Sandro - Beast

[Raziel]

I think there's a point in that.

Look at Arsenal, yes they've done well to bring back Flamini, but often they still do well with Arteta as their deepest midfielder. Real have looked really good with Alonso, Modric and Di Maria as their central 3. Not a player there similar to Sandro or Makelele in style. I don't think many here would have described Gerrard as a defensive midfielder at the start of the season, yet here we are - Liverpool about to win the league with Gerrard as their anchor man. At Juve it's Pirlo next to players like Pogba, Vidal and Marchisio. At Barcelona the more "pure defensive midfielder" that is Mascherano has been moved to a centre back position.

There are many ways to skin a cat. The dedicated defensive midfielder has to some extent fallen out of fashion and most top class anchor men or deep midfielders are also very able on the ball like Alonso, Carrick, Gerrard now, Busquets, Javi Martinez etc. And are thus to me not really well described as the classical "defensive midfielder".

Part of this is also that Makelele was underrated on the ball and that although his defensive abilities were often highlighted it did seem to make it fine to be a central midfielder that was severely limited on the ball "because Makelele" - even though Makelele himself really wasn't that limited (imo).

This doesn't mean that there isn't room for a defensive midfielder like Sandro in modern football. Not at all. But I do think there's a point that a player like that might not (always) be necessary. And that players like that really have to also be good ball players to become truly top class players.

Yet interestingly almost all the "big" teams you have named in that list that don't play a DM have massive defensive frailties, could not see the Scum/Real/Pool doing what Cheat$ki did yesterday i.e. go away to a free scoring, in form side and gain a 0-0 draw (not that I'm advocating the style, just saying it's an option they don't have).

The modern game is won/loss mostly in midfield, a DM (in a coherent system) might not always win you a game, but it significantly reduces the chances of being overrun there (i.e. losing the game).

 

[glorygloryeze]

When Sandro is fit and playing at his best, he is one of the first on our teamsheet. If, for whatever reason, we somehow put him up for sale there would be many suitors across Europe (providing he improves his current injury record).

No ammount of BS that Tim Sherwod or Les Ferdinand come out with (to deflect from the fact that they themselves are tactically clueless) should distract from that.

 

[Neymar]

When Sandro is fit and playing at his best, he is one of the first on our teamsheet. If, for whatever reason, we somehow put him up for sale there would be many suitors across Europe (providing he improves his current injury record).

absolutely true. if the rumours are true that arsenal are in for him, and he ends up going there, ill be devastated.

 

[Viper]

absolutely true. if the rumours are true that arsenal are in for him, and he ends up going there, ill be devastated.

It's all a plot by Timothy "Charlie George" Sherwood. Just like Terry Neill, bugger off to Arsenal and take the best players with you.

 

[braineclipse]

Cheers Diego, Milo and KD.

Yet interestingly almost all the "big" teams you have named in that list that don't play a DM have massive defensive frailties, could not see the Scum/Real/Pool doing what Cheat$ki did yesterday i.e. go away to a free scoring, in form side and gain a 0-0 draw (not that I'm advocating the style, just saying it's an option they don't have).

The modern game is won/loss mostly in midfield, a DM (in a coherent system) might not always win you a game, but it significantly reduces the chances of being overrun there (i.e. losing the game).

Chelsea is a pretty ridiculously high standard though. Few teams can do what a Mourinho organized Chelsea team can do defensively. And that too comes at a cost I think. Similarly to how you wouldn't expect Real or Pool to defend as well as that you wouldn't expect Chelsea to crush a medium to big team the way Real and Liverpool can.

I'm not sure I agree that most of those teams I mention have "massive defensive frailties". We normally watch those games when those teams are up against other big clubs and in those games most teams that won't park the bus will look vulnerable at times.

They're probably more frail than if they had a "dedicated" or "pure" defensive midfielder, by a bit. But that is probably also offset by them having more ability on the ball, that again means that they can retain possession better, attack more etc. I agree that it's a good option to have in a squad, but like I said I'm not sure it's always a necessary option or perhaps even a necessary option in a squad.

Another point is also that for a player like Sandro to step up and become really top class he has to learn how to play consistently well when on the ball.

 

[braineclipse]

When Sandro is fit and playing at his best, he is one of the first on our teamsheet. If, for whatever reason, we somehow put him up for sale there would be many suitors across Europe (providing he improves his current injury record).

