|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 0:05:17 GMT
The transition issue seems to suggest we're blithely writing off Imbula. What about the holding midfielder issue? Sobhi hasn't solved the winger issue because he can't get on the bench. We needed, in addition to him, a proper, ready to go wing option to compete straight away with Arnie and Shaq. We've addressed some of the problems with sticking plasters. That's great but don't tell me that was the plan all along. We've stumbled on one - it's good, because a lot of managers don't even manage that much, and we've taken the steps we needed to take, but it's been messy and might yet be messy. There are plenty of loose ends. Don't think anyone's blithely writing off Imbula. Working his bollocks off, watching videos and getting involved in 11 a sides at CW. Most likely some disappointment that he couldn't maintain his early showings, they're taking action to address it. Can't see it's terminal. Well, yes I'd like to see more of Sobhi. Happy to think it's just around the corner, it's looking less like we need to make the Crouch/Walters type subs with the stronger platform. It will come. Dunno about sticking plasters, s'pose you're right but it's a squad game etc, picking the right blokes for the right job at the right time. It's a bit dismissive of squad players performing well. Bardsley's also a sticking plaster in that respect. It will get messy at times in the Prem, with our ambitions. What are our ambitions? We've had to take these steps not to push us on to meet our ambitions, but to stop us getting dicked every week and sucked into a genuine relegation battle. They are sticking plasters - we didn't spend £30m on central midfielders to have two 30-something stalwarts of the old regime hold the team together. Bardsley isn't the same situation - he's fine to come in and do a job. The Whelan/Cameron axis represents drastic action we've had to take because plan a was leaving us hideously exposed. If we have the options to be fine without Whelan, why hasn't Hughes seen fit to drop him given he's been struggling for the best part of a year?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2016 0:28:11 GMT
Well we're poles apart in our opinions then fella, though of course I respect yours.
I don't think that any one of those three have got the discipline to act as a sitting defensive mid protecting his centre backs and I'm equally convinced that neither one of them have got the guile to support a man leading the line, in the role of a traditional number 10.
We'd essentially end up with three players doing pretty much the same job, rather than three distinct ones.
I genuinely believe that we're just one player away (a quality defensive midfielder) from having the best starting XI (outside the top six) in the Prem.
I was referring to the more 433 shape which we've adopted.Cameron deeper, aerial and athletic, good at nicking it off toes, breaking up play, Imbula driving from deeper, Allen winning back possession in more advanced role {like now} offer different and complimentary attributes. Like you say, if we are just the one player away things are looking pretty good. {If it was a Molina or Lecygne things would be perfect.} Never really been overly convinced by the 4231 the way we've played it. {especially since N'Zonzi left}. Too much congestion across our three behind the striker. Not a massive fan of a lone striker, perhaps Bony would do it differently, but I could equally see it leading to him and a 10 occupying similar spaces. Dunno. Our best performances Equally I'm not sure Hughes is so wedded to Whelan or indeed a Whelan {always}. Hughes is flexible with midfield set ups. Tried out all sorts of combos in his time here. He has tended to revert back to Whelan and another, until now Whelan plus 2. Interesting how it'll develop mate.
'Adopted' is a good word.
We've reached where we are, more by necessity than design (the fact that our record signing can't even make the bench is testament to as much).
Hughes has been forced to react (and credit to him for doing so) to his failings, by adopting a formation and personnel that clearly wasn't ever in his thinking in the summer.
Let's not pretend there was a method here, originally.
(And) he pretty much always has been wedded to Whelan or indeed (as you say) 'a' Whelan ... his formations have always had one.
