[Discussion] Recreating the Busquets Role

[RTHerringbone]

Thanks Fond Foat (07:05), that is precisely what the point was.

[kazm]

Surely what happens to the passes are important. If Xavi made 102/102 passes by passing sideways or backwards, it would be difficult to class him as a playmaker.

He would still be Barca's playmaker, that's his role in their team. He just wouldn't really have made the play that game. Calling someone who plays like Song did playmaker is pure BS.

[däkkä]

Why do you think that playmakers are only players who play ambitious passes? If Xavi has 102 of 102 passes but without any key passes, is he still not Barca's playmaker?

The thing is Xavi played 150 passes and had 163 touches to Song's 111.

What makes you think a player that plays the least key passes (by the aforementioned definition), the least long balls and the least through balls and is not focus of the team mate's passing should be classified as a playmaker? If Xavi played 102/102 he'd still have spread the ball to the flanks consistently, he'd still have dwelled on the ball more, he'd still have looked to create chances. Not the case with Song.

Song plays a disciplined midfield holder role. He's so far off a playmaker there's no debate, like kazm said.

[tomtuck01]

Agree about Song - his role is so different. In FM he's a typical DM to me.

[Fond Foat]

He would still be Barca's playmaker, that's his role in their team. He just wouldn't really have made the play that game. Calling someone who plays like Song did playmaker is pure BS.

I agree with you in that context. If he did this in one game it would be a one off. I thought you were saying he would still be called the playmaker just because he made 102/102 passes. I would suggest just being given the role of a playmaker and actually being the playmaker are two different things however. I also would not consider Song a playmaker either.

[kazm]

I agree with you in that contextif he did this was a one of game. I thought you were sayingg he would still be called the playmaker just because he made 102/102 passes. I would suggest just being given the role of a playmaker and actually being the playmaker are two different things however. I also would not consider Song a playmaker either.

Nah I agreed that someone who plays like that every game couldn't be considered a playmaker. The point I'm trying to make is the same ^^. And though Busquets might not play this safe I still wouldn't call him a playmaker.

[yonko]

I think the point made here is that the idea that whether you use sliders or the replacement system of individual shouts people will continue to have different ideas of how players and roles should work.

In many ways, I am very excited about being forced to really watch how my players are playing on the pitch and using the individual shouts to adjust their play. I believe it will increase the immersion factor. This discussion is an example. I set a player to play a halfback role. I watch a couple of games and decide he isn't doing what I want the halfback to do. So I tell him how I want him to play by using footballing terminology. In theory, it sounds ideal and I imagine will develop over the future.

That's still not a good reason to remove the visualization of the default instructions for each role IMO.

Surely what happens to the passes are important. If Xavi made 102/102 passes by passing sideways or backwards, it would be difficult to class him as a playmaker.

Why would it be difficult to classify him as the playmaker? Do you just look at the passing stats after the game to determine who the playmaker is/was? Is it possible that a team like Barca has more than one playmaker?

The thing is Xavi played 150 passes and had 163 touches to Song's 111.

What makes you think a player that plays the least key passes (by the aforementioned definition), the least long balls and the least through balls and is not focus of the team mate's passing should be classified as a playmaker? If Xavi played 102/102 he'd still have spread the ball to the flanks consistently, he'd still have dwelled on the ball more, he'd still have looked to create chances. Not the case with Song.

Song plays a disciplined midfield holder role. He's so far off a playmaker there's no debate, like kazm said.

I agree, Song is more disciplined. But Busquets has more freedom. A player doesn't need to have made key passes to be classified as the playmaker, because there are different types of playmakers. Plus, there are some Barca games where Xavi has less key passes than Iniesta or Fabregas. Or in other games Xavi has as many key passes as Alexis or Neymar have. Is Xavi not the playmaker in those scenarios? Does Barca's playmaker change from game to game based on who has made the most key passes for each separate game?

I'll say it again, Barca has 4 playmakers - Xavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets. In FM terms, Busquets is DLP-d, Xavi is DLP-s, Iniesta is AP and Messi is a Trequartista. Song is normal DM-d and Fabregas is CM-a.

