the field to do - and then you pit him against countless others of this ilk. You can go through the whole list and break them down pretty easily , imo

As is, we're left with Nesta wherever it is he ranked, whilst everyone knows it's incorrect and the same goes with Beckenbauer here, (and a lot of others, imo) and it just seems weird it'd be agreed upon to leave it that way because thems the breaks at the same time as there being no chance of those being their actual rankings.

 

[Fortitude]

@Fortitude where do you think he should have finished? Personally i had him sixth so obviously i think he should be a bit higher but thats the thing, just a bit. As much as i love the Kaiser and i reckon im one of the biggest fanboys here that midfield version wasnt the GOAT tier player. He didnt develop fully yet but the bigger reason was that he was waaaay ahead of his time so very rarely he found a teammate on the same wavelength as he was just much smarter then them - put him in a modern game for example and even the midfield version would be the GOAT.

Bigger issue IMO that fecking Hoddle and Albertini are on the lists, not just on the lists but higher then some great players. Ohh wait thats on the other category, ignore this

I'd certainly consider the merits, one being longevity is not on his side as a midfielder over others, but then, we've got Edwards in these lists, too. But when it comes to Beckenbauer, we are obviously talking about the most anomalous of them all - you could 'Messi' it and say he's just the best come award time irrespective of what others have done that season, or you can consider the merits of what he did in the position(s) before moving back into his more renowned roles.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

I'd certainly consider the merits, one being longevity is not on his side as a midfielder over others, but then, we've got Edwards in these lists, too. But when it comes to Beckenbauer, we are obviously talking about the most anomalous of them all - you could 'Messi' it and say he's just the best come award time irrespective of what others have done that season, or you can consider the merits of what he did in the position(s) before moving back into his more renowned roles.

Personally dont really care about career and longevity when doing lists, as in drafts i look at the 3 year peak and performances in it and from what i saw and i saw plenty when it comes to Kaiser he just wasnt on the Rijkaard/Matthaus level as i assume you are suggesting. Not his fault obviously as i said in previous post but its similar to the Scholes issue in terms of "what could have been"....
If Fergie(you cant hold it against him given the success) ever built a possession heavy system around peak/old Scholes he would be much more appreciated by the general public and even the hardcore fans. Mind you, he was still brilliant but imagine how much more he could have done....

 

[Fortitude]

Personally dont really care about career and longevity when doing lists, as in drafts i look at the 3 year peak and performances in it and from what i saw and i saw plenty when it comes to Kaiser he just wasnt on the Rijkaard/Matthaus level as i assume you are suggesting. Not his fault obviously as i said in previous post but its similar to the Scholes issue in terms of "what could have been"....
If Fergie(you cant hold it against him given the success) ever built a possession heavy system around peak/old Scholes he would be much more appreciated by the general public and even the hardcore fans. Mind you, he was still brilliant but imagine how much more he could have done....

There's a perhaps there, but, as you've said yourself, he would be nudged up to a ranking representative of his game and abilities and not sorta shuffled off to an improbable state because he was half voted for and half not.

Across three from four categories it might go: Rijkaard; Rijkaard; Matthaus, but there's no harm in that - Rijkaard generally universally agreed upon as the DM in a vs 'Mars xi' or just general all-time xi, as he is.

My overall take is each category being representative of the players it should be: DM's for DM's; DLP's for DLP's and so on and so forth.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

There's a perhaps there, but, as you've said yourself, he would be nudged up to a ranking representative of his game and abilities and not sorta shuffled off to an improbable state because he was half voted for and half not.

Across three from four categories it might go: Rijkaard; Rijkaard; Matthaus, but there's no harm in that - Rijkaard generally universally agreed upon as the DM in a vs 'Mars xi' or just general all-time xi, as he is.

My overall take is each category being representative of the players it should be: DM's for DM's; DLP's for DLP's and so on and so forth.

we discussed it before, it would be to many categories which wouldnt be an issue if all problems were solved with that but you solve some and other poop out, which ever route you take there are going to be some major issues sadly.

