He did play box to box at times. He was one of those central mids like Roy Keane, N'Golo Kante, Pirlo, Xabi Alonso, Modric, Kroos who take whatever club they arrive at to a whole new level.
Who are the top 5 box-to-box midfielders of all-time?
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
I don't refute Robson's quality - as I've said a number of times, I think he was quite a bit better as a footballer than Keane, for example, but, and you've alluded to it yourself: He doesn't have the catalogue of major games the players he is up against do, and that's mainly because he was always injured at the key points where his legacy would have been indelibly boosted. Robson proved, with his performance against Barcelona, that he was every bit the equal of the greatest around, but he was involved in so few games of the calibre others can reel off their CV that things get pretty disparate as you end up talking almost solely about domestic football for him whilst you have so much more to bring to the table for the others.
I don't think it's just a case of people not having seen Robson in his pomp, but also the context they have to view him in retrospect. Without Europe or national team feats, you're left with a body of work against opposition a lot of people have no idea how to even regard. Robson's prime was robbed from him by way of English clubs being banned, and also playing for a United side that was levels beneath him - it makes him all the more heroic for United supporters, but much less so for others who have no affinity to him or the club. This, ironically, is where the what ifs and so forth come to the fore for Robson because you're left to wonder what he would have gone on to do in one of the great sides of the era.
More of a DM
Very subjective as usual..There are big differences among. - all time , "from players i have seen", from premiere league..etc..since the question is all time .(.but not a definitive list.)
1 Lothar matheus
2 Frank Rykaard
3 Jean Tigana
##By the way brazilian paulo roberto falcao is different from the columbian striker falcao incase nobody answered.
1 Lothar matheus
2 Frank Rykaard
3 Jean Tigana
##By the way brazilian paulo roberto falcao is different from the columbian striker falcao incase nobody answered.
It's Stanley.
Frank Rijkaard
Lothar Matthäus
Bryan Robson
Leroy Fer
Lothar Matthäus
Bryan Robson
Leroy Fer
This is nonsense. He was nowhere near their level.
Seedorf was a borderline world class player who built a great career out of being just about good enough to hold his own in the company ofoworld class team mates, and lucky enough to be part of some great teams over the years.
He was never the main man for any team and never took anyone to the next level. It's bizarre to talk of him as one of the best midfielders ever. He is barely in the conversation for his own generation.
In general I agree. The original OP said 'in history' so you are always going to get inconsistent comparisons.
I'm a big believer in goals but as @Fortitude mentioned above...playing in the Italian Leagues in the 1980's was very different to playing in say France. Holland or England.
I'm not a fan of 'if he had played for someone else'.
That's would be pure conjecture. What we do know is what actually happened.
What is really interesting is when you actually have to name players...in reality there are not that many great box-to-box players in contention.
Some where really defensive midfielders and others played the #10 role but very few real up and down masters.
Very few players were as complete as him. There wasn't a single aspect of football where he was world class in, but he was near world class in every aspect that made a great midfielder, no weakness anywhere. And that in itself was very impressive.
So I strongly disagree, in my view Seedorf was one the best midfielders of his generation, and if anything he doesn't get the praise he deserves, as evidenced by your posting.
Whatever you're smoking it must be some seriously good stuff.
I find it hard to write a list of "best midfielders" and not include Scholes. For me he was the best. Not sure how Pogba is getting onto some people's list. As talented as he is, he seems to go to sleep a lot when we don't have the ball and is out of position way too often. Also, seeing as we are talking box to box, I also find it hard to include Lampard. He was always more of an attacking midfielder and when at his best he was behind Drogba with Essien and Makelele behind him. Scholes did it all. Sure, he had a reputation for being a horrible tackler but I think a lot of those bad tackles (usually from behind) were on purpose. Give the opposition a little knock to let him know he's there, take the yellow and be on with it. For all his yellow cards through out his career (97), he only got sent off 4 times. That kind of tells me that he knew exactly what he was doing...
I struggle to imagine how any midfielder could be better than Xavi. Not sure how much of that is ignorance vs. just his ludicrous ability to dominate matches. Happy to be corrected.
1. Lothar Matthaus
2. Duncan Edwards
3. Josef Masopust
4. Johann Neeskens
5. Didi
2. Duncan Edwards
3. Josef Masopust
4. Johann Neeskens
5. Didi
There's a slight yet distinctive difference between CM and B2B. Xavi, Scholes, Iniesta, Falcao, Veron, Valderrama etc are more CM (midfield playmakers) than proper B2B.