[kazm]

Its not totally in the stats, though key passes tells a bit usually. It's in the type of passing. Even if Xavi doesn't get his regular 5 key passes a game (made that up) his way of passing still makes him a playmaker.

[däkkä]

I never suggested key pass count = playmaker. The point I was getting at is that Barcelona's defensive midfielders do not do anything creative to the extent you'd expect a playmaker to do. They do not spread the ball consistently, they do not see more of the ball than people around them, and they do not "make things happen". Barcelona's centre-backs play more long passes to the wide men. They do about the same amount of playmaking as the DM. I struggle to see what it is about Busquets' game that qualifies him as a playmaker role in FM.

Maybe we can agree that if you decided to go for a more fluid set-up the first specialist roles you'd hand out would be to Messi and Xavi. In a more rigid set-up you might give additional specialist roles to Iniesta, the centre-backs and Busquets.

[kazm]

Totally agree. If that makes Busquets a playmaker then I suggest changing the term playmaker for the likes of Xavi and Pirlo to 'Actual Playmaker'

[Dark Demon]

Busquets is a playmaker, he is the one who feeds the ball to Iniesta and Xavi allowing them to get the ball to Messi who eventually scores, Busquets starts the majority of Barca's plays that end up becoming a goal because they play through him, he makes the play for Barca. There is a reason why players like Pirlo, Carrick and Busquests are considered 'Deep-laying playmakers' and why players like Modric, Fabregas and Iniesta are considered 'Advanced Playmakers'.

[Sarmatian]

Nah, Barca plays Very Fluid and you can't have more than 1 specialist role in that setup.

[yonko]

Its not totally in the stats, though key passes tells a bit usually. It's in the type of passing. Even if Xavi doesn't get his regular 5 key passes a game (made that up) his way of passing still makes him a playmaker.

So the type of passes determine who is the playmaker? Really?! Fabregas makes more ambitious passes than Xavi - is he then more of a playmaker than Xavi?

Everyone knows that Xavi is always Barca's playmaker regardless of what type of passes he makes or how many key passes he has. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other players on the team with playmaking roles in addition to Xavi.

I never suggested key pass count = playmaker. The point I was getting at is that Barcelona's defensive midfielders do not do anything creative to the extent you'd expect a playmaker to do. They do not spread the ball consistently, they do not see more of the ball than people around them, and they do not "make things happen". Barcelona's centre-backs play more long passes to the wide men. They do about the same amount of playmaking as the DM. I struggle to see what it is about Busquets' game that qualifies him as a playmaker role in FM.

Clearly you don't watch enough of Barca's games.

Maybe we can agree that if you decided to go for a more fluid set-up the first specialist roles you'd hand out would be to Messi and Xavi. In a more rigid set-up you might give additional specialist roles to Iniesta, the centre-backs and Busquets.

I don't agree with the theory about fluidity and specialist roles.

Totally agree. If that makes Busquets a playmaker then I suggest changing the term playmaker for the likes of Xavi and Pirlo to 'Actual Playmaker'

There are things like "primary playmaker" and "secondary playmaker". Answer this: Is Xavi Barca's only playmaker?

Nah, Barca plays Very Fluid and you can't have more than 1 specialist role in that setup.

Says who?

[Fond Foat]

That's still not a good reason to remove the visualization of the default instructions for each role IMO.

Fair enough. I think to advance the series, for the sake of immersion, sliders had to go eventually. Might as well do it now.

Why would it be difficult to classify him as the playmaker? Do you just look at the passing stats after the game to determine who the playmaker is/was? Is it possible that a team like Barca has more than one playmaker?

I just don't consider a player who plays a defensive role by passing the ball sideways and backwards a playmaker. I don't need statistics to watch a game and say, well, he had a lot of the ball but he didn't do anything with it.

I'll say it again, Barca has 4 playmakers - Xavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets. In FM terms, Busquets is DLP-d, Xavi is DLP-s, Iniesta is AP and Messi is a Trequartista. Song is normal DM-d and Fabregas is CM-a.

I agree, but as I said they are not the playmakers every game. Surely their performance in that match will determine if they were a playmaker. Yes, the manager can set everything up so that the player will most likely be the playmaker, but as I said, the player's performance in the end will determine whether he was or not.

