Midfield is the only area of the pitch where we casually collapse multiple professions into one word and then act surprised when the comparisons fall apart. We do not compare centre-backs to full-backs or wingers to strikers, yet midfielders are constantly thrown into the same debate pool as if they are all solving the same problem in different ways. They are not.
That does not mean midfielders should not be compared. Comparison is essential to football discourse. It sharpens standards, defines excellence, and gives meaning to dominance. The mistake is not comparison itself, but how it is done. When we compare midfielders across incompatible roles, we do not reveal insight, we manufacture confusion.
I am not arguing that we stop asking who is better. I am arguing that we first agree on better at what.
Midfield looks unified because it occupies the same strip of grass. Tactically, it is anything but unified. A defensive midfielder, a central midfielder, and an attacking midfielder may all be listed under “midfield,” yet their responsibilities, risks, and success conditions barely overlap.
When people ask whether Kevin De Bruyne is better than Luka Modrić, the problem is not that the question is ambitious. The problem is that it assumes both players are attempting the same task. They are not. One is primarily trying to fracture defensive lines with final actions. The other is trying to control space, rhythm, and continuity.
Judging one by the standards of the other is not bold analysis, it is category error.
Comparison Needs Boundaries, Not Abolition
The aim is not to erase comparison entirely. Football without comparison is pointless. What I want is structured comparison, where players are judged against others who share their core function.
Once we split midfield into its functional lanes, comparison becomes clearer, sharper, and more honest.
Defensive midfielders should be compared to defensive midfielders.
Central midfielders to central midfielders.
Attacking midfielders to attacking midfielders.
Same pressures. Same trade-offs. Same risks.
The defensive midfielder operates in the most unforgiving zone on the pitch. Every mistake here is magnified. They are not playing for applause, they are playing for survival.
Comparing defensive midfielders makes sense because they are answering the same questions every game. Can you protect the space in front of the defence? Can you read danger before it fully forms? Can you receive the ball under pressure and keep the team connected?
This is where comparisons like Rodri versus Busquets actually mean something. They are not being judged on goals or assists, but on control, positioning, press resistance, and defensive intelligence.
When we compare a defensive midfielder to an attacking midfielder, we are effectively criticising a firefighter for not designing the building.
Central midfielders live in the game’s engine room. Their influence is less obvious than attackers and less dramatic than destroyers, but it is often more decisive over ninety minutes.
This is the role where comparisons most often go wrong, because the outputs are subtle and the influence is cumulative. Central midfielders dictate tempo, angle, and sequence. They decide whether a game becomes stretched or compressed.
Comparing central midfielders to each other works because they are judged by shared stressors. Can you receive under pressure? Can you play forward without breaking structure? Can you offer yourself constantly without destabilising the team?
This is where Modrić should be compared to other controllers, not to pure chance creators. His value is not in decisive moments alone, but in how he shapes the game’s texture. That comparison makes sense only when placed next to players attempting the same kind of control.
Attacking midfielders are allowed to fail. In fact, they are expected to. Their role is to attempt actions others are selected to avoid.
They operate in the most congested areas, closest to goal, with the least time and space. Losing the ball is part of the job if it leads to creation. Judging them by ball retention or defensive volume misunderstands their purpose.
This is where comparisons should be ruthless. Attacking midfielders should be compared aggressively to each other on chance creation, spatial intelligence, and decisive actions.
Comparing De Bruyne to other attacking midfielders is fair. Comparing him to a defensive anchor is not. One is gambling with structure to win games. The other is protecting structure so games can be won.
The most common way these imbalanced comparisons manifest is in “all-time” XIs, when you say Gerrard, Lampard and De Bruyne are the best midfielders ever in the Premier League(so they’re your three midfielders in the XI), how can you definitively say they’re better than Patrick Vieira in DM?
When we compare across midfield roles, we end up rewarding players for responsibilities they were never assigned and punishing them for discipline.
A defensive midfielder looks “limited” next to an attacker because their success is invisible. An attacker looks “wasteful” next to a controller because they are taking risks the controller is explicitly selected to avoid.
The comparison does not expose weakness. It exposes misunderstanding.
This is why midfield debates so often collapse into vibes, trophies, or highlight reels. The framework is broken before the argument even begins.
Instead of asking, “Who is better?” the real question should be, “Who performs this function better?”
Who is the better defensive midfielder?
Who is the better controller?
Who is the better attacking midfielder?
Once you ask the right question, the debate becomes more intense, not less. Disagreement still exists, but it is grounded in shared expectations rather than aesthetic preference.
Midfielders do not need to be protected from comparison. They need to be compared properly.
Football understanding does not advance by flattening roles into one generic category. It advances by respecting function, context, and responsibility.
Comparison is not the enemy of analysis. Bad comparison is.
When we compare midfielders within their functional lanes, we do not dilute debate, we finally give it structure. And once structure exists, real judgment can begin.