 

[Fortitude]

we discussed it before, it would be to many categories which wouldnt be an issue if all problems were solved with that but you solve some and other poop out, which ever route you take there are going to be some major issues sadly.

Issues as large as what we have now, though, is the pertinent question, no?

When players who were world class at what they did cannot get their due because they're in an amalgamated list against far more dynamic and eye-catching players (just take a look at the top 10), it's perhaps the bigger problem, I would think.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Issues as large as what we have now, though, is the pertinent question, no?

When players who were world class at what they did cannot get their due because they're in an amalgamated list against far more dynamic and eye-catching players (just take a look at the top 10), it's perhaps the bigger problem, I would think.

i mean its an all-time list, not every World Class player from his time will be on it as the list can only be as big. Dont see much of the issue with top 10, in general those are the best out of the two categories. Obviously some will get underrated some will get overrated but you have that issue on any list no matter how you form it because everyone has a different opinion. Makes me sick to see someone like Varela ahead of Busquets or Gazza for example but what can you do...

 

[Fortitude]

i mean its an all-time list, not every World Class player from his time will be on it as the list can only be as big. Dont see much of the issue with top 10, in general those are the best out of the two categories. Obviously some will get underrated some will get overrated but you have that issue on any list no matter how you form it because everyone has a different opinion. Makes me sick to see someone like Varela ahead of Busquets or Gazza for example but what can you do...

Separate them.

 

[Synco]

@Synco I personally feel like-for-like, or at least attempting to compare like-for like, is the solution and working the parameters amongst pre-determined selections (if needs be) to be voted upon. At best, it avoids cross-contamination, as it were, and gets down to the nitty gritty of who is better at a specific role that all candidates are pooled from.

Well, several suggestions (including mine) had four midfielder categories: DM / BTB / CM playmaker & DLP / AM. It was settled by poll, and more people wanted three lists than four, because it's not as complicated and takes less time. Which is fair. Avoids some problems, creates others. For example, multi-faceted players like Schweinsteiger would be rated less the more specialized the roles get.

Detailed lists create as much problems as broad lists, just different ones. You'll either have undue comparisons or uncomfortable overlaps, or both.

As is, we're left with Nesta wherever it is he ranked, whilst everyone knows it's incorrect and the same goes with Beckenbauer here, (and a lot of others, imo) and it just seems weird it'd be agreed upon to leave it that way because thems the breaks at the same time as there being no chance of those being their actual rankings.

There can be no objective actual rankings, imo. Every system will screw someone over. In the end, reality is too complicated to be convincingly sorted into a few categories.

When players who were world class at what they did cannot get their due because they're in an amalgamated list against far more dynamic and eye-catching players (just take a look at the top 10), it's perhaps the bigger problem, I would think.

Not surprising to me. To me these guys were better players than most specialists, simply because they had so many talents. As @harms said, all-time great players who were more or less limited to one role are rare.

For example, the best DM, Rijkaard, was the best DM because he had so much more in his locker. Which makes him as much comparable to Keane & Matthäus, as he belongs in the DM list. Desailly ("DM") had probably as much to do with Davids ("BTB") as with Makelele ("DM"). Keane ("BTB") was unlike Gerrard ("BTB") in many ways.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

Separate them.

so how many categories will we need? 30+ overall? RIP harms

 

[Fortitude]

so how many categories will we need? 30+ overall? RIP harms

If it's to be done right... so we don't get Nesta's in nowhere land and Beckenbauer's on peripheries of a top 10. Shrug.

Nothing wrong with compendiums per positions, imo. If you want to know who the best DM is, wading through a load of CM's isn't going to give you the answer. etc.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

If it's to be done right... so we don't get Nesta's in nowhere land and Beckenbauer's on peripheries of a top 10. Shrug.

Nothing wrong with compendiums per positions, imo. If you want to know who the best DM is, wading through a load of CM's isn't going to give you the answer. etc.

Part of the idea behind combining DM and B2B is to also classify them based on their impact on the team.

Some DM's have more impact on a team in general than some B2B's and vice versa.

