Talk:Midfielder

Mandel's comments

This page is pretty woeful and misleading.

"midfielders are sometimes refered to as 'midfield generals' for their ability to dictate a game." - alleges that all midfielders can dictate games.

"slow down a game to wear down the clock in a winning position" - alleges that all midfielders slow down games in a winning position, instead of going for goals.

"Midfielders require a vision" - alleges that all midfielders possess vision (which is pretty useless for a defensive midfielder)

"they must know when to dribble the ball upfield" - alleges that all midfielders can and would dribble

"just an example of the free kick ability of a good midfielder." - alleges that only midfielders, and not strikers or defenders, take free kicks.

The list of "complete midfielders" is debatable. Mandel June 28, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

So who, in your opinion, would constitute a complete midfielder? Lapafrax 12:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"Complete midfielder" is a British manufacture and fetish. The best midfielders, Zidane, Platini, Figo etc are never "complete", nor do they need to be. You don't need headless chickens running all over the field doing everything, you need discipline and enterprise in their respective positions. Put in 10 Steven Gerrards, 10 Frank Lampard and England won't ever win anything. There's no such thing as a "complete midfielder", though there's such a thing called a more "all-rounded player in their position". However, it's arguable whether a more "complete" player is more devastating than a specialized midfielder playing at his height. In the EPL for instance, Gerrard and Lampard will never reach the guile or incisive passing of, say, Robert Pires. I've never seen Gerrard, Lampard dribble past anyone. Bryan Robson does everything else, but is hardly creative. Is he complete? Michael Ballack can drive with the ball, but he too is a runner rather than a passer. Only the British will be greedy and want their players to do everything. If so, you need only one player on field, not ten. 165.21.154.111 05:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be chiefly a British term, but so what? The concept per se is not invalid. A complete midfielder simply means a player who possesses ALL traits needed by midfielders, including good tackling and passing skills, defensive play, etc. Granted there are few players in modern world football like this, but again, so what? That doesn't mean the notion of a complete midfielder is a pie in the sky BS ideal. Some strikers are considered "complete strikers" because they hold all the skills strikers need. You's say that Thierry Henry was a more complete striker than Ruud Van Nistelrooy, say. And what's wrong with players have complete skills in each position? Have you heard of "total football" before? If not, then you need to brush up on your footballing knowledge. Lapafrax

I'm trying to arrange 'famous midfielders' in alphabetical order, but have only moved about 1/3 of them. I'll try to do the rest later.Ondog 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed Andrea Pirlo from the list of defensive midfielders, since he is simply not a defensive midfielder even though he does play deep. User:Rurikbird

Billy Bremner was the epitome of a "complete midfielder" with Gerrard and Lampard paling in comparison to his drive and dominance on the football field. There are a few examples of "complete midfielders" but only among the footballing greats which Gerrard and Lampard certainly are not. Nicander 10:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Billy Bremner a "footballing great"? If so, then only in a British context. I doubt he ranks amongst the likes of Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Di Stefano, etc. Someone like Alan Shearer is a British footballing great, but I wouldn't really state he was a world great. Lapafrax 17:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Holding role

Most of what is described in Holding role repeats Midfielder#Defensive midfielder. Let's merge it back to the major article here. Holding role can remain as a redirect to Midfielder. --Pkchan 16:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes please.--Dodo bird 19:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, together with merge from Winger (sport). --Pkchan 11:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact verification

Due to vandalism on other pages by the user who made this edit, I am requesting that this edit be cited. If it is not cited within 24 hours, it will be removed. -- backburner001 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalism. Duly reverted. --Pkchan 07:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Figures. Good call. -- backburner001 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?Its ture Edu and Keane are not holding midfielders.24.189.86.92 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Different sports

I'd advocate splitting this article up into Midfielder (soccer), Midfielder (Australian rules) and Midfielder (rugby) (though this is unwritten, I'll cobble together a stub (section of this article?) for it), because despite the similar/same names and similar types of tasks, the actual jobs done are pretty different. Then, at Midfielder, we have a general description of what a midfielder does in sports, and a link to the associated subpage with a short blurb. Providing noone has — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Pointon (talk • contribs)

I don't know Rugby, but both Rugby league positions and Rugby union positions have no mention of the term 'midfielder'. There are midfield positions, but they are called 'centre' instead of 'midfielder'. As for the Australian rules football, Football (Australian rules) positions also suggest that 'centre' and 'wingmen' are used instead of 'midfielder'. Maybe we can just have a disambiguity link at the to of the article to Football (Australian rules) positions#Midfield. --Dodo bird 06:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the case that Centre or Wingman are used instead of midfielder in Australian rules football. It is much more likely that these players would be referred to as "midfielders" as, due to the evolution of the Australian game, these players are now required to roam much further from the positions of "wing" or "centre". --The Brain of Morbius 06:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As things currently stand, this is a predominantly football-based article with a little bit about AFL tacked on the end. It seems a bit silly, so I've been bold and taken out the AFL stuff and added a disambiguation link at the start of the article. Tpth 04:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Stanley Matthews