Indeed (I would argue) the very crux of his issues this season, has been not to realise that this area of his starting XI was in severe need of attention.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 26, 2016 0:38:58 GMT
Don't think anyone's blithely writing off Imbula. Working his bollocks off, watching videos and getting involved in 11 a sides at CW. Most likely some disappointment that he couldn't maintain his early showings, they're taking action to address it. Can't see it's terminal. Well, yes I'd like to see more of Sobhi. Happy to think it's just around the corner, it's looking less like we need to make the Crouch/Walters type subs with the stronger platform. It will come. Dunno about sticking plasters, s'pose you're right but it's a squad game etc, picking the right blokes for the right job at the right time. It's a bit dismissive of squad players performing well. Bardsley's also a sticking plaster in that respect. It will get messy at times in the Prem, with our ambitions. What are our ambitions? We've had to take these steps not to push us on to meet our ambitions, but to stop us getting dicked every week and sucked into a genuine relegation battle. They are sticking plasters - we didn't spend £30m on central midfielders to have two 30-something stalwarts of the old regime hold the team together. Bardsley isn't the same situation - he's fine to come in and do a job. The Whelan/Cameron axis represents drastic action we've had to take because plan a was leaving us hideously exposed. If we have the options to be fine without Whelan, why hasn't Hughes seen fit to drop him given he's been struggling for the best part of a year? I think our ambitions are as stated by Mark Hughes, to do better points/position each year. Which is 8/7 and he takes Silverware seriously. As stated by Coates, to achieve a position of self sufficiency, and bringing players through from the Academy. Also bringing in quality experience on frees and buying players with potential to develop and sell at a profit to help achieve that. Work in progress, balance etc. Seems we're heading in the right direction. Hughes' isn't ticking all the boxes all of the time just yet. Much more good than bad, Hughes is showing flexibility to steady us, obviously positive it hasn't cost us £18 yet, or at all. Not for want of trying with Whelan, Cattermole and Phil Jones {who knows who else?} were both in the building. Whelan must have something in the 5 days of football to justify the 90, but there have been a few times when he's subbed on Bojan for him. I havn't enjoyed watching Glenn this season, but don't think he's been consistently poor for a year. He rarely stands out nature of his job/way, but can't recall stinkers {where he wasn't hooked}, he's even had a few shots, and a tad more adventurous. One of his best performances ever was Man City last year, high pressing break up at it's best, I don't think he went immediately shit after that. No doubt he's been hit and miss so far this season, jaded or done for? Dunno, he has a knack of bouncing back. Xmas will be interesting on this front I reckon.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 26, 2016 0:52:07 GMT
I was referring to the more 433 shape which we've adopted.Cameron deeper, aerial and athletic, good at nicking it off toes, breaking up play, Imbula driving from deeper, Allen winning back possession in more advanced role {like now} offer different and complimentary attributes. Like you say, if we are just the one player away things are looking pretty good. {If it was a Molina or Lecygne things would be perfect.} Never really been overly convinced by the 4231 the way we've played it. {especially since N'Zonzi left}. Too much congestion across our three behind the striker. Not a massive fan of a lone striker, perhaps Bony would do it differently, but I could equally see it leading to him and a 10 occupying similar spaces. Dunno. Our best performances Equally I'm not sure Hughes is so wedded to Whelan or indeed a Whelan {always}. Hughes is flexible with midfield set ups. Tried out all sorts of combos in his time here. He has tended to revert back to Whelan and another, until now Whelan plus 2. Interesting how it'll develop mate.
'Adopted' is a good word.
We've reached where we are, more by necessity than design (the fact that our record signing can't even make the bench is testament to as much).
Hughes has been forced to react (and credit to him for doing so) to his failings, by adopting a formation and personnel that clearly wasn't ever in his thinking in the summer.
Let's not pretend there was a method here, originally.
(And) he pretty much always has been wedded to Whelan or indeed (as you say) 'a' Whelan ... his formations have always had one.
Indeed (I would argue) the very crux of his issues this season, has been not to realise that this area of his starting XI was in severe need of attention.