No ammount of BS that Tim Sherwod or Les Ferdinand come out with (to deflect from the fact that they themselves are tactically clueless) should distract from that.

Rejecting it as BS just because of the source really isn't interesting.

I'm not looking to defend Sherwood or Ferdinand here, more just the tactical decision. I don't get Sherwood's choice to play Chadli and Paulinho in central midfield, neither is a defensive midfielder - that I'm fine with. But neither is a proper playmaker either. Just playing two box-to-box like players just seems very limited to me. Particularly when we have other options in the squad like a defensive midfielder in Sandro or proper passer in Bentaleb.

 

[scaramanga]

That's an excellent post (again) from Braineclipse.

Scaramanga.....do you remember we had this discussion about Carrick being a DM before?

I remember it getting incredibly nuanced and boring - you'd have to remind me of the details.

 

[ringo]

If you want to play a classic DM, like Sandro, I think it constrains your tactical options. It is fine in a 4-2-3-1, but that formation has other implications, and requires other specialised players - a #10, for example. Even then I'd rather have Yaya Toure type player than Sandro as DM in a 4-2-3-1

But with a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, playing a Sandro type DM is more difficult. So I can see why a team might not have Sandro as regular starter. I also think the Makalele style DM is going out of fashion, and we are moving back towards a more flexible Dutch total football style, but with higher levels of fitness.

-- just to add, I think Sandro is excellent at what he does.

 

[Raziel]

Cheers Diego, Milo and KD.



Chelsea is a pretty ridiculously high standard though. Few teams can do what a Mourinho organized Chelsea team can do defensively. And that too comes at a cost I think. Similarly to how you wouldn't expect Real or Pool to defend as well as that you wouldn't expect Chelsea to crush a medium to big team the way Real and Liverpool can.

I'm not sure I agree that most of those teams I mention have "massive defensive frailties". We normally watch those games when those teams are up against other big clubs and in those games most teams that won't park the bus will look vulnerable at times.

They're probably more frail than if they had a "dedicated" or "pure" defensive midfielder, by a bit. But that is probably also offset by them having more ability on the ball, that again means that they can retain possession better, attack more etc. I agree that it's a good option to have in a squad, but like I said I'm not sure it's always a necessary option or perhaps even a necessary option in a squad.

Another point is also that for a player like Sandro to step up and become really top class he has to learn how to play consistently well when on the ball.

Real & Pool concede to small teams with regularity, they just happen to have some of the best offensive players in the world that allows them to basically outscore most opponents.

Sandro in form is good on the ball, he's very good technically, people forget what an upgrade he was on Wilson/Parker.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Rejecting it as BS just because of the source really isn't interesting.

I'm not looking to defend Sherwood or Ferdinand here, more just the tactical decision. I don't get Sherwood's choice to play Chadli and Paulinho in central midfield, neither is a defensive midfielder - that I'm fine with. But neither is a proper playmaker either. Just playing two box-to-box like players just seems very limited to me. Particularly when we have other options in the squad like a defensive midfielder in Sandro or proper passer in Bentaleb.

I'm rejecting because it's BS AND because the source have shown such ineptitude on how we set up in midfield whereby our defence looks much worse than it really needs to. The bolded bit you yourself wrote shows a typical example of the ineptitude that we have gotten away with in recent games against Relegeation fodder.
Exhibit B would be the Arsenal game when we were exposed in the centre of midfield due to our 2 constantly being aginst their 3 " butwe outnumbered them on the wings"

 

[braineclipse]

If you want to play a classic DM, like Sandro, I think it constrains your tactical options. It is fine in a 4-2-3-1, but that formation has other implications, and requires other specialised players - a #10, for example. Even then I'd rather have Yaya Toure type player than Sandro as DM in a 4-2-3-1

But with a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, playing a Sandro type DM is more difficult. So I can see why a team might not have Sandro as regular starter. I also think the Makalele style DM is going out of fashion, and we are moving back towards a more flexible Dutch total football style, but with higher levels of fitness.

-- just to add, I think Sandro is excellent at what he does.

Yaya Toure really isn't a natural defensive midfielder. Him and Sandro together in a 4-2-3-1 would be pretty awesome though.

I agree that there are limitations. I think a 4-3-3 works fine with a Sandro type player anchoring the midfield, but I think you depend on ball playing central defenders (and full backs) to compensate a bit.