I linked to Stanley Matthews to exemplify the traditional winger who was part of the forward line, and I added a reference to the formal terminology for the position (Outside Right/Left). --pmr 20:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I added a POV tag to the section entitleed "Players inaccurately termed defensive midfielders" because it presents as fact that certain players are not defensive midfielders, when (although this may be true) such a statement is completely unverifiable and based on subjective observation. The only way one could make it verifiable would be to say that "So-and-so believes this person is incorrectly termed a defensive midfielder," followed by a citation to an article or something of that nature. Personally, I think the section should probably go completely (unless someone is willing to do the research and rewrite). --Loudsox 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lorenzinho

I think the whole "Players inaccurately termed defensive midfielders"- section shouldn't be in the page.

Poor Article diagrams

This is pretty poor, I'm gonna try and spruce it up with better diagrams. --Tiresais 20:15 (edit 20:17), 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok there are some different diagrams up to make it look a bit better--Tiresais 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Donovan?

Other just as accomplished attacking midfielders include Totti, Nedved, Rui Costa, Kaká. Less accomplished but arguably as talented players of this position include Juninho Pernambucano, [b]Landon Donovan[/b], Pablo Aimar, and Tomáš Rosický.

Great joke:)))

Its not a joke.Donavan is an attacking midfielder,like Tim Cahill.Jean24.189.86.92 (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Carrick Supported by Scholes in deep lying playmaker role

I dont think that this is a very good example of a deep lying playmaker being supported by a holding midfielder since scholes is if anything an out and out attacking midfilder (he is after all included in the attacking midfielder paragraph). He is well known for his inability to tackle properly. Though the united team is doing well at the moment, this central midfield is not ideally balanced as both are playmakers, one deep lying, the other central or advanced.

Wingers

I've removed the following: Wingers are experiencing a revival today - for example Arjen Robben and Shaun Wright-Phillips of Chelsea F.C. Joaquín Sánchez of Valencia CF and Aaron Lennon of Tottenham Hotspur FC are such; they were relatively rare in the 1980s and 1990s. Firstly, its uncited, secondly three of the examples play in England, where every champion of the 1990s bar Leeds used at least one winger (Anders Limpar, Ryan Giggs, Stuart Ripley, Marc Overmars) Oldelpaso 22:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why?They are All WINGERS.For real.Look at their profiles.24.189.86.92 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Jean.

Centre-half

This article needs to mention something about the classic centre-half (or center half) position. --ChaChaFut 15:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Volante

The translation for the Brazilian Portuguese/Spanish term "volante" is mistaken. "Rudder" in Brazilian Portuguese means "leme" whereas "volante" would be "steering wheel"; but neither has anything to do with the original intended etimology. "Volante" as in defensive midfielder means "flying", "floating", as the classic "volante", evolved directly from the former 4-2-4 center-half, is supposed to "float" between defense and attack - http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/esportes/opiniao/alberto_helena_jr/2007/01/04/bola_virtual_adeus_mineiro_278032.html (Alberto Helena Jr. is a reputable Brazilian football pundit). girco 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Box 2 Box Midfielders

Gerrard is, Keane and Viera were. The others have never been. Londo06 21:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't Deco a box 2 box player?

Deco is what we brazillians call a "meia-armador", a creative, but very offensive midfielder, just like riquelme, zico and diego(from werder bremem). I dont know if they can be called box-to-box, however, because i dont know how a box-to-box is like... Vermelhored 19:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a small thing on attacking midfielders

Should Luka Modric really be listed as one of the best attacking midfielders in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Legend (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I say no, if I had to look him up it proves it. Dump him. Jimbo online 20:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we create a list of 5 players for each position and lock it.

To stop people adding stupid names to the list. My suggestion:

Defencive mid: Claude Makelele, Gennaro Gattuso, Owen Hargreaves, Javier Mascherano, and Gilberto Silva.

Deep-lying playmakers: Andrea Pirlo, Xabi Alonso, Xavi, Michael Carrick and Fernando Gago(couldn't think of anyone better).

Box to box: Patrick Vieira, Steven Gerrard, Roy Keane, Daniel De Rossi and Michael Essien.

Attacking midfielder: Juan Román Riquelme, Francesco Totti, Cesc Fabregas, Paul Scholes and Kaká. I'm not sure wether to include Ronaldhinio, as he does tend to play wide left, and since I said I'd only pick 5, I've left him out, but he does deserve a mention.

Winger: Cristiano Ronaldo, David Beckham, Lionel Messi, Franck Ribery and Ricardo Quaresma. I've included Beckham as he is an example (the most well known and therfore a good refference point) of the different type of winger who's ability wasn't in dribbling but in his delivery.