It's not a first, the 433. Disagree on the Whelan point. He's tried all sorts of combos, not always out of necessity without Whelan or a Whelan. Even when N'Zonzi was here. For a while it looked like he wanted two box to boxers. VG and Adam. Combinations of Cameron, Adam, Afellay, VG, Afellay even Wilson and Ireland. I reckon part of the unusually high defensive line was about eradicating the need for a protective sitter. Didn't work too well. There's plenty to indicate it's an ongoing quest. I dunno about Hughes and a grander first XI plan. I've come to appreciate his flexibility, in tweaking and testing the squad etc. It's a method in itself.. a longer term direction plan the ability to be reactive when shit happens. And a squad which enables a choice of formations. I reckon there's a template of the type of player, for the type of role, but a perfect fit is pretty elusive. He brings them in, tries them out, drops them and they have to fight back in, or take a chance through injury etc. It's how it works ain't it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Oct 26, 2016 1:02:43 GMT
'Adopted' is a good word.
We've reached where we are, more by necessity than design (the fact that our record signing can't even make the bench is testament to as much).
Hughes has been forced to react (and credit to him for doing so) to his failings, by adopting a formation and personnel that clearly wasn't ever in his thinking in the summer.
Let's not pretend there was a method here, originally.
(And) he pretty much always has been wedded to Whelan or indeed (as you say) 'a' Whelan ... his formations have always had one.
Indeed (I would argue) the very crux of his issues this season, has been not to realise that this area of his starting XI was in severe need of attention.
It's not a first, the 433. Disagree on the Whelan point. He's tried all sorts of combos, not always out of necessity without Whelan or a Whelan. Even when N'Zonzi was here. For a while it looked like he wanted two box to boxers. VG and Adam. Combinations of Cameron, Adam, Afellay, VG, Afellay even Wilson and Ireland. I reckon part of the unusually high defensive line was about eradicating the need for a protective sitter. Didn't work too well. There's plenty to indicate it's an ongoing quest. I dunno about Hughes and a grander first XI plan. I've come to appreciate his flexibility, in tweaking and testing the squad etc. It's a method in itself.. a longer term direction plan the ability to be reactive when shit happens. And a squad which enables a choice of formations. I reckon there's a template of the type of player, for the type of role, but a perfect fit is pretty elusive. He brings them in, tries them out, drops them and they have to fight back in, or take a chance through injury etc. It's how it works ain't it.
Probably best (as I pretty much disagree with everything you've written there), and rather than me going through it point by point, that we agree to disagree on how we're observing it all chap.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 1:05:11 GMT
What are our ambitions? We've had to take these steps not to push us on to meet our ambitions, but to stop us getting dicked every week and sucked into a genuine relegation battle. They are sticking plasters - we didn't spend £30m on central midfielders to have two 30-something stalwarts of the old regime hold the team together. Bardsley isn't the same situation - he's fine to come in and do a job. The Whelan/Cameron axis represents drastic action we've had to take because plan a was leaving us hideously exposed. If we have the options to be fine without Whelan, why hasn't Hughes seen fit to drop him given he's been struggling for the best part of a year? I think our ambitions are as stated by Mark Hughes, to do better points/position each year. Which is 8/7 and he takes Silverware seriously. As stated by Coates, to achieve a position of self sufficiency, and bringing players through from the Academy. Also bringing in quality experience on frees and buying players with potential to develop and sell at a profit to help achieve that. Work in progress, balance etc. Seems we're heading in the right direction. Hughes' isn't ticking all the boxes all of the time just yet. Much more good than bad, Hughes is showing flexibility to steady us, obviously positive it hasn't cost us £18 yet, or at all. Not for want of trying with Whelan, Cattermole and Phil Jones {who knows who else?} were both in the building. Whelan must have something in the 5 days of football to justify the 90, but there have been a few times when he's subbed on Bojan for him. I havn't enjoyed watching Glenn this season, but don't think he's been consistently poor for a year. He rarely stands out nature of his job/way, but can't recall stinkers {where he wasn't hooked}, he's even had a few shots, and a tad more adventurous. One of his best performances ever was Man City last year, high pressing break up at it's best, I don't think he went immediately shit after that. No doubt he's been hit and miss so far this season, jaded or done for? Dunno, he has a knack of bouncing back. Xmas will be interesting on this front I reckon. But cheesy, if Hughes, as you suggest, isn't wedded to Whelan, why hasn't he done with him what he's done with Pieters or other 'jaded' sorts and given them a break - particularly if the options are in place as you suggest? The flexibility is good, the fact that we needed 'steadying' so drastically is the troubling part.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Oct 26, 2016 1:39:19 GMT