[däkkä]

Yonko, instead of one-liner responses and childish personal attacks you might want to clarify what makes Busquets a playmaker or what defines a playmaker. I've made (numerous times) the point about a) being a primary, designated playmaker and/or b) having expansive passing compared to his peers. You aren't even willing to accept that Xavi's role is more crucial to the set-up than that of Busquets.

What gives?

[kazm]

Yonko: I literally said that when Xavi doesn't get 5 key passes in a game he is still the playmaker because the way he passes. What makes him Barcas playmaker? His way of playing and his way of passing.

But to make you happy I will agree to call Busquets Barca's 4th playmaker after Xavi, Iniest and Messi. 5th and 6th will be the DC's, 7th and 8th the wingers, 9th and 10th the back and 11th Valdez though you could argue about this order.

@darkdemon: by that logic every DMC/anchorman in the game is a playmaker, since usually they are the ones getting the ball to the more creative mc's.

[tomtuck01]

Well DMC is an area on the pitch and Anchorman is a role.....

Would always set up Busquets in the DMC position as a DLP-Defend. Wouldn't make him my primary playmaker of course. Don't think some are even considering that you can set up as many playmakers as you like and just set one as the primary.

[kazm]

Yeah I meant dmc as a role.

I agree on the point that Busquets is easily good enough to play as a dlp in game I just disagree on him being a dlp for Barca irl.

[tomtuck01]

Fair enough, simple confusion on the part of me regards talking about position/role regarding DMC.

Also it's not about been good enough or not, it's just best how to replicate it. And on FM I think it's DLP-Defend as that covers all bases where Busquets is concerned.

[yonko]

Yonko, instead of one-liner responses and childish personal attacks you might want to clarify what makes Busquets a playmaker or what defines a playmaker. I've made (numerous times) the point about a) being a primary, designated playmaker and/or b) having expansive passing compared to his peers. You aren't even willing to accept that Xavi's role is more crucial to the set-up than that of Busquets.

What gives?

What childish personal attacks are you talking about, man? And when have I denied Xavi's role as the main playmaker? I'm simply saying that in addition to (the obvious) Xavi, Barca have additional (secondary) playmakers such as Iniesta, Messi and Busquets. Why do I consider Busquets an additional playmaker? Because he sees a lot of the ball, makes a lot of passes, creates and is key to how Barca build up their attacks, along with the other mentioned players.

In FM this is represented with playmaking roles like DLP, AP and Trequartista. In addition, if you go to Busquets' attributes in FM and highlight the necessary ones for DM-d and DLP-d roles, you will see that his attributes are more suited for the latter rather than the former.

[yonko]

Fair enough. I think to advance the series, for the sake of immersion, sliders had to go eventually. Might as well do it now.

They could've kept the sliders purely for visualization of the default instructions of the roles, especially since they are introducing new roles to the game.

I just don't consider a player who plays a defensive role by passing the ball sideways and backwards a playmaker. I don't need statistics to watch a game and say, well, he had a lot of the ball but he didn't do anything with it.

But Busquets does more than just simply defensive role for Barca and he does do something with the ball.

I agree, but as I said they are not the playmakers every game. Surely their performance in that match will determine if they were a playmaker. Yes, the manager can set everything up so that the player will most likely be the playmaker, but as I said, the player's performance in the end will determine whether he was or not.

Wrong. They are the playmakers in every game regardless of the stats.

[däkkä]

Clearly you do not watch enough barca, man. You're so ignorant and clueless.

You think that's appropriate and good for discussion? Especially when such ad hominem is just used to dodge arguments. Why don't you start with going back and responding to the points made? I'm getting kind of tired trying to figure out new views to reach out. Do I need to repost my whole message in order to avoid a meta-discussion of what's said? Are you really unable to read back?

Maybe we can agree that if you decided to go for a more fluid set-up the first specialist roles you'd hand out would be to Messi and Xavi. In a more rigid set-up you might give additional specialist roles to Iniesta, the centre-backs and Busquets.

Let's forget the fluidity issue? It's non-pertinent. Can't you agree that if you had to choose, you wouldn't choose Busquets first.

