Following on from the previous article looking at the more defensive-minded midfield roles, this week I’ll be looking at the role linking both attack and defence; the ‘support’ role.

Like their more defensive counterparts, midfielders fulfilling the support role are often underrated, understated and under-appreciated. Similar to the ‘anchorman’ in the team, players operating in the support role are often the forgotten men and unsung heroes of the team. Even worse is that the role itself is vastly under-appreciated; every fan or pundit worth his salt recognizes the value and importance of the defensive mid, whilst few recognize how truly vital the support role is to the team.

Before I go into their impact, however, I’ll start by explaining the two main types of ‘support’ midfielder; the box-to-box midfielder and the deep-lying playmaker.

The deep-lying playmaker is a role gaining more and more renown in the modern game. Players like Xavi and Xabi Alonso have revolutionized the position with their performances for Barcelona, Real Madrid and Spain drawing huge praise. The swing towards a more short-passing, possession-based game has certainly aided this, with a midfield metronome needed in the centre to retain possession and keep play ticking over. In a team playing this sort of football, the deep-lying playmaker is needed to allow the game to flow, always making themselves available for the pass to ensure the player on the ball has an easy option to play the ball out of danger and allow the team to retain possession. They are similar in a way to the midfield anchorman in the way they recycle possession and keep the play simple, however their role is far more specific to utilizing possession well rather than winning it back.

They do this by drifting slightly more freely when off the ball, looking to be in a good position to receive a pass rather than guarding against a potential change over of possession. This means that instead of sitting back and watching for potential counter attacks they are actively searching for ways to receive and use the ball. They also work at a somewhat slower tempo than the best anchormen; instead of winning the ball and immediately laying it off, the deep-lying playmaker often slows the play and holds up the ball, allowing the team to reorganize after an attack or helping to regain control of a game if the opposition is dominating. This, in particular, is a vital job of the DLP; when the opposition is on top and the midfield is being overrun, a good player can slow the play and reassert control of the midfield area, keeping the ball and maintaining possession.

This ball retention is also incredibly useful when the team is in the ascendency, keeping the ball moving as the team probe for an opening and allowing the other players to move around him as he picks them out. However, whilst players in this role traditionally keep play ticking over without providing too much incisiveness – even players like Xavi have a remarkably low goals and assists tally – they can also add extra creativity to a side without compromising on defence. Xabi Alonso is perhaps the best example of this, providing an extra body in front of the defence, keeping the ball during transition and also providing an extra creative outlet, opening up the opposition with splitting through balls and quickly countering with his trademark long passes.

The box-to-box midfielder role, however, is the complete opposite. Whereas the deep-lying playmaker slows down play and retains the ball, passing rather than dribbling and remaining fairly stationary on the pitch, box-to-box mids increase the tempo with dynamic play, adding spark with bursting runs from deep.

In defence the B2B midfielder is reminiscent of the typical ‘destroyer’ from the defend role; they normally lack the technical tackling ability of the anchorman and so do their bit with hard work, commitment and stamina, tearing around the pitch and tackling hard. This is how players like Yaya Toure operate – they aren’t specialized anchormen and so lack the exquisite anticipation and reading of the game, yet make up for this with pure hard work and a powerful engine.

In additon to this, box-to-box midfielders do far more than just provide an extra body in defence. They are responsible for carrying the ball from defence to attack with dynamic, storming runs, suddenly increasing the tempo and moving the ball quickly from defence to attack. This provides the same effect as a counterattack even if the team currently had possession – the sudden change in tempo overwhelms the opposition and overloads their defence, creating space and passing options and preventing them from reorganizing.

The most important contribution of the box-to-box mid is this sudden change in tempo. This is what makes players like Jack Wilshere and Yaya Toure so important – their ability to add fresh impetus to a side is invaluable and is one of the few footballing tactics that cannot be stopped. Teams like Arsenal and Barcelona can pass the ball around as often as they want but, as Barca have found this season, a packed defence and teams ‘parking the bus’ can close off space and completely nullify the defence-splitting pass possession teams require. It can’t, however, stop a quick one-two and a surging run from deep as it completely disrupts a team’s defensive organization and moves the ball too quickly for the opposition to react, plus it is hard for a defender to stand firm when a powerhouse like Yaya Toure is hurtling towards them at full speed. I firmly believe that, had they retained the powerful Ivorian, Barca would have achieved significantly more success this season as they would be able to drive straight through a packed defence when their tika-taka failed rather than forlornly knocking on the door and trying to thread passes past three or four defenders.