I think our ambitions are as stated by Mark Hughes, to do better points/position each year. Which is 8/7 and he takes Silverware seriously. As stated by Coates, to achieve a position of self sufficiency, and bringing players through from the Academy. Also bringing in quality experience on frees and buying players with potential to develop and sell at a profit to help achieve that. Work in progress, balance etc. Seems we're heading in the right direction. Hughes' isn't ticking all the boxes all of the time just yet. Much more good than bad, Hughes is showing flexibility to steady us, obviously positive it hasn't cost us £18 yet, or at all. Not for want of trying with Whelan, Cattermole and Phil Jones {who knows who else?} were both in the building. Whelan must have something in the 5 days of football to justify the 90, but there have been a few times when he's subbed on Bojan for him. I havn't enjoyed watching Glenn this season, but don't think he's been consistently poor for a year. He rarely stands out nature of his job/way, but can't recall stinkers {where he wasn't hooked}, he's even had a few shots, and a tad more adventurous. One of his best performances ever was Man City last year, high pressing break up at it's best, I don't think he went immediately shit after that. No doubt he's been hit and miss so far this season, jaded or done for? Dunno, he has a knack of bouncing back. Xmas will be interesting on this front I reckon. But cheesy, if Hughes, as you suggest, isn't wedded to Whelan, why hasn't he done with him what he's done with Pieters or other 'jaded' sorts and given them a break - particularly if the options are in place as you suggest? The flexibility is good, the fact that we needed 'steadying' so drastically is the troubling part. Don't wish to go around in circles mate, I think watching Joe Allen's arse has been a factor in Whelan's continued inclusion. Obv. not 100% effectively. Loads of possible and plausible reasons for his continued pick, Hughes probably {evidently} has many too. Like he did with N'Zonzi encouraging him too be more adventurous, there's similar signs he's been doing it with Glenn too. In that sense, like he doesn't seem too fussed about byline wingers, my perception he's not wedded. It's a matter of 'when'. Just think it's far more complex and nuanced than 'he's been forced into it because he ballsed up in the recruitment'. If it is then I'm confident it'll get addressed.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 7:05:24 GMT
Well Paul, nothing is certain but I could certainly envisage it. I would advocate Cameron, Imbula, Allen now.
Well we're poles apart in our opinions then fella, though of course I respect yours.
I don't think that any one of those three have got the discipline to act as a sitting defensive mid protecting his centre backs and I'm equally convinced that neither one of them has got the guile to support a man leading the line, in the role of a traditional number 10.
We'd essentially end up with three players doing pretty much the same job, rather than three distinct ones.
I genuinely believe that we're just one player away (a quality defensive midfielder) from having the best starting XI (outside of the top six) in the Prem.
I'm a little unsure how a bloke can be deemed to have the discipline to play centre back but not DCM you'd have to run that one by me. To me its just the difference between sending a bloke out to play to a team plan and chewing his arse if he deviates from than and sending him out to "play his natural game" or "go out there and enjoy yourself" most fit professional midfielders could do what Whelan does given a team plan a general area of operating and strict instruction not to over commit. Its not fucking rocket science the bloke doesn't actually do anything that well.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 7:23:55 GMT
Well we're poles apart in our opinions then fella, though of course I respect yours.
I don't think that any one of those three have got the discipline to act as a sitting defensive mid protecting his centre backs and I'm equally convinced that neither one of them has got the guile to support a man leading the line, in the role of a traditional number 10.
We'd essentially end up with three players doing pretty much the same job, rather than three distinct ones.
I genuinely believe that we're just one player away (a quality defensive midfielder) from having the best starting XI (outside of the top six) in the Prem.