For example, Rijkaard expected to have more impact that Breitner/Bastian, who are expected to have more impact than Desailly/Voronin who are expected to have more impact than Tardelli/Souness who are expected to have more impact than Varela/Makelele and so on.

If you wanted to have two separate lists, you just filter the players out and you get 2 lists.

There will be one or two who are on both lists who you might feel deserve to be higher/lower on a list, but in general, there will be consistency.

Way too many DM's functioned as B2B's also at some point and way too many B2B's functioned as DM's at some point, so there is a lot of overlap. If you did them as two separate lists, that takes away the charm of comparison especially w.r.t impact, which is one of the main points of the exercise.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

There is one player who you guys have massively overlooked considering it is a CDM vote..

I might be picking him for the Draft, so don't want to name him just yet. He wouldn't be near the top but surprised to see him not garner a single vote at all.

He lost of WC final didn't he?

Looks like you picked Pluskal but he does have 5 points. I thought you meant Haan which is indeed a bad exclusion.

 

[Raees]

Looks like you picked Pluskal but he does have 5 points. I thought you meant Haan which is indeed a bad exclusion.

It was Nobby Stiles. Haan is a good shout too.

But Stiles man marked Eusébio in World Cup Semi Final and has won the major trophies being a key figure in both.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

It was Nobby Stiles. Haan is a good shout too.

But Stiles man marked Eusébio in World Cup Semi Final and has won the major trophies being a key figure in both.

Ah yea, Stiles is a really really bad miss for a list on the Caf. Should add him and Haan to the honorary list at the end.

 

[Gio]

It was Nobby Stiles. Haan is a good shout too.

But Stiles man marked Eusébio in World Cup Semi Final and has won the major trophies being a key figure in both.

Not a massive fan personally - an important but fairly replaceable player. Plus he takes up valuable Man Utd real estate in this draft.

 

[DVG7]

“Central midfielders” would have covered everything nicely, with the idea being classic number 10s wouldn’t feature.

 

[Raees]

Not a massive fan personally - an important but fairly replaceable player. Plus he takes up valuable Man Utd real estate in this draft.

For the draft yes.. but I think he should definitely be in an all time CDM list but albeit near the bottom. Bobby Charlton rated him and he was integral to the balance of the England and United sides.. both of whom don’t really have a great history of producing pure tactically disciplined man marking CDMs.

 

[Enigma_87]

For the draft yes.. but I think he should definitely be in an all time CDM list but albeit near the bottom. Bobby Charlton rated him and he was integral to the balance of the England and United sides.. both of whom don’t really have a great history of producing pure tactically disciplined man marking CDMs.

TBH, I don't think Stiles is better than any of those names on the list, bar Meszöly (who I don't know much about).

Casemiro and Fernandinho for example I'd consider better players too, yet they aren't on the list either.

The famous man mark job was really a collective effort and Jack Charlton also had an excellent game to limit his influence.

 

[Raees]

TBH, I don't think Stiles is better than any of those names on the list, bar Meszöly (who I don't know much about).

Casemiro and Fernandinho for example I'd consider better players too, yet they aren't on the list either.

The famous man mark job was really a collective effort and Jack Charlton also had an excellent game to limit his influence.

I rate him higher than a Carrick.

Fernandinho on paper more talented but achievements wise doesn’t come close.

Casemeiro has a better claim to be mentioned.

 

[Gio]

For the draft yes.. but I think he should definitely be in an all time CDM list but albeit near the bottom. Bobby Charlton rated him and he was integral to the balance of the England and United sides.. both of whom don’t really have a great history of producing pure tactically disciplined man marking CDMs.

Depends how big your list is. I found that top 30 hugely competitive given the combination of thoroughbred ball-winners alongside more influential-in-many-phases CMs. There are a lot of players who I missed out who I'd have ahead of Stiles, based on what I've seen. Agree with Enigma that the only one who stands out for replacement would be Meszoly, but that's more out of relative ignorance of his abilities on my part.

 

[Enigma_87]

I rate him higher than a Carrick.

Fernandinho on paper more talented but achievements wise doesn’t come close.