Busquets doesn't see significantly more of the ball than any of the players nearest to Xavi. Compare his figures to unarguable non-playmakers Alves or Piqué and you won't see a big difference there. He makes a lot of simple passes and creates roughly the least chances in the Barcelona starting line-up by any meter. To get the point across, he doesn't create. There is nothing to suggest he is more important to the attack than about any other player in the team. All this I deducted by watching dozens of games and then having statistics that congrue. What kind of backing do you have for your claims?

Also, attributes do not dictate role selection. Busquets has ability no doubt but you can't have 11 stars thinking like they're the stars on the pitch. And make no mistake, Busquets is not the go-to guy whatever might the hipsters say.

"He is key" is the only argument seen for DLP in this topic really. It doesn't get any more ambiguous and nonsensical than that. Ironic that tomtuck despises "makes things happen" kind of talk and then the argument for Busquets role is just similar blabber without depth. It really boils down to a couple of you guys calling every deep-lying midfielder with the least of technical ability a playmaker just to spite "the ignorant".

[tomtuck01]

Ironic that tomtuck despises "makes things happen" kind of talk and then the argument for Busquets role is just similar blabber without depth. It really boils down to a couple of you guys calling every deep-lying midfielder with the least of technical ability a playmaker just to spite "the ignorant".

What on earth are you bringing me into this little squabble you two are having?

My only argument is that I would use him (Busquets) as a DLP-Defend on FM as I think the charateristics of the role best represent what he does in real life.

[däkkä]

My only argument is that I would use him (Busquets) as a DLP-Defend on FM as I think the charateristics of the role best represent what he does in real life.

Anything concrete to support your claims?

Didn't think so.

But people ignorant so you go tell 'em.

[kazm]

Somehow I don't think the 2 sides in this discussion won't agree with each other very fast.

Just a hunch ^^

[tomtuck01]

Anything concrete to support your claims?

Didn't think so.

But people ignorant so you go tell 'em.

Because someone quoted what the two roles do in FM further up the page, (you as it happens), and having read what both roles specifiy I decided that I think one role better represents what Busquets does than the other.

I don't understand where you're coming from here. You're either supremely stupid, or on an elaborate troll.

[däkkä]

You decided but can't argumentate for ****. Just save the insincere smileys and weak-ass trolling. I've made my argument with solid grounds a number of times and you've shown no substance what so ever. Wonder who the troll is.

[tomtuck01]

You decided but can't argumentate for ****. Just save the insincere smileys and weak-ass trolling. I've made my argument with solid grounds a number of times and you've shown no substance what so ever. Wonder who the troll is.

I don't need to argue..........the thread is about recreating the Busquets role on Football Manager, and given that I only use the TC, I believe the best way to do that is by putting him in the DMC slot and giving him the role of DLP-Defend.

Yes, I disagreed with one user as we both have different opinions on what we consider a playmaker to be, but that is all. Why can't you grasp this?

[däkkä]

The best way to recreate Busquets' role is putting him in the DMC slot and giving him the role DM-defend.

End of. If you disagree you're stupid.

[tomtuck01]

The best way to recreate Busquets' role is putting him in the DMC slot and giving him the role DM-defend.

End of. If you disagree you're stupid.

I didn't realise I had to submit a 500 word essay for specifying a belief about a players role on a football management simulation game.

Also, I never suggested anyone was stupid for not agreeing with my belief. But please, don't let me stop you.

[däkkä]

Are you suggesting no argumentation is better than excessive argumentation?

[RTHerringbone]

Can the handbags be put away for another day please ladies?

It is derailing what was threatening to become a decent thread.

[däkkä]

I mean, for me there's no problem and we can continue if tomtuck01 can go back and make an argument. I've made mine in the "500 word essay" already.

[tomtuck01]

Are you suggesting no argumentation is better than excessive argumentation?

I mean, for me there's no problem and we can continue if tomtuck01 can go back and make an argument. I've made mine in the "500 word essay" already.

For the last time;

I stated the way in which I would recreate the role Busquets does in real life on Football Manager. I don't particularly feel the need to expand on that. Why you are so keen for me to do is beyond peculiar.