I'm a little unsure how a bloke can be deemed to have the discipline to play centre back but not DCM you'd have to run that one by me. To me its just the difference between sending a bloke out to play to a team plan and chewing his arse if he deviates from than and sending him out to "play his natural game" or "go out there and enjoy yourself" most fit professional midfielders could do what Whelan does given a team plan a general area of operating and strict instruction not to over commit. Its not fucking rocket science the bloke doesn't actually do anything that well. Why then, has nobody else during the Hughes era been able to do it anywhere near as well? Hughes looked at myriad players for the role when he first arrived and has over the years had spells where he's looked at alternatives. None have had the discipline to screen the back four and we've looked woefully exposed as a result. It's not the piece of piss position you're suggesting.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 7:24:28 GMT
But cheesy, if Hughes, as you suggest, isn't wedded to Whelan, why hasn't he done with him what he's done with Pieters or other 'jaded' sorts and given them a break - particularly if the options are in place as you suggest? The flexibility is good, the fact that we needed 'steadying' so drastically is the troubling part. Don't wish to go around in circles mate, I think watching Joe Allen's arse has been a factor in Whelan's continued inclusion. Obv. not 100% effectively. Loads of possible and plausible reasons for his continued pick, Hughes probably {evidently} has many too. Like he did with N'Zonzi encouraging him too be more adventurous, there's similar signs he's been doing it with Glenn too. In that sense, like he doesn't seem too fussed about byline wingers, my perception he's not wedded. It's a matter of 'when'. Just think it's far more complex and nuanced than 'he's been forced into it because he ballsed up in the recruitment'. If it is then I'm confident it'll get addressed. Absolutely love it. Ever thought about writing something like Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland. Areas of our squad are hideously neglected and others over stocked. We have too many past their sell by senior pro's offering the square root of fuck all. Its not part of some flexible masterplan its an old fashioned fuck up. To Hughes' credit he's been flexible in that he's found a way with what he's got to steady the ship. We have some good players but the make up of the squad is a mess and its a mess he's going to have perform some major surgery to put back into balance.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 7:26:46 GMT
But cheesy, if Hughes, as you suggest, isn't wedded to Whelan, why hasn't he done with him what he's done with Pieters or other 'jaded' sorts and given them a break - particularly if the options are in place as you suggest? The flexibility is good, the fact that we needed 'steadying' so drastically is the troubling part. Don't wish to go around in circles mate, I think watching Joe Allen's arse has been a factor in Whelan's continued inclusion. Obv. not 100% effectively. Loads of possible and plausible reasons for his continued pick, Hughes probably {evidently} has many too. Like he did with N'Zonzi encouraging him too be more adventurous, there's similar signs he's been doing it with Glenn too. In that sense, like he doesn't seem too fussed about byline wingers, my perception he's not wedded. It's a matter of 'when'. Just think it's far more complex and nuanced than 'he's been forced into it because he ballsed up in the recruitment'. If it is then I'm confident it'll get addressed. What are these similar signs he's been encouraging Glenn to start doing sorry? And what's the perception that he isn't wedded? It'd be nice to think it was all part of a nuanced and complex plan, the only problem is that it takes some massive logic jumps and leaps of faith to draw that conclusion. Looking at the actual evidence we've seen suggests otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Oct 26, 2016 7:43:25 GMT
Apparently been told he can leave old Trafford for first team football. We should move heaven and earth to get him. Brilliant player. Good defensively and can pick a pass. Played very well for Southampton could be the Whelan replacement we desire we already have whelans replacement at the club imbula. I am convinced mh is working on him behind closed doors to get his defensive game upto scratch. could form a formidable partnership with allen
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 7:54:21 GMT