Full backs are really important for both 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 though, and area we're not up to scratch in.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Real & Pool concede to small teams with regularity, they just happen to have some of the best offensive players in the world that allows them to basically outscore most opponents.

Sandro in form is good on the ball, he's very good technically, people forget what an upgrade he was on Wilson/Parker.

Exactly!

 

[Raziel]

If you want to play a classic DM, like Sandro, I think it constrains your tactical options. It is fine in a 4-2-3-1, but that formation has other implications, and requires other specialised players - a #10, for example. Even then I'd rather have Yaya Toure type player than Sandro as DM in a 4-2-3-1

But with a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, playing a Sandro type DM is more difficult. So I can see why a team might not have Sandro as regular starter. I also think the Makalele style DM is going out of fashion, and we are moving back towards a more flexible Dutch total football style, but with higher levels of fitness.

-- just to add, I think Sandro is excellent at what he does.

Mate, Yaya Toure is a one of a kind.

The issue I have with these discussions is you play your best players and you build a system that includes them. Our two best midfielders in my opinion are Sandro and Eriksen, hopefully with Lamela to adapt and be part of that. Figure out how to play your best players.

 

[braineclipse]

Real & Pool concede to small teams with regularity, they just happen to have some of the best offensive players in the world that allows them to basically outscore most opponents.

Sandro in form is good on the ball, he's very good technically, people forget what an upgrade he was on Wilson/Parker.

Is it really fair to compare Pool to Chelsea though?

Part of what allows them to score that many is a central midfield without passengers when attacking.

Sandro is good on the ball compared to who exactly? Palacios - sure. Parker - meh. Top class midfielders - no.

I'm rejecting because it's BS AND because the source have shown such ineptitude on how we set up in midfield whereby our defence looks much worse than it really needs to. The bolded bit you yourself wrote shows a typical example of the ineptitude that we have gotten away with in recent games against Relegeation fodder.
Exhibit B would be the Arsenal game when we were exposed in the centre of midfield due to our 2 constantly being aginst their 3 " butwe outnumbered them on the wings"

I think smacks of hubris to think that opinions of footballing people like Sherwood can be dismissed as BS because they've made some (or even many) tactical mistakes. I'm sure all of us would make horrible tactical decisions if given the chance to test ourselves. If you want to dismiss Sherwood's opinion as BS you kinda have to dismiss your own opinion as well I think.

 

[Raziel]

Sandro is good on the ball compared to who exactly? Palacios - sure. Parker - meh. Top class midfielders - no.

I disagree mate, is Sandro a Modric/Silva/Mata in midfield = no, is he a technically good player who can win the ball, pressure opponents, then either cycle the ball quickly to a Modric/Eriksen type, or make a run forward into space before cycling the play? = absolutely

Compared to most DM's, he's quite good on the ball.

Sandro, like Lennon, like quite a few players under TS will struggle because of what appears to be a lack of plan/system. The DM role under Harry as example, shielded the back 4, won the ball quickly then got it either to the midfield passer (e.g. Modric) or out wide to Lennon/Bale.

Sandro for me in the current team should play with Lennon - Bentaleb - Eriksen, shield the back 4, pass the ball to any of those 3 quickly, if the opposition is covering all 3 options it's likely Sandro himself is in open space and can drive forward. And those 3 should provide more than enough ability to make attack opportunities.

 

[ringo]

Mate, Yaya Toure is a one of a kind.

The issue I have with these discussions is you play your best players and you build a system that includes them. Our two best midfielders in my opinion are Sandro and Eriksen, hopefully with Lamela to adapt and be part of that. Figure out how to play your best players.

Agreed Yaya Toure is special, but Gerrard is doing a similar job at Liverpool, and Lampard used to do the same when he was physically capable - Viera etc etc. But yes we don't really seem to have that type of player at the moment.

Picking all your best players doesn't necessarily make the best team. And what constitutes your best midfielder depends on how you define midfielder. I think Sandro is easily our best classic defensive midfielder. But we might get better results playing another midfielder instead, if they are a better fit for a system that accommodates other good players.

I agree Eriksen should start -but is he best in the two of 4-4-2.. in the #10 ...out on the left.