I also had a fairly minor disagreement with another user about what constitutes a "Playmaker". We didn't agree, and I said I believed him to be a bit ignorant in his view. It wasn't a personal attack on the chap, and he's perfectly enititled to opinion he has, even if I think it is wrong.

Lord knows why you have felt the need to bring me into a discussion you were having with the user yonko. I'm still totally baffled by that.

Now, if you want to keep suggesting I am "stupid" or directing swear words at me, then please do it by the PM system. You're making the moderators upset.

[RTHerringbone]

You're making the moderators upset.

I'm touched.

Now if the pair of you would just stop winding each other up, we'll all have a lovely evening.

[däkkä]

I stated the way in which I would recreate the role Busquets does in real life on Football Manager. I don't particularly feel the need to expand on that. Why you are so keen for me to do is beyond peculiar.

Where is your reasoning though? You've stated your opinion about half a dozen times, "Busquets is a DLP" but you haven't given any reason as to why. I'd like to know what it is exactly that lead you to think that.

[tomtuck01]

Where is your reasoning though? You've stated your opinion about half a dozen times, "Busquets is a DLP" but you haven't given any reason as to why. I'd like to know what it is exactly that lead you to think that.

The role description of the DLP-Defend is the best in my opinion to replicate what Busquets does in real life. I've explained this already;

having read what both roles specifiy [the Defensive Midfielder and the DLP-Defend] I decided that I think one role better represents what Busquets does than the other.

[däkkä]

"I decided that I think" does not constitute as reasoning by any stretch of imagination.

Anyways, is that your sole argument in a topic in which you'd posted about 10 messaged even before tonight?

[tomtuck01]

"I decided that I think" does not constitute as reasoning by any stretch of imagination.

It actually does.

Like most I have watched him play in real life. And because of that I can decide that I believe one role to suit him better than another on Football Manager. The reasoning is clear and has been stated countless times? - I have watched him play in real life and decided as such.

[däkkä]

How about the other part?

E: I'm gonna retire to bed now, but I gotta ask why does a [EDIT] lovely young man troll like tomtuck keep roaming free.

[themadsheep2001]

Can the handbags be put away for another day please ladies?

It is derailing what was threatening to become a decent thread.

Looks like your modship honeymoon period is over

[iMan]

Of the current roles the DM role is probably the closet to Busquets. He generally keeps it fairly short and simple. He doesn't really spray it about like a DLP d would do despite him having the stats for the role.

It's a pointless argument anyway seeming this new halfback role will basically be the role Busquets plays for Barca.

[ModernLefty]

I was going to post something tonight (edit: actually managed it in the end), however in the time I've sat here trying to write a comment (about an hour I reckon, includes Squawka research time) on Busquets, I have changed my mind and the comment that was going to be written 4 times, including sitting on the fence twice, and agreeing with both sides of the argument on one occasion.

So first here is the man himself:

And my current opinion is, (probably subject to change) is that FM stats wise he best as a DLP-D, who's only FM playmaking weakness is that he would be perfect if he had about 17 creativity. Actually lets keep following this so I get a comment in before I change my mind, this sounds about right, as in a prior comment I was about to say that, any good 4-1-2-2-1 has to have a good DLP. You can say that any defensive midfielder who plays in a 4-1-2-2-1 is therefore a playmaker, holding this as an argument against Busquets being a playmaker, but actually it is an argument for as that is precisely the case. As pointed out in the linked article and as I'm about to say, the DM '1' is the pivotal cog of a 4-1-2-2-1 that seeks to play out from the back, I know Makelele was mentioned above, yet he was the crucial piece/playmaker in Mourinho's classic Chelsea team, probably the primary one, as Mourinho found out in the match that Mark Hughes (as Fulham boss) pressured Makelele heavily and Chelsea didn't feel confortable to distribute to Makelele and therefore went to the flanks and their game plan disintegrated.

Maybe Busquets playmaking quality is in the point that the article points out, that Barcelona relieve pressure by playing the centreback splitting pass to Busquets, in the knowledge that 99% of the time with his high playmaking attributes of 'composure' and 'anticipation' and 'first touch' and 'passing' he's probably going to be able to deal with this better than a stronger fitter more typical but equally good in a different way defensive midfielder such as Javi Martinez, a far more physical player, who's equally good at defensive positioning, but poor in comparison to Busquets in the aspects of finesse that a Deep Lying Playmaker requires.