Both roles are incredibly important, as is apparent in what a difference they make at the top level of football. Mikel Arteta fulfils the deep-lying playmaker role for Arsenal and has added extra stability to the midfield, combining composed, elegant midfield play with hard work and defensive discipline. Without him in the side Arsenal struggled to hold on to the ball – a travesty for a possession-based side like the Gunners – as well as being overran in midfield without a second, more disciplined, ‘sitter’ to cover for Song and Ramsey/Rosicky. This impact was especially telling in the shocking stat that Arsenal won just one game without Arteta present, and that was only due to an Almunia-level of incompetence from West Brom’s stand-in goalkeeper Fulop on the last day of the season. Similarly, Yaya Toure’s impact on the Man City side was only truly noticed in his absence – when he was away for the African Cup of Nations City’s form dipped and they looked stagnant and stale; it was Toure’s return that added fresh impetus to the City attack and allowed them to change up the tempo rather than rely on Nasri’s mindless sideways passing.

In short, the ‘support’ role is gaining more and more prominence in modern football for good reason. Even midtable sides such as Swansea now employ a quality deep-lying playmaker in Leon Britton and, unlike a few years ago, he is gaining plaudits in the media instead of being entirely glossed over. The reason for this sudden acclaim has to be the success of players like Xavi, who is becoming for the ‘support’ role what Claude Makelele was for the anchorman. Box-to-box midfielders, however, are far more rare. This is because of the shift from a two- to a a three-man midfield, meaning that players who before would have been box-to-box are now pigeon-holed into far more specialist roles. Gerrard and Lampard, for example, are classic box-to-box mids in a 4-4-2 and yet, in the popular 4-5-1/4-3-3 are often consigned entirely to an attacking role. It makes you think what would have become of Keane and Viera – surely the most successful B2B mids in Premier League history – if they were playing today. The thought of these two world class players consigned to a purely defensive role is not a good one. Despite this, the likes of Yaya Toure show the role is not dead and, if given the chance to shine – as Mancini did by pushing Toure forward and utilizing him as the focal point in a 4-2-3-1 – can be immensely effective. This is why players like Jack Wilshere, whom can operate in both the box-to-box and deep-lying playmaker roles, are so highly value; he is able to dictate play, retain possession and pick out passes as well as add that spark and dynamism so sorely needed to change up the tempo and break open a packed defence.

Before the mid 2000s, football was very set in its ways. Big teams with impressive history dominated the league for decades at a time, with Arsenal, Manchester United and Liverpool everpresents in the upper echelons of football, especially after the conception of the Premier League. Whilst other big teams like Leeds and Sheffield dropped off the pace there were no ‘small’ clubs taking their places and it was widely accepted that only the very biggest teams stood a chance of winning the league, with very little chance of anyone joining their elite. Aside from the one shock result in 1995, where Blackburn won the league and then were promptly relegated the next season, only Arsenal and Manchester United had won the Premier League until Chelsea finally cracked it under Mourinho in the 2004-05 season.

And that’s the point of this article. Arsenal and United are the two traditional ‘big’ clubs of the Premier League era, and the only times a team has surpassed them is through spending a colossal amount of money. While Blackburn spent millions on Shearer and co, they were relegated next season due to running out of funds; it is only with the new introduction of billionaire owners that football is finally changing. Abramovich’s £140m purchase of Chelsea back in 2003 has forever changed football as we know it. Tens of millions are now spent every year on big money transfers, with clubs like Arsenal and United – who both used to have almost free reign of the transfer market – being complete outdone financially. This has spread to other clubs in other nations, with Madrid spending huge money on players like Ronaldo and Kaka for their Galaticos project and Barca forking out on Zlatan Ibrahimovich.

A number of teams have taken up their lead, with PSG, Malaga and Anzhi Makhachkala (which I am never trying to spell again) the trio attempting to replicate the English clubs’ domestic success and even the Chinese entering into it with Shanghai Shenua. However, they are quickly proving that it is far more difficult than first perceived to build a new ‘super club’.

The main problem is prestige. Chelsea and City, despite being far from the biggest names in the world, managed to lure players in with the promise of playing in what is widely regarded to be the best league in the world; the Prem. Most players looking to make a name for themselves at the highest level dream of playing in the Premier League, with the huge pay packets an added bonus. This is a vastly different proposition to moving to the French Ligue 1, which is in far lower regard. And what player seriously looking to reach the top would consider a move out to Russia? Even Malaga, playing in the highly successful (at least in Europe) Spanish La Liga, struggle to draw in players due to two major problems: Real Madrid and Barcelona. If a player makes a big money move to Spain, he goes to Barca or Madrid, end of.