I'll be glad when the season is over, we have the manager decided and the squad gets sorted out with, hopefully, a couple of players for each position, rather than a bunch of players who can play in multiple positions.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think smacks of hubris to think that opinions of footballing people like Sherwood can be dismissed as BS because they've made some (or even many) tactical mistakes. I'm sure all of us would make horrible tactical decisions if given the chance to test ourselves. If you want to dismiss Sherwood's opinion as BS you kinda have to dismiss your own opinion as well I think.

Let's get back to why we're discussing this:
TS and LF feel that the type of defensive cm that does nothing apart from tackle (i.e. can't pass, shoot etc) should have no place in today's game; They use Makalele as an example to show their point. Makelele: one of the best intercenptors, passers, starters of forward moves that eith Chelski or Real have had in the last 10 years or so. They seem to compare him to some clogger in the mid-90s like perhaps John Jensen at Arsenal.
BS point 1.

They then set up our team where they actively do not play a tackler in the midfield who can a)retreive the ball back for our players to start atttacking moves/keep possession away from the opposition b) set up our 2 CMs against other well-drilled teams who play with 3, e.g. Arsenal, Benfica. We are getting away with it at present due to playing relegation fodder. Shall I mention the Liverpool game, when Sandro and Dembele were kept on the bench?

Mistakes that highlights BS point 1 above and that TS/LF really didn't actually watch Makalele in his prime at all, or understand what he brought to both Chelsea and Real's attacking AND defensive play.

Back to BS point 1: we are speculating that Sandro being dropped is perhaps because TS has identified that Sandro has major weaknesses to his game much like Makalele had the same 'weaknesses'. If we or anyone thinks that Sandro can be compared to old cloggers like John Jensen, then we've fallen for BS point 1 imo

 

[Pirate55]

A great post.

I think that it pays to be wary of orthodoxies and it is becoming close to an orthodox belief amongst fans that you need a DM.

Agree wit both BE's great post and this comment.

I think Sandro has been well below his own high beast like par recently.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think there's a point in that.

Look at Arsenal, yes they've done well to bring back Flamini, but often they still do well with Arteta as their deepest midfielder. Real have looked really good with Alonso, Modric and Di Maria as their central 3. Not a player there similar to Sandro or Makelele in style. I don't think many here would have described Gerrard as a defensive midfielder at the start of the season, yet here we are - Liverpool about to win the league with Gerrard as their anchor man. At Juve it's Pirlo next to players like Pogba, Vidal and Marchisio. At Barcelona the more "pure defensive midfielder" that is Mascherano has been moved to a centre back position.

There are many ways to skin a cat. The dedicated defensive midfielder has to some extent fallen out of fashion and most top class anchor men or deep midfielders are also very able on the ball like Alonso, Carrick, Gerrard now, Busquets, Javi Martinez etc. And are thus to me not really well described as the classical "defensive midfielder".

Part of this is also that Makelele was underrated on the ball and that although his defensive abilities were often highlighted it did seem to make it fine to be a central midfielder that was severely limited on the ball "because Makelele" - even though Makelele himself really wasn't that limited (imo).

This doesn't mean that there isn't room for a defensive midfielder like Sandro in modern football. Not at all. But I do think there's a point that a player like that might not (always) be necessary. And that players like that really have to also be good ball players to become truly top class players.

It's a fine post, but for me, it minimizes Sandro as a player in terms of what he is and what he can be. He is a far better passer than people think, he is someone who can quickly shift a 5 yard ball once won, he can cover a fair amount of ground and he is a leader. Further, every side you've mentioned have decent defenders (yes, even Liverpool's CBs have out-performed ours IMO). Our defence has been shambolic, and our style of play for a long time now has involved a 'DM' (whether it be a Palacios a Parker a Sandro). In a few short months, mid-season nonetheless, he decides to throw it out of the window with no transition? No wonder the players look generally lost half the time.

 

[thfcsteff]

While that is true.... I think a manager should only select a player if the player is showing the right desire and attitude in training. Now I am not suggesting I have any idea whether Sandro is or isn't doing so currently, but if he isn't then Sherwood has every right not to pick him and give him a message that he needs to do this to force his way into the team. IMO a manager cannot pick players on past performances or reputation alone. Remember also that Sandro was a big favourite of Sherwood's 'mentor' Harry Redknapp.

Wasn't there also a similar situation with Paulinho recently? A player who seems to have since fought his way back into the team and shown better performances?

I agree with your point in principle, and we don't know what's going on there. But the bold bit? You mean the man who wanted to loan him out? Not really mate.