Now to track back (something Busquets most certainly does) to my original point, I think 14 (okay, maybe 15, he's improving year on year, it is a year old now) creativity combined with 9 flair is absolutely spot on, can he spot a Xavi like pass of utter genius, probably not, and does he play those passes, again not very often at all, however, does he mostly see the entire pitch well, by the footage of his passes through the lines its hard to disagree and he does with that 9 flair mostly take the safe option, whether sideways or back to to retain possesion, or just to Xavi, but will occasionally spray the ball wider and longer during the match, yes that's the case, approximately 5 times a match. I've checked Squawka, and all this within an arguably (FM) philosophy of a: 'counter', 'short passing' philosophy, meaning that realistically he has to have, despite the fairly low levels of 'creative freedom' that prevent him from deviating from his task of picking it up of the CBs or GK and passing it to Xavi or Iniesta, some amount of creative freedom afforded to him within Barcelona's system to drive the ball wide occasionally. So if we considered him a DLP this seems to best correlate to how he plays in real life, a moderate amount of creative freedom afforded within a rigid system that is risk adverse any way, that is then also naturally mediated by his flair limited playing style.

This in all my attempts at writing a comment, is the only one I've finished, I hope that shows that this has some thought to it. I accept this is only one view on an intensely subjective proposition in football, of trying to distil and capture one persons essence within a football team, and simplify it down to a role, especially when despite a players position, the actual role that appears from a player may in real life change from game to game. Don't get me started on Eden Hazard and the modern brand of wide attacking midfielder, who seems to be and Advanced playmaker, Inside forward, and Winger all simultaneously.

I honestly think having mentally and semi physically (spending abit of time writing about) tackled both sides of the coin, that he can probably with good reasoning be argued to be either, however whether or not you agree in FM terms his playmaking attributes for pure quality slightly edge it, though obviously only in my opinion.

[kazm]

Nice post. Imo he is a DMC-d instead of a DLP-d, I don't see him a 'primarily a creative player' whatever attributes he may have. Also if I would have to guess his amount of throughballs I would put it on 'sometimes' not on 'often' and besides that recycling the ball to X and I with SOMETIMES a riskier pass is imo what he does.

[RTHerringbone]

Looks like your modship honeymoon period is over

Yep, didn't take long did it?

It was helpful though, as I've figured out where my patience ends, and how to dish out infractions.....

[Fond Foat]

Wrong. They are the playmakers in every game regardless of the stats.

We will just have to disagree on this matter then. I feel that even if a player is not a designated playmaker, he may well have such an influence on the game that he ended up being the playmaker for the team on that day. In the same way the usual playmaker is marked out of the game, can't find space, and has no impact on the match, well then he was not the playmaker that day. I am not sure that this this logic can be considered flat out wrong?

You would therefore state (if I understand your comment correctly) that a player who is called the playmaker but does not influence a match for a season would still be the playmaker of that team because the stats do not matter. I struggle to follow that logic. Interesting discussion, however.

[RTHerringbone]

You would therefore state (if I understand your comment correctly) that a player who is called the playmaker but does not influence a match for a season would still be the playmaker of that team because the stats do not matter. I struggle to follow that logic. Interesting discussion, however.

I agree with yonko on this one.

If a designated playmaker doesn't see much of the ball, it doesn't mask the fact that he is still a designated playmaker.

Similarly, if someone not considered a playmaker instead sees more of the ball as a result of Xavi being marked, plays a blinder and spreads play, creates assists and makes 100 passes, they still aren't the playmaker.

[kazm]

I somewhat agree. If a playmaker doesn't make the game one match he is still by title/role the playmaker, everyone has bad days. If he does it for a season he shouldn't be playmaker anyway lol.

[poobington]

I was going to post something tonight (edit: actually managed it in the end), however in the time I've sat here trying to write a comment (about an hour I reckon, includes Squawka research time) on Busquets, I have changed my mind and the comment that was going to be written 4 times, including sitting on the fence twice, and agreeing with both sides of the argument on one occasion.