Casemeiro has a better claim to be mentioned.

Stiles national career outside 65/66 is really insignificant. He has played handful of games after the WC was replaced by Mullery by Ramsey. At the end of the day he has the WC win, but Carrick trumps him in CL finals, PL titles and generally being much more talented player, who didn't really shine at NT level, but at club level was IMO much better than Stiles - both in terms of consistency and peak.

Carrick was central figure in one of the best United sides and made the 4-4-2 alongside Scholes(which deemed impossible to work) a standard that was success both domestically and in Europe (where we also employed 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 and Carrick also excelled in those).

Fernandinho won the UEFA cup with an inferior Shakhtar side and was crucial for City in their domestic success, showing great versatility in the process. From memory he played as right/left back, CB, side midfielder (both sides), holder, DM, B2B and even AM. Has a lot more to his game than Stiles ever did, whilst his defensive game IMO really isn't inferior to Nobby.

To me Stiles is a workhorse that can do the dirty job and can, as you said balance the side, but he is too of a limited player to be considered one of the best CM/DM/B2B in history, regardless if you look at it as in accolades or individual level. He is very good of course in that, but really there are tons of players that had great 2-3 years peak on such a position.

Just to reiterate some of the names that are worthy of a claim to be at that level(not only going by accolades but individual talent) that are not included in the above list from the top of my head:

Cocu, Bulgarelli, Murdoch, Ince, van der Elst, Baxter, Prohaska, Van Moer, Velasquez, Alemao, Gilberto Silva, Marcos Senna, etc..

Take Gilberto Silva for example - WC winner, Copa winner, part of Arsenal Invincibles, yet you would barely see him picked or mentioned, whilst Stiles IMO has been picked a lot more regularly throughout the years.

To me and from what I've seen from him, his role isn't really that special, that can't be replicated by a plethora of other world class players(at some time) in history

 

[Enigma_87]

Depends how big your list is. I found that top 30 hugely competitive given the combination of thoroughbred ball-winners alongside more influential-in-many-phases CMs. There are a lot of players who I missed out who I'd have ahead of Stiles, based on what I've seen. Agree with Enigma that the only one who stands out for replacement would be Meszoly, but that's more out of relative ignorance of his abilities on my part.

Yep, spot on. I mean I missed Essien on my list(was too late to edit) and couple of others like Kante, Zito, Clodoaldo - all WC winners.

It's crazy competitive spot and difficult to separate between some.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

To me Stiles is a workhorse that can do the dirty job and can, as you said balance the side, but he is too of a limited player to be considered one of the best CM/DM/B2B in history, regardless if you look at it as in accolades or individual level

That is just a wrong perception in the draft community. Fairly decent involvement in the build up including a very nice pre assist for the winning goal in a world cup final no less.

In pure defensive terms, a miles better DM than Carrick.

NOBBY STILES, JUST A PURE DM?

Below is the compilation of his attacking plays and forward runs from the 1966 WC final against Germany. Stiles is Number 4 on the pitch.

The last GIF is of the 3rd England goal which gave them the lead in extra time when the score was tied at 2-2 after 90 minutes.

It was Stiles' pass and pre-assist (quite Scholes-esque), that started the move leading to the goal.

Pre-assist for the 3rd England goal

 

[Raees]

Stiles national career outside 65/66 is really insignificant. He has played handful of games after the WC was replaced by Mullery by Ramsey. At the end of the day he has the WC win, but Carrick trumps him in CL finals, PL titles and generally being much more talented player, who didn't really shine at NT level, but at club level was IMO much better than Stiles - both in terms of consistency and peak.

Carrick was central figure in one of the best United sides and made the 4-4-2 alongside Scholes(which deemed impossible to work) a standard that was success both domestically and in Europe (where we also employed 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 and Carrick also excelled in those).

Fernandinho won the UEFA cup with an inferior Shakhtar side and was crucial for City in their domestic success, showing great versatility in the process. From memory he played as right/left back, CB, side midfielder (both sides), holder, DM, B2B and even AM. Has a lot more to his game than Stiles ever did, whilst his defensive game IMO really isn't inferior to Nobby.

