Are defensive midfielders important enough in FM?

Mine never seem to get high average ratings no matter how good they are, so I often do away with them and just go with two central midfielders and it doesn't seem to hurt.

But in football, the def mid is everything, think of players like Redondo, Makalele, Pirlo, they are often the stars of the season/most important player for a club, they screen the defense, break up attacks, set the tempo, keep the teams shape acting almost as a conductor for the team's play, but in my experience of FM10 he doesn't seem very important in the game.

Anyone else agree, or am i missing something in my tactics?

Just because he isn't getting high ratings doesn't mean the position isn't important to your team.

You have to also consider that there are different sorts of DMs, Makalele is a far different DM than Pirlo with different responsibilities.

I found that a good DM made a huge difference for me in the lower leagues. As the quality of my team increased it has seemed less important.

I still play with a DM in the top flight, he scores fairly well in most matches and is a fixture of my squad.

Last season Huddlestone got a rating of 7.21 in 32 games. I consider any rating above 7 to be a success.

i find my DM just as important as any other player on the pitch.. i play a DM with two CM in front so they have the freedom to attack where my DM protects my back 4.. as for ratings my DM gets high enough ratings

Just as Graham FM I play a DM behind to offensive CM's, so for my tactic the role is vital to protect the central line. If anything I'd say it is one of the more important roles as it takes a quality player to do the job properly (which will lead to decent ratings if accomplished in my experience).

thanks for the responses, I think i'd better get working at my tactics!

I love having a guy like Jermaine Jones or Anthony Annan at DM or ball-winning, defensive CM. Seems to take loads of responsibility away from my creative players and make life difficult for the other team's attacking players.

in my newcastle save muamba is my DM and hes done wonders.. he reguarly gets match ratings of around 8 and it took 8 games before i conceeded my 1st goal. i like to think he played a big role in that

Play with 2 CMs, with one of them (the more defensive of the two) barrowing back to DM on defense. Plays with little creative freedom, doesn't run with the ball and rarely tries a through ball. After two seasons he's averaging between a 6.9 and 7.1 pretty much game in and game out. Also led the league this past season with an 84% pass rating.

I have an amazing regen defensive midfielder who has amazing attributes and has average ratings of 6.80 to 7.10.

It really annoys me because he is so amazing and attribute wise is the best defensive midfielder in the world but plays average. He is 24 years old if it matters

I like to have somewhat competant midfielders defensively, not necceserily make them defensive midfielders though, as long as they're alright in the air, can tackle, head, and move, with high work rate, to adequate rates, they can either be more defensive or offensive beyond that, one of each is my ideal, yet putting a midfielder back in a proper defensive midfield position, I reserve that for certain teams. I just find that narrow teams generally need me to have at least one defensive midfield. The tactic I see some do with three attacking midfielders just behind a pure striker, I find a DM or even two does a lot to help disrupt their attacking movements, and I generally do better with one there.

As for ratings, well around 7 is alright, I find the game does value assists and goals a lot and if you arent a player made for doing them you get lower scores, simple as that.

I agree that they often seem to get a bit of a low rating, they seem to get a 6.9 rating for me the vast majority of the time even when they have a pretty good game.

As for ratings, well around 7 is alright, I find the game does value assists and goals a lot and if you arent a player made for doing them you get lower scores, simple as that.

Yes, it seems that the game expects defenders to tackle, midfielders to pass and assist and forwards to score. A DM rarely assists and makes key passes so it tends to ignore other important stuff he's usually doingand give him low ratings.

In Man City, you have De Jong, one of the better DM's in the game, he usually makes 6-7 tackles per game and ends up most often with a modest average rating of 6.90-7.00.

I think that they are very important to a team, i always like to have a very good DM in my teams

I think they are one of the most important things a team can have in FM, however I have to agree that they are usually rated a little too lowly.

It seems that goals and assists just give too big an overall ratings boost, even when it is a lucky deflection, a really easy pass or a simple tap in. I have had strikers play like crap all game, have 5.8 by 85 mins, then suddenly run onto a through ball, score and end up with 7.6 or 7.7.

The reason DMs never seem to get high ratings is because they rarely pull off something glitzy; instead, they're always working behind the scenes. They can be every bit as important as any other player, depending on the tactics.

The reason DMs never seem to get high ratings is because they rarely pull off something glitzy; instead, they're always working behind the scenes. They can be every bit as important as any other player, depending on the tactics.

That's true, but IRL if a DM truly controls a game, media will generally give him a high rating and/or make him man of the match. The same is rare in FM. Conversely, defenders seem to get high ratings and end up as MOTM a bit too easily compared to all kinds of DM/CM/AM.

My best player has sat in midfield for me for 7 seasons with an 88% pass success rate, about a 6.7 rating, 1 goal, 3 assists and no MOTM a season. I swear, my team falls apart without him.

Set the midfielder to search for the pass, rather than the shot, that should increase the amount of passes completed. The golden pass as well, that should atleast give a fair shot on getting decent rates, you could claim you dont train them well enough, that said I do agree that it could be better balanced. However if you win big enough, the rating will follow, so it also comes down to how good your side is, taking into consideration that a tight game wont scatter ratings that much.