Feel free to Rip, Chop, Change and slate my list, or even just disregard it altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravhin (talk • contribs) 19:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think with what is happening to the article (rampant changes to reflect an editor's own leanings, revert wars, slurs, etc.) we should seriously consider not adding any examples at all. I don't even know how much they really add to the article, and they just set the fire off for uncivil arguments and fruitless POV debates. Vincent Valentine||talk to me! 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

i think some examples are good, however the fewer the better. Dead-or-Red (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, some examples would be nice, but take a look at the history of the page. Pretty much the only edits are people adding players of the teams they support and removing rivals' players. It's getting pretty redundant. I thought maybe only using retired players might work, but then again if you dislike a particular team, you'll probably choose to substitute your own team's legend. It's a tricky situation. Vincent Valentine||talk to me! 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

personally one or two current players and one or two retired players are all that are needed, the lack of world class players from the past is a complete joke. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit Anglo-centric at the moment - mostly English Premiership players.

I went ahead and scrapped the whole list, as it's nothing but a source of POV and edit wars, and doesn't really help, I don't think. I wouldn't be surprised if my edit is reverted though, and the edit wars wage on. Everyone just wants their own examples, and thinks their particular player is a notable example. I don't think there's anyway to reconcile this. Vincent Valentine 17:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cesc Fabregas is NOT an Box to Box midfielder!

He's a great attacking midfielder, probably one of the best, but he isn't a box to box midfielder and his defencive work is done by Gilberto and Flamini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravhin (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

hes not a box to box mdfielder, hes not even an attacking midfielder either to be honest. ive placed him in the central midfield section for now. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deep lying playmaker

Probably deserves a separate section from Central midfielders, also "Due to their weaknesses in their defensive aspects, some have to be supported by holding midfielders." is a horrendous Generalisation. Many deep-lying play makers are also fairly good defensively as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel11901 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wingers

reverted to a more descriptive version that explains wingers against wide midfielders.Londo06 13:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) the term "winger" is an umbrella term that covers any wide midfielder. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

rv to show the difference between hugging the touchline wingers and a wide midfielder, two different types of players.Londo06 13:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

yet both are wingers. end of story Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In relation to using it as an umbrella term I have always heard coaches, commentators, journalists and players differentiate between the two.Londo06 13:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I and other previous editors see a difference between the likes of Tony Daley, Stuart Ripley and Stuart Downing against the likes David Beckham, David Bentley, etc.Londo06 13:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

where is this discussion? please stop vandalising yet another article. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted back to the version before any controversy. Please talk through any problems before engaging in an edit war over content. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should remain as consensus before any more reverts. if anyone would like to put forward a case as to why we would need to duplicate what is already written i am willing to listen. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement over that. Taking a brief look through I can't find the reproduction, could you point me in the direction of the repeated material. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

the fact that a "winger" is an umbrella term for any wide midfielder, and that the article already states how hey have evolved. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see that in the body of text. Once again if we keep if before the controversial edit and then move forwards from there. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

its sourced, dont change again unless you have a valid rationale and sources. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can see no references attached to that section, and as such it should remain as the version prior to the edit war, I can also see no discussion on the matter, ergo no consensus on a position you claim, thus returning to the previous version is the only logical step. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

the source is no.4 - the new version is the one which is controversial so should go until anybody provides a rationale for its change. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that source doesn't support either position, TBH it is worse than a throwaway comment; "Wingers, wide midfielders, call them what you like" doesn't really qualify a source for the changes. I am open to persuasion as a winger could be converted to a more laid back role and a right-midfielder could be turned into a flying winger, just not by that source. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be some WP:OWN issues going on here. The article definitely needs more sources, that's for sure.Beve (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

CorleoneSerpicoMontata hit the nail on the head almost, as the main difference between them really is that wingers hit the byline and right or left midfielders don't. Wingers were far more attacking and "wingers" like Ronaldo still are. Right and left midfielders usually play a lot deeper and do most of their work far from the byline, like Beckham always has. Most are better passers than wingers too, so it's probably best to have them a bit deeper to get the most from that, because as we know, the more long balls you make/attempt the more you lose the ball(unless your Beckham with that right foot of his) but that's the main difference between them. Depending on tactics, formations etc, some also start out more deeper and become more of a winger when their team has possession. Bob. --90.203.114.86 (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-add examples

I do think that a few examples add to the article and help to illustrate the point. That they may cause edit wars isn't really a good enough reason to remove them. Some of them were sourced and the others hopefully can be. I'm currently trying to improve the references throughout the article. Removing them all seems a bit drastic and probably shouldn't be done without some sort of consensus here. Beve (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point. It's just that I've had the page on my watch list for several months now, and about 10 times a day, it seems, some fan of one team or another deletes their rival's players and substitutes his own. I think the sourced ones should stay, only. But that's just my opinion. Best, Vincent Valentine 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit anglo-centric too, English Premier League players seem to dominate. Beve (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Not saying that it's right, it's just not surprising given that this is the English wikipedia. I'd love to see a nice, cohesive, referenced list that has a general consensus. I just think that it'd be very difficult to achieve, and would still be subject to rampant IP tweaking. Vincent Valentine 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)