To me Stiles is a workhorse that can do the dirty job and can, as you said balance the side, but he is too of a limited player to be considered one of the best CM/DM/B2B in history, regardless if you look at it as in accolades or individual level. He is very good of course in that, but really there are tons of players that had great 2-3 years peak on such a position.

Just to reiterate some of the names that are worthy of a claim to be at that level(not only going by accolades but individual talent) that are not included in the above list from the top of my head:

Cocu, Bulgarelli, Murdoch, Ince, van der Elst, Baxter, Prohaska, Van Moer, Velasquez, Alemao, Gilberto Silva, Marcos Senna, etc..

Take Gilberto Silva for example - WC winner, Copa winner, part of Arsenal Invincibles, yet you would barely see him picked or mentioned, whilst Stiles IMO has been picked a lot more regularly throughout the years.

To me and from what I've seen from him, his role isn't really that special, that can't be replicated by a plethora of other world class players(at some time) in history

For me where Stiles USP lies is that he had a canny combination of low centre of gravity, prodigious work rate combined with good pace and ferocious tenacity .. and a fine defensive brain which made him a nightmare to shake off for agile physically gifted attackers. Reminiscent of a Berti Vogts but at CDM in terms of what he brings to the table athletically. I would trust Stiles to do a better job against Barca in 2009 and 2011 than a Carrick as he would be better able to keep tabs on an Iniesta or Messi due to being able to keep up with them athletically due to superior agility/balance and work-rate wise. He read the game extremely well from a defensive stand point.

For me none of the other names you've listed there would be able to keep up with a GOAT attacker from a defensve perspective whereas Stiles proved he can on the big stage. Yes offensively limited, i.e. Cocu has more technical attributes but Stiles was a 'destroyer'.. that is why Stiles wouldn't be near the top of any CDM list where guys like Rijkaard etc can bring a multitude of top tier attributes to the table, but I think he does merit some recognition as in his own limited way of playing, he was by British standards exceptional.

Nobby Stiles was the man Bobby Charlton described as the forerunner of Roy Keane – a “dog of war” who could be depended upon to shut down danger wherever it materialised on a football pitch.

 

[Enigma_87]

That is just a wrong perception in the draft community. Fairly decent involvement in the build up including a very nice pre assist for the winning goal in a world cup final no less.

In pure defensive terms, a miles better DM than Carrick.

Bar the pre-assist, most of those gifs are pretty dire, tbh. He runs into space and then passes to the nearest player(which is of course tidy in possession and nice touch here and there, but I'm pretty sure all of the guys on the list can do that and better), gets dispossessed couple of times, couple of wild shots and balloon cross. Not sure if it highlights his abilities quite well.

For me where Stiles USP lies is that he had a canny combination of low centre of gravity, prodigious work rate combined with good pace and ferocious tenacity .. and a fine defensive brain which made him a nightmare to shake off for agile physically gifted attackers. Reminiscent of a Berti Vogts but at CDM in terms of what he brings to the table athletically. I would trust Stiles to do a better job against Barca in 2009 and 2011 than a Carrick as he would be better able to keep tabs on an Iniesta or Messi due to being able to keep up with them athletically due to superior agility/balance and work-rate wise. He read the game extremely well from a defensive stand point.

For me none of the other names you've listed there would be able to keep up with a GOAT attacker from a defensve perspective whereas Stiles proved he can on the big stage. Yes offensively limited, i.e. Cocu has more technical attributes but Stiles was a 'destroyer'.. that is why Stiles wouldn't be near the top of any CDM list where guys like Rijkaard etc can bring a multitude of top tier attributes to the table, but I think he does merit some recognition as in his own limited way of playing, he was by British standards exceptional.

Nobby Stiles was the man Bobby Charlton described as the forerunner of Roy Keane – a “dog of war” who could be depended upon to shut down danger wherever it materialised on a football pitch.