If you play a tactic like me with a DM and in front of him there are 3 MC then that holding DM will get very good passing completion rating. Good headers, tackles, keeping the ball (because he has time). Now I played a strong, good header, good tackler, high work rate but overall average player in that position and he was the silent hero of my team.

Many things are defined by your tactics.

Very important to my teams. My RB/LB are like wingers when we have the ball so the DM basically acts as a third centre back at most times which equals clean sheets.

i think they are understated; ie. i always think as long as they are consistent, eg getting 7.0 or over in every game then its A okay. they may be uninspiring, but they are integral if they are genuine tackling players in the midfield. a good DM that never gets a rating lower than 7 but very occasionally gets a high rating, is just as important as a top striker on the whole grand scheme of things

I find them really important, got maduro for 2.3m from valencia at the start of the season, he has been averaging 7.29 during the season, guy is a beast.

A distinction needs to be made between the role and the position. The position of DM is just about the most important position on the field.

However the role is important. The DM position can be filled with a variety of player types from the physically dominant beast to the cunning position artist to the crucial team defining playmaker. Different games, different systems, different players and different tactics will all place different requirements on the player in the DM spot.

For me a true DM is only useful when you are playing your attacking football up the pitch and defending further back. This might be your "Roy Keane" style player who mops up behind the attack and attempts to win the ball early so another attack can be built quickly. Contrast this to how Paul Scholes plays these days, sitting infront of the defence and offering an easy out-ball while having a world class level of distribution accuracy and vision, while the more advanced players are supposed to win the ball back early, or drop deep quickly to cover gaps.

Whether you put a "Roy Keane" or a "Paul Scholes" in the DM slot is going to define your entire style of play. Both players are the key between defence and attack, but are completely different "keys". One is the ball winner and the other is the play maker. One defends higher up the pitch, and the other builds attacks from deeper.

For me, using the right men at the right time in the right match is the key issue of the DM. It is not a set-in-stone role, it is the crux of your strategy for a particular match.

Whatever his role is, I just think it's important to have a 'body' infront of the centrebacks. Too many times I have seen players lurking between my MC and DC, so a Defensive Midfielder was the only option.

I think there's a big difference between a MC that doesn't go forward and any role given to a DMC.

I haven't played with a DMC for 20 seasons. I find a good striker infinitely more important

Regardless of ratings, I think holding midfielders aren't important enough in the game. My theory is that SI have made box-to-box players overpowered so that you can win with 442 whereas in real life 442 is no longer used by the big teams because of its ineffectiveness.

If box-to-box players got caught out of position more often and left their teams susceptible to the counter attack it would increase the importance of holding players to a more realistic level.

Regardless of ratings, I think holding midfielders aren't important enough in the game. My theory is that SI have made box-to-box players overpowered so that you can win with 442 whereas in real life 442 is no longer used by the big teams because of its ineffectiveness.

If box-to-box players got caught out of position more often and left their teams susceptible to the counter attack it would increase the importance of holding players to a more realistic level.

^ Agree with this.

On the other hand, don't let the ratings fool you. It is quite odd that DMs who make 5-6 tackles per game and don't get any passes wrong recieve ratings of 6.7ish but meh, I don't care really. As long as they're doing their job properly I'll be happy

But yeah, holding mids should be more important.

I have to use an anchorman as I have no tactical ability whatsoever when it comes to setting up defences properly...

I base my entire Ukraine team around Tymoshchuk and whilst he hasn't scored a goal, or even an assist in forever we have only conceeded 1 goal in over 9 internationals, including games against England, Croatia and Netherlands.

His ratings have been a bit "meh" but he does the job I expect of him, and so I ignore his ratings.

DM is very important, u cud play 10 man and still win a game if ur DM good player

^ Agree with this.

On the other hand, don't let the ratings fool you. It is quite odd that DMs who make 5-6 tackles per game and don't get any passes wrong recieve ratings of 6.7ish but meh, I don't care really.

I do as it buggers up the average ratings so that they favour certain positions disproportionately!

The DMC position actually is very important in the game. However even the best DMC's have a hard time getting good match ratings. I play with a 4-3-3 that has 1 DMC, 2 MC's in attack role, 2 players on the wings playing as inside forwards and 1 striker. My starter DMC is clearly my best player but he always gets ratings around 6.6-7.0. When I win a game easily typically all of my players get 7.0+ ratings and my DMC still gets a 6.8-6.9, although he has 85-90% pass completion, 6 succesfull tackles, 5 successfull headers, 3 interceptions for example. This ratings system is really annoying me sometimes

My DM's are critical - they're rocks in front of the back line, and they occasionally score. I play a 442 attacking diamond (or on the counter - fast wingers) and my DM's make a huge difference. At one point I had my three top strikers all on the table. We couldn't score, but we drew several games, points that made a big difference later, and I think, from the highlights, that my DM made a real difference in nailing down the midfield and protecting the back line.

i don't play with DM's however I use a 4-2-3-1 formation. Flat 4, 2 CM's, AML, AMR, AMC and Striker. The 2 CM's they are both defensive minded and they are the fulcrum of the team. Normally I go for strength and ability to pass a football. If the 2 CM's are weak or are having a bad day, I will loose the midfield and normaly I end up replacing the AMC with another CM to strengthen the midfield.