Lampard was an attacking mid. He was never a box-to-box.
Seedorf, as great has he was, was hardly a box-to-box player. He was a technically skillful and creative midfielder who was criticized of running too little, if anything. Much more Pogba than Roy Keane.
When I think of box-to-box, I think of someone whose main quality is their ability to cover huge distances of the pitch and participate in all parts of the game.
When I think of box-to-box, I think of someone whose main quality is their ability to cover huge distances of the pitch and participate in all parts of the game.
I completely disagree. Scholes was neither a DM or a CAM. He was box to box. We played a flat 4-4-2 in those days. He was the true definition of box to box. Attacked and defended...
The Keane-Scholes duo was more famous, but for me the best version of Scholes was his older days as the DLP.
he had the talent to be one of the best in the world, but ultimately found his level playing the role of supporting cast to better players than himself. For all his longevity and medals, he never had the drive to reach the heights his talent merited.
For comparison, a player like Davids never had the same natural ability nor as long or decorated a career at the highest level, but his peak years were definitely better than Seedorf's.
1 Alfredo Di Stéfano
2 Lothar Matthäus
3 Franz Beckenbauer
4 Paulo Roberto Falcão
5 Frank Rijkaard
2 Lothar Matthäus
3 Franz Beckenbauer
4 Paulo Roberto Falcão
5 Frank Rijkaard
Seedorf was right up there in terms of ability, he was just a spectacularly lazy fecker 
Though if we're getting technical, he wasn't a box-to-box player, more of a between-the-boxes type. And he approached defensive duties with the same enthusiasm as me when i go get my blood tested
Though if we're getting technical, he wasn't a box-to-box player, more of a between-the-boxes type. And he approached defensive duties with the same enthusiasm as me when i go get my blood tested
for me:
1. Lothar Matthaus
2. Duncan Edwards
3. Paulo Roberto Falcao
4. Ernst Ocwirk
5. Johan Neeskens
1. Lothar Matthaus
2. Duncan Edwards
3. Paulo Roberto Falcao
4. Ernst Ocwirk
5. Johan Neeskens
Yeah fully agree with this. Through the 1990s and until the early 2000s, Seedorf frustrated and failed to deliver on his all-round potential. Thought he was excellent at Milan to be fair having a more central role individually while also continuing as a productive support act.
1. Lothar Matthaus
2. Frank Rijkaard
3. Ruud Gullit
2. Frank Rijkaard
3. Ruud Gullit
Gerrard
Keane
Viera
Alonso
Vidal
Keane
Viera
Alonso
Vidal
Nah, he was equal both sides of the ball. He was the most aggressive midfielder of his time capable of shutting down the best 10's in the business and he was also a dynamo going forward, a one man team of there ever was one. Neeskens is the one that was better offensively than defensively. Him and Cruyff basically ran the team going forward.
It's not just about dynamism; it's also positioning, timing and the understanding of where to go. Robson's attacking senses were more acute than his defensive, that's not to say he was poor on the defensive end, far from it, just that he was better past the halfway line. Personally, I'd liken it to how Rijkaard was immaculate defensively whilst not being a slouch offensively, just in reverse.
We're definitely not going to agree on Neeskens!
Isn’t Yaya the only central midfielder that played as part of a 2 to score 20 league goals in a season? He most definitely scored enough when he was at his pomp at City.
He had a cracking season in 2013/14 and looked everything that a box-to-box midfielder should be.
Unfortunately that was an outlier.
In three seasons with Beveren he scored 3 in 70 games
In two seasons with Donetsk he scored 5 in 39 games
One season with Olympiacos 3 in 32 games
One season with Monaco 5 in 27
Three seasons with Barcelona 6 in 117
Not exactly a driving force in front of goal in relatively weak leagues. In Barcelona he was surrounded with quality but was still goal shy.
Perhaps he was asked to play deeper...if so that would explain the lack of goals. But then he wouldn't be regarded as box-to-box and is out of the equation.
When he arrived at City his ratio increased and his first three seasons he averaged 10 which is a lot better.
Then he had his outlier in 2013/14 and in 2014/15 before going back to lower numbers.
If you are a city fan then you will know more than me about his career with you...but in his first 10 seasons as a pro footballer his goalscoring record was too poor for me to regard him as a world class box-to-box midfielder.