He's obviously not a mug of course, but the highlighted is IMO a bit of a moot point. He couldn't keep his place after 66 Mullery kept him on the bench, despite having a bad disciplinary record.

He had a great run here and there, but IMO when it comes to consistency he isn't in the same bracket with Carrick. Obviously different players, but I wouldn't trust Stiles against that Barca midfield to do more than Carrick would.

Where he would be more beneficial, he would lack in taking out the ball and being susceptible to pressure himself. That Barca midfield will force a lot of errors on him and keeping the ball, trapping, quick on the turn, head high, release, make available for a pass straight away, passing lanes, etc is something he's very inferior to Carrick.

As for Eusebio:



This is all touch compilation from that game of Sir Bobby and Eusebio. Sir Bobby offered a lot of support against Eusebio and you can see him often dispossessing him in the first half especially. Alan Ball (#7) also came often to intercept him and close him down(you can always see him very close to him), whilst when Eusebio broke through he was quickly intercepted by Jack Charlton (#5).

The problem with Eusebio that game wasn't that Stiles cancelled him out, but rather him dropping deep to dictate play, receiving close to zero support from his team mates in attack and Ball, Charlton(x2), Stiles - all negating him of time and space on the ball.

More often than not he beat Stiles to the ball and was the quicker of the two off the mark. The issue was once again he couldn't do much with possession afterwards - had 3 men around him and not much movement or passing options.

 

[harms]

As is, we're left with Nesta wherever it is he ranked, whilst everyone knows it's incorrect and the same goes with Beckenbauer here, (and a lot of others, imo) and it just seems weird it'd be agreed upon to leave it that way because thems the breaks at the same time as there being no chance of those being their actual rankings.

There's going to be some additional revision after this ends.

 

[Jim Beam]

Those Stiles passes through Barcelona press would be something else.

Carrick was never a problem, it was the formation and the fact we had Giggs alongside him in 2011. Same as we lost the final in 2009 once Fletcher was out (and again with a highely questionable approach).

But, every post 2000 player here is a mug, so nothing new.

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

Bar the pre-assist, most of those gifs are pretty dire, tbh. He runs into space and then passes to the nearest player(which is of course tidy in possession and nice touch here and there, but I'm pretty sure all of the guys on the list can do that and better), gets dispossessed couple of times, couple of wild shots and balloon cross. Not sure if it highlights his abilities quite well.

For a DM, his involvement is pretty decent IMO. Classifying him a dirty balancing player is unfair IMO. He wasn't a pure destroyer if not a proper B2B.

 

[Fortitude]

There's going to be some additional revision after this ends.

Great news.

 

[harms]

The thing is, you won't be able to compile a good list of 20 DMs and 20 B2B midfielders without many overlaps and questionable inclusions/exclusions. There's going to be about 10 duplicates in both lists and it just doesn't make sense to create 2 different lists when they're going to overlap by this much. If you'll compile 2 comprehensive lists that I won't have too many objections about @Fortitude...

Or you can set a strict ruling, like we did with those categories, that certain players go to this category and certain players go to another. Which will cause even more issues on where to put Rijkaard, Keane, Voronin, Pirri etc.

 

[harms]

Great news.

Certainly - they've been a few feck ups with Nesta being the most discussed one, so we'll do something about it before finalising everything.

 

[Enigma_87]

For a DM, his involvement is pretty decent IMO. Classifying him a dirty balancing player is unfair IMO. He wasn't a pure destroyer if not a proper B2B.

Yeah, probably I'm underrating him a bit, but really I've been way more impressed with Alan Ball for example who was a great presence for England in that WC and after in the late 60's early 70's rather than Stiles.

As I said, he's no mug, but if you compare him, to say - Gilberto Silva, was he really better in most aspects of the game?

 

[GodShaveTheQueen]

As I said, he's no mug, but if you compare him, to say - Gilberto Silva, was he really better in most aspects of the game?

Defensively, I'd say yes. Someone needs to work on a defensive compilation against a goat.

 

[Enigma_87]

Defensively, I'd say yes. Someone needs to work on a defensive compilation against a goat.

fair enough, would be happy to see one.