I agree with the gist of much of what has been said above. Whilst their actual ratings may be low, their performances are good if they have the right attributes, and they can be integral to a side.

Have any of you tried using a deep-lying playmaker in the DM position? I found the ratings can be really when using this role with a suitable player.

wanted to post on this issue for ages

the position def underrated in this game.. my DMs masch and sandro, are world class, in their prime, masch has insane defensive and mental attributes, but for some reason, they consistently find it hard to get over 7.0

my tactics are ok, my team is winning titles like crazy and all my other players get great ratings just not my DMs...

even my FBs get better ratings ffs

i don't play with DM's however I use a 4-2-3-1 formation. Flat 4, 2 CM's, AML, AMR, AMC and Striker. The 2 CM's they are both defensive minded and they are the fulcrum of the team. Normally I go for strength and ability to pass a football. If the 2 CM's are weak or are having a bad day, I will loose the midfield and normaly I end up replacing the AMC with another CM to strengthen the midfield.

I've used a narrow 4-2-3-1 with three AMC's for about five seasons now. My MC's are box-to-box and supporting deep-lying playmaker. Not very defensive, I'd say.

Before that I used a defending ball-winner and an attacking advanced playmaker, which would cause the playmaker to constantly be too far upfield during counter-attacks. If the other team was counter-attacking with more than two players, my backline would drop together with their striker, the ball-winning midfielder would mark the second player, and any other players would be free to run around in 'the hole' between my defense and midfield. It was very effective in the offense, though.

my defensive anchor man is the key stone in my team for sure. With so many flair players in attacking roles he is the key player who holds it all together in front of defence especially in the big games.

i couldn't play without one.

I found that playing a 4-2-3-1 with 2 defensive midfielders 1 set as an anchor man and the other usually as a deep lying playmaker really worked for me. The anchor man would just sit in front of the back four in a defensive role while the DLP would be given a support role to enable him to get forward at times.

Craig Cathcart has been my best EVER dm! trust me

My DM does his job ok.

fwiw's Mine seem to always get lower ratings than other positions in the team. I've never seen a DM of mine average high 7's-8 over a season. They are very important irl and it's the sort of position that tends to be quite consistent imo due to the relatively simple, flair free nature of the job. I'm surprised they don't score higher in the game, as when i have a player rating in the 6's for a long time, I sell or drop him.

Absolutely agree with the topic.

In my game with Liverpool, Mascherano was veeery poor. Just above 6.80 mark. No goals (I am cool with that), hardly 2 assists and so on...no MOTM !

In my Napoli game I got Mikel, he was the best DM that I ever had (rating-wise) hitting the 7.05 mark. 2 goals in 3 seasons (ok) , 3-4 assists, no MOTM !

You think that's normal??

For me, DM is one of the most important position on the field in modern football. Gilberto Silva, Van Bommel, Yaya Touré, Cambiasso etc. etc. They are the working class for a team. Vital defensively and useful offensively depending on the type. Can be a perfect defender (Mascherano) or a play-maker (Pirlo) or a genius (Xavi) but they are perhaps the key in a team...

But the modern game has evolved again and we no longer have that out and out DM in the top teams again...

Look at Spain or Germany. They have central midfielders who can pass delightfully, and their job is to get into the right positions in order to break up the attack. They get a lot more interceptions than tackles, and that is how my teams work in FM at the moment - with two central midfielders, both on support roles. I concede very few goals, and my midfielders average 7.2 and 7.3ish (there is a more attacking one, but he is still on support.

Also, what does it matter what rating he gets if you win matches?

I find that a "ball winning" defesnive midfielder is difficult to find in FM10. Deep lying playmakers are easier to find and in general play a really important role in most of my teams.

But the modern game has evolved again and we no longer have that out and out DM in the top teams again...

Look at Spain or Germany. They have central midfielders who can pass delightfully, and their job is to get into the right positions in order to break up the attack. They get a lot more interceptions than tackles, and that is how my teams work in FM at the moment - with two central midfielders, both on support roles. I concede very few goals, and my midfielders average 7.2 and 7.3ish (there is a more attacking one, but he is still on support.

Also, what does it matter what rating he gets if you win matches?

I think you're wrong about this. The very best teams use deep-lying playmakers and those who can't find one use a Makelele type.

All top teams use at least one deep-lying midfielder these days. For Spain and Barcelona it is Busquets, and Germany use both Khadeira and Sweinstieger in deep roles.

Since 07 I only play with a 4-5-1 tactic and consider my DMC & SC as the most important players of my team.

Usually I end up paying the biggest transfer fee's for them and I don't mind the low ratings for a DMC, it's like that IRL also by the way.

Most people know how important a good DMC is for a team and yet they rarely end up being MOTM.

A not so good DMC on the other hand can really cripple your team, still he gets about the same ratings as a good one and it's only by looking at their stats that you see the real difference.