This basically ends any hope of these clubs for a quick splash of cash and a leap into the Champions League Final. Even if Malafa suddenly announce the signings of Messi, Ronaldo, Van Persie and Thiago Silva they wouldn’t be guaranteed CL football, let alone a spot in the final. Players take time to gel and building a whole new team from scratch is an incredibly hard task – just ask Andre Villas-Boas. Instead, these new mega-rich owners must revert to their favourite new phrase; a ‘project’. Sheik Mansour and his Abu Dhabi compatriots were the first to apply this term to their new plaything and it has to be said they’ve gone about it the right way. People say the sacking of Mark Hughes was harsh but he quite frankly deserved it, wasting huge amounts of money of players like Santa Cruz and generally revealing himself to be what he always was and always will be – a completely average manager with no experience of real success. So City drafted in an experienced replacement. And kept him.

That part is key. Chelsea may have achieved success pinballing managers around and sacking one every time Abramovich sneezes, but that’s only because they found one of the best managers in recent history in Mourinho and they started this big-money game before they had any serious competitions. They could literally afford the disruption because they were head and shoulders above everyone else financially. Now they have more competition and Abramovich’s impatience is taking its toll – hiring a young manager to rebuild a team and giving him 7 months to do it? The new breed of financial powerhouses cannot afford to do this.

City gave Mancini a number of seasons to build his squad, not even demanding immediate CL qualification. This has paid dividends in allowing players like Silva, Aguero and Yaya Toure to find their feet in an intense new league and blend together as a team. Malaga and PSG in particular are attempting to do this, with varying degrees of success. Without any real big names in their lineup – either management or players – Malaga are instead focusing on slowly improving their team with proven internationals like Demichelis, Mathijsen and Toulalan, as well as experienced veterans like Van Nistelrooy and prospects like Santi Cazorla. This has seen them creep up the league table and their now 4th in La Liga which, despite the weakness outside of the top two, is no mean feat.

PSG, on the other hand, have shot straight to the top of Ligue 1 and are battling it out with surprise package Montpellier for the title. This is perhaps unsurprising due to the potential PSG has and always had. Situated in Paris, PSG undoubtedly has more appeal on a cultural and lifestyle level than clubs like Anzhi, and has a rich history as France’s sleeping giant. Promising young players like captain Mamadou Sakho and hot prospect Alphonse Areola give PSG a core of homegrown players to build around and this young core has been complemented with the additions of experienced players like Thiago Motta, Alex and Maxwell. They also have a handful of big names as well, with Javier Pastore, signed for big money from Palermo in the summer, one of the most sought-after talents in Europe. They have an experienced, world class manager as well in the form of Carlo Ancelloti, who is used to building title-challenging sides with big money from his days at original moneybags Chelsea. Already on the verge of domestic domination, PSG are the best placed on the new breed to have a huge impact on Europe. A few key signings is all they need.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for teams like Anzhi and Shanghai. Although they have as much if not more funds available than their rivals – as shown by Samuel Eto’o's ridiculous wage packet – they are sorely hurt by their locations. Anzhi, aside from residing in the less-than-prestigious Russian league, is situated in the town of Makhachkala, which is so unsavoury the home team don’t even live their, but instead live and train in Moscow and fly in to home games. Playing for a club representing a town so dangerous you can’t even live their is not an attractive proposition. However, Anzhi are doing their best, bringing in big names like manager Guus Hiddink, Brazilian legend Roberto Carlos and the world’s highest-paid footballer Samuel Eto’o, as well as solid players with PL experience like Zhirkov and Samba. Also, the Russian league is at least semi-prestigious, with Zenit and CSKA giving a good account of themselves in European competitions.

Shanghai Shenua are a completely different proposition and are easily in the worse shape. Despite tying up the signing of Nicolas Anelka in January – and even the possibility of Drogba following – it is unlikely Shanghai will ever achieve much else of note. Whilst their city is a cultural marvel, something that cannot be said of Makhachkala*, their footballing appeal is almost non-existent. Football is not a Chinese sport and they are yet to follow Japan’s example in developing an entirely new youth system to change that. Because of this, Shanghai, and, to a lesser extent Anzhi, are almost certainly resigned to picking up average players in their prime and legends well past theirs looking for a healthy paycheck to see them into retirement. Don’t expect any miracles.

PSG and, to a lesser extent, Malaga, on the other hand, both stand genuine chances in breaking into the footballing elite. Although it would be a minor miracle for Malaga to breakthrough and compete with domestic rivals Barca and Madrid, it is achievable with the right planning and PSG are already well on their way in their own league and just a handful of signings away from being a real European force.

*If you’re wondering what happened to my ‘no spelling Makhachkala’ policy, I have three words: Copy. And. Paste.

First off I’d like to say sorry for the prolonged absence, a combination of a short illness and mountains of work has left me with little time or inclination for writing recently. However, I’m back now and hopefully can begin to really add some proper content.