So first here is the man himself:

And my current opinion is, (probably subject to change) is that FM stats wise he best as a DLP-D, who's only FM playmaking weakness is that he would be perfect if he had about 17 creativity. Actually lets keep following this so I get a comment in before I change my mind, this sounds about right, as in a prior comment I was about to say that, any good 4-1-2-2-1 has to have a good DLP. You can say that any defensive midfielder who plays in a 4-1-2-2-1 is therefore a playmaker, holding this as an argument against Busquets being a playmaker, but actually it is an argument for as that is precisely the case. As pointed out in the linked article and as I'm about to say, the DM '1' is the pivotal cog of a 4-1-2-2-1 that seeks to play out from the back, I know Makelele was mentioned above, yet he was the crucial piece/playmaker in Mourinho's classic Chelsea team, probably the primary one, as Mourinho found out in the match that Mark Hughes (as Fulham boss) pressured Makelele heavily and Chelsea didn't feel confortable to distribute to Makelele and therefore went to the flanks and their game plan disintegrated.

Maybe Busquets playmaking quality is in the point that the article points out, that Barcelona relieve pressure by playing the centreback splitting pass to Busquets, in the knowledge that 99% of the time with his high playmaking attributes of 'composure' and 'anticipation' and 'first touch' and 'passing' he's probably going to be able to deal with this better than a stronger fitter more typical but equally good in a different way defensive midfielder such as Javi Martinez, a far more physical player, who's equally good at defensive positioning, but poor in comparison to Busquets in the aspects of finesse that a Deep Lying Playmaker requires.

Now to track back (something Busquets most certainly does) to my original point, I think 14 (okay, maybe 15, he's improving year on year, it is a year old now) creativity combined with 9 flair is absolutely spot on, can he spot a Xavi like pass of utter genius, probably not, and does he play those passes, again not very often at all, however, does he mostly see the entire pitch well, by the footage of his passes through the lines its hard to disagree and he does with that 9 flair mostly take the safe option, whether sideways or back to to retain possesion, or just to Xavi, but will occasionally spray the ball wider and longer during the match, yes that's the case, approximately 5 times a match. I've checked Squawka, and all this within an arguably (FM) philosophy of a: 'counter', 'short passing' philosophy, meaning that realistically he has to have, despite the fairly low levels of 'creative freedom' that prevent him from deviating from his task of picking it up of the CBs or GK and passing it to Xavi or Iniesta, some amount of creative freedom afforded to him within Barcelona's system to drive the ball wide occasionally. So if we considered him a DLP this seems to best correlate to how he plays in real life, a moderate amount of creative freedom afforded within a rigid system that is risk adverse any way, that is then also naturally mediated by his flair limited playing style.

This in all my attempts at writing a comment, is the only one I've finished, I hope that shows that this has some thought to it. I accept this is only one view on an intensely subjective proposition in football, of trying to distil and capture one persons essence within a football team, and simplify it down to a role, especially when despite a players position, the actual role that appears from a player may in real life change from game to game. Don't get me started on Eden Hazard and the modern brand of wide attacking midfielder, who seems to be and Advanced playmaker, Inside forward, and Winger all simultaneously.

I honestly think having mentally and semi physically (spending abit of time writing about) tackled both sides of the coin, that he can probably with good reasoning be argued to be either, however whether or not you agree in FM terms his playmaking attributes for pure quality slightly edge it, though obviously only in my opinion.

This is fantastic and very illuminating. Would you say lowering the creative freedom to the absolute minimum would ensure the adherence to the task of specifically playing safer but at the same time direct balls to the "flair" passers if you like.

[ModernLefty]

Thanks, I kept racking my brain, and it is in no way definitive but it's I think a reasonably well thought out opinion, and yes, if you significantly lowered his 'creative freedom' in combination with dropping all the various sliders to 'rarely', and playing a low risk mentality i.e. 'defensive' or 'counter' he would then be set up to only play simple risk adverse passes.

In fact this is exactly what the 'Anchor man' role in FM is set up for on low risk mentality's ('defensive' or 'counter') it has those exact settings. If you get a chance have a glance at the various settings of roles, it should hopefully give you a feel of how the various roles differ in the way they are set up to operate.