As a DM perhaps...he was brilliant.
Xavi would be right up there if it was about any type of midfielder, but this is purely about box to box types. Unless you class Xavi as such?
I think it's fair to say Xavi was box to box. He covered loads of ground in defence and attack, was taking it off the centrebacks and playing it at the edge of the penalty area. Not really sure in what way he wasn't box to box other than having a vastly different style to the physically imposing and less subtle midfielders that usually get picked for this category.
Yeah, he ran as much as anyone and contributed at both ends of the pitch. Struggle to believe there's a midfield in history he wouldn't have improved.
I think there's no point of having a B2B category if you start including the likes of Xavi in the conversation. Yes he did pick the ball up deep and whatnot, but are you honestly going to claim he was similar to say Matthaus, Robbo, Neeskens and threw himself about in tackles on the edge of his box? or to man-mark an opponent number 10? almost playing as a CDM at times before then charging into the box and getting last minute headers? or that he was running at full pelt between boxes throughout.
He's not a B2B midfielder under my definition, otherwise you might as well just scrap the definition and every central midfielder is theoretically a B2B midfielder.
Youve described a style of play, not a position.
Not true.
B2B necessitates that you have an influence in the defensive third, in addition to the middle of the pitch and attacking third. It can't just be a playmaking influence in the defensive third, you have to have a defensive component to your game.
A deep lying playmaker like a Pirlo, who picks up the ball deep, who might also hit killer passes in the final third and helps control the game in the middle, you wouldn't classify him as a B2B midfielder. He's an extreme example but for me Xavi who had guys like Xabi Alonso, Busquets sitting for him and his defensive work consisted of him just getting back in position and making the odd interception here and there does not constitute a proper box to box midfielder. It isn't just about what areas of the pitch you're covering, it is about what you're doing in those areas of the pitch. And the role v position differentiation is dumb, because a DLP and a destructive defensive midfielder might occupy the same position on the pitch but you wouldn't say Makelele and Pirlo should both included on the same lists when comparing players.
Likes of Keane, were trusted to play in defence at times, they had a strong defensive component to their role to the point you could trust them with a more attacking partner to pair up with. You wouldn't trust Xavi to be the more defensive midfielder in a two man pairing in a 4-4-2.
You make a good point around definition...
1. Midfielders who work defensively to limit space, take the ball from the defence and work their way into creative positions to support attackers
2. Midfielders who become additional defenders and then score significant amount of goals (in relation to former) and almost act as attackers.
You might even have a bit of a hybrid in between
Either way both could be described as box-to-box as that is where they are found influencing the game.
However, I wouldn't say the latter type necessarily need to physically imposing (depending on what you mean - i.e. aggressive v strong in tackle) and less subtle (depending on what you mean) in any way. The latter style players certainly need to be good readers of the game, tactically astute, good long and short passers of the ball as per the first type.
I have been discussing Bryan Robson in this thread and he would fall into the second category...but he was a great passer of the ball.
Basically everyone has e different definition of what box-to-box means. Maybe we should first agree on that
How about instead of box-to-box, we go with best two-way midfielder? That would certainly exclude xavi, pirlo, iniesta, scholes, zidane, seedorf, but probably even the likes of falcao, from this conversation
How about instead of box-to-box, we go with best two-way midfielder? That would certainly exclude xavi, pirlo, iniesta, scholes, zidane, seedorf, but probably even the likes of falcao, from this conversation
That's pretty much spot on.
I'd remove Rijkaard as he's the best holder, although as a B2B he has a pretty good shout to be in that company as well.
My personal top 5:
1. Di Stefano
2. Matthaus
3. Beckenbauer
4. Neeskens
5. Falcao
Yeah, very odd to see Xavi, Pirlo, Xabi etc part of those lists.Basically everyone has e different definition of what box-to-box means. Maybe we should first agree on that
How about instead of box-to-box, we go with best two-way midfielder? That would certainly exclude xavi, pirlo, iniesta, scholes, zidane, seedorf, but probably even the likes of falcao, from this conversation
Falcao was B2B tho, no doubt about that.
I wouldn't put Pirlo or Xabi Alonso in - They are definitely deeperlying midfielders. Xavi roamed the range of the pitch though. He just didn't fly into tackles or bust a nut to get on headers while doing it. Same job, different style.
Maybe you could point out what part you disagree with first instead of insulting others?