Gio
★★★★★★★★
5 is an awkward number to make the cut off. For me there’s a top tier headed by Matthaus, followed by Rijkaard* and Falcao. After that there’s a larger second tier comprising up to 10 players or so - Neeskens, Tigana, Davids, Tardelli, Keane, Masopust, Breitner, Schweinsteiger*, Vieira, Voronin.
*Rijkaard is a tricky one. Nothing more frustrating than pigeon-holing him as just a DM or a foil for others to push forward, because he could do it all and was a major asset in both boxes. But could just as easily remove him from the discussion along with all the great South American deeper-lyers like Varela, Goncalves, Zito and Redondo, as well as the Europeans like Souness, Bozsik and any of the modern double pivot types like Alonso or Schweinsteiger. Someone like Schweinsteiger might have been a classic box-to-box merchant in the 80s or 90s where there are more turnovers, second balls, vertical play and less ball retention within midfield. So it’s important we take account of the tactical environment of the time and consider how players might have adapted to different central midfield roles. It’s a bit like the debate over Keane and Gerrard. Keane was peerless in the land of 4-4-2, while Gerrard was unstoppable when released within a three-man midfield. But he could have been a hell of a force in an 80s warzone.
*Rijkaard is a tricky one. Nothing more frustrating than pigeon-holing him as just a DM or a foil for others to push forward, because he could do it all and was a major asset in both boxes. But could just as easily remove him from the discussion along with all the great South American deeper-lyers like Varela, Goncalves, Zito and Redondo, as well as the Europeans like Souness, Bozsik and any of the modern double pivot types like Alonso or Schweinsteiger. Someone like Schweinsteiger might have been a classic box-to-box merchant in the 80s or 90s where there are more turnovers, second balls, vertical play and less ball retention within midfield. So it’s important we take account of the tactical environment of the time and consider how players might have adapted to different central midfield roles. It’s a bit like the debate over Keane and Gerrard. Keane was peerless in the land of 4-4-2, while Gerrard was unstoppable when released within a three-man midfield. But he could have been a hell of a force in an 80s warzone.
I agree that Davids is the weakest goal scorer of the bunch, but goalscoring is too narrow a prism to rule players in and out of the broad category of box-to-box. And if you’re removing Ajax from the equation, you have to caveat the tactical straight jacket that was Serie A versus the more open and end-to-end Premier League. Even the legend operating 10 yards ahead of him at Juve struggled to score more than sporadically. Literally we are talking about players who contributed heavily all over the park in all phases of the game. And Davids as well as being in the top handful of all time off the ball, was pretty explosive and expansive on it. I get that the ultimate coup de grace for any box-to-box central midfielder is getting on the end of something after a lung-bursting run, but it’s only part of the wide-ranging overall contribution.?
Keane is polls apart from Davids in the offensive third. After Ajax, Davids was basically a non-entity as an attacker scoring a paltry c. 17 goals in over 300 club games. Keane matches that with his 2 best goalscoring seasons for United alone.