I was watching the Arsenal vs Wigan game last night and, aside from a remarkable display from Wigan that has, I’m sure, left many of us wondering how they come so close to relegation each season, something that really interested me was actually the pre-match discussion about one of football’s most popular current controversies: diving. While I despised Gary Neville as a player – as an Arsenal fan it was hard not to – I have to admit he is, in my opinion, a top quality pundit and is one of the best on TV. His experience and knowledge of the game is evident and he is unafraid to go against popular opinion and speak his mind – on a number of occasions he has openly opposed the other ‘experts’ in both live commentary and match analysis like on Monday Night Football – as well as being surprisingly unbiased, and his views on diving were especially interesting, if not entirely agreeable.

Neville’s argument is, effectively, is that diving is not, in fact, cheating as it has become so ingrained in the game that it is almost impossible to win decisions without going to ground, even if it was a stonewall penalty. The best example of this, again as shown on MNF, is Neil Taylor for Swansea against Tottenham where he is repeatedly blatantly pulled back by Gallas, yet doesn’t go down and so only wins a corner. Neville also claims that most ‘dives’ should in fact have been given as penalties, including the latest performance from Ashley Young for the opener against Villa, bringing up a number of examples where the incident is both a dive and a penalty.

This is a valid argument despite its fairly unattractive connotations about our ‘beautiful game’ – if a defender comes in for a challenge and touches the player not the ball, that is a penalty under the rules of the game and so, by going to ground, attackers are simply ensuring they get a decision they should have been granted anyway, but wouldn’t have got if they’d stayed on their feet. Although this seems to be cheating, is it really? Or is it simply preventing the opposition from getting away with cheating themselves? Well, maybe ‘cheating’ is the wrong word for a mistimed challenge in the box but I can’t think of an alternative and, in black and white, a defender fouling an attacker in the box is breaking the rules of the game. So, if they get away with it it is undoubtedly extremely unfair. What we must also remember is that diving has been part of the game for twenty odd years and, especially with such high stakes these days in terms of both the money and offer and the potential impact results can have on the careers of both players and managers, can often be vital, with players taking every advantage they can get.

In a way I agree with Neville that for stonewalll penalties it is, in a way, acceptable for a player to go down when they might possibly have stayed on their feet just to ensure the penalty. However, this cannot justify the actual act of ‘diving’, i.e. throwing yourself to the floor from little or even no contact in an attempt to con the referee. There is a fine line to be drawn here and I am in no way saying its easy. Who can really 100% say that a player has gone to ground purely to con the ref? Especially when running at pace even the slightest touch can bring you down and it could simply be a slight loss in balance or similar, even if it looks like the player ‘went down easy’. Even if there was no contact, a player could simply anticipate or expect a strong challenge and attempt to avoid it by leaping out of the way, especially if leaving your leg planted means risking a serious injury. However, there is also 100% definite cheating, and that is going down after a completely insignificant touch or after no contact at all to win a penalty or freekick that should not have been given. This is completely different to going down when you could have stayed up to ensure you are granted what is rightfully yours. Unfortunately, due to recent events Ashley Young again immediately springs to mind due to his dive against QPR* where he threw himself to ground after the slightest touch from Derry: that was and never will be a penalty and has to go down as cheating – diving at its absolute worse. 

So what to do about it? Retrospective bans are the most touted solution and I think that is probably the best solution. Mr Neville is opposed to them due to the majority of dives resulting in penalties which cannot be overruled retrospectively for obvious reasons. However, there is no need to deal with the results of the dive, not really. In this factor of the game, the match result is not important – whether a team wins or loses has no effect on diving, all that matters is that it is cut out. If obvious, blatant dives, not necessarily the more dubious ones, are met with heavy retrospective bans – and I’m talking four or five games here – then the obvious ‘cheating’ aspect will quickly be cut out. Players may still dive, but they would surely only do so if they had felt definite and fairly significant contact and won’t just throw themselves down a la Young, which I believe is the best we can hope for. The only other thing, I think, is to remove the ref’s ability to book players for diving in game, or at least tighten up the rules so the ref must be 100% certain. Although this would mean some blatant dives would go unpunished during the course of the game, this would be rectified almost immediately via the retrospective system and would remove the potential for any unfair bookings on players who were genuinely fouled, such as Tevez in the latest City game against West Brom.

Diving is a serious and highly controversial issue which, most importantly, the fans don’t like. Whilst people can argue that football is a business it cannot be forgotten that it should in fact be all about the fans and that, although diving is a heavily ingrained part of the game it is a part that the fans don’t like and so should be removed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

*sorry for the ridiculous video it was the best I could find, the actual dive is around 27 seconds in