I'm a little unsure how a bloke can be deemed to have the discipline to play centre back but not DCM you'd have to run that one by me. To me its just the difference between sending a bloke out to play to a team plan and chewing his arse if he deviates from than and sending him out to "play his natural game" or "go out there and enjoy yourself" most fit professional midfielders could do what Whelan does given a team plan a general area of operating and strict instruction not to over commit. Its not fucking rocket science the bloke doesn't actually do anything that well. Why then, has nobody else during the Hughes era been able to do it anywhere near as well? Hughes looked at myriad players for the role when he first arrived and has over the years had spells where he's looked at alternatives. None have had the discipline to screen the back four and we've looked woefully exposed as a result. It's not the piece of piss position you're suggesting. # I'll say again that if you can have the discipline to play centre back, given a player with good mobility said player should be able to play that sheilding role. Its all about imposing team instructions, chewing someones arse if they deviate and ultimately subing them off if they won't listen and continue to deviate. I disagree, IMO it is one of the simpler roles on the pitch given reasonable reading of the game which all centre backs should have, good mobility, ability to make simple passes and an imposed general area of operation and another line of defence behind you. Its not as easy for a genuine midfielder because they have probably spent years intuitively being more involved further up the field. Most mobile centre backs should be able to fulfill the role quite adequately. We have Cameron in there now who should be able to tailor his game to meet the needs of the team, I'm not suggesting breaking up a promising partnership but I'd imagine BMI could play the role to good effect too. Sometimes putting a player into a new position means intervening and giving guidance during the game which is also not something Hughes is either good at or likes to do. He's the polar opposite of Conte, somewhere in between would be just fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 7:59:41 GMT
Apparently been told he can leave old Trafford for first team football. We should move heaven and earth to get him. Brilliant player. Good defensively and can pick a pass. Played very well for Southampton could be the Whelan replacement we desire we already have whelans replacement at the club imbula. I am convinced mh is working on him behind closed doors to get his defensive game upto scratch. could form a formidable partnership with allen It won't just be about defensive coaching to get Imbula's game upto scratch he needs an injection of energy, hopefully that will be this kick up the arse and he'll realise he needs to work harder but he didn't seem to have the energy level you'd expect for his age. I did comment he looked a very old 23 when we signed him.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 8:04:46 GMT
Why then, has nobody else during the Hughes era been able to do it anywhere near as well? Hughes looked at myriad players for the role when he first arrived and has over the years had spells where he's looked at alternatives. None have had the discipline to screen the back four and we've looked woefully exposed as a result. It's not the piece of piss position you're suggesting. # I'll say again that if you can have the discipline to play centre back, given a player with good mobility said player should be able to play that sheilding role. Its all about imposing team instructions, chewing someones arse if they deviate and ultimately subing them off if they won't listen and continue to deviate. I disagree, IMO it is one of the simpler roles on the pitch given reasonable reading of the game which all centre backs should have, good mobility, ability to make simple passes and an imposed general area of operation and another line of defence behind you. Its not as easy for a genuine midfielder because they have probably spent years intuitively being more involved further up the field. Most mobile centre backs should be able to fulfill the role quite adequately. We have Cameron in there now who should be able to tailor his game to meet the needs of the team, I'm not suggesting breaking up a promising partnership but I'd imagine BMI could play the role to good effect too. Sometimes putting a player into a new position means intervening and giving guidance during the game which is also not something Hughes is either good at or likes to do. He's the polar opposite of Conte, somewhere in between would be just fine with me. Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 26, 2016 8:16:51 GMT
Apparently been told he can leave old Trafford for first team football. We should move heaven and earth to get him. Brilliant player. Good defensively and can pick a pass. Played very well for Southampton could be the Whelan replacement we desire we already have whelans replacement at the club imbula. I am convinced mh is working on him behind closed doors to get his defensive game upto scratch. could form a formidable partnership with allen Not a chance I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:24:29 GMT
# I'll say again that if you can have the discipline to play centre back, given a player with good mobility said player should be able to play that sheilding role. Its all about imposing team instructions, chewing someones arse if they deviate and ultimately subing them off if they won't listen and continue to deviate. I disagree, IMO it is one of the simpler roles on the pitch given reasonable reading of the game which all centre backs should have, good mobility, ability to make simple passes and an imposed general area of operation and another line of defence behind you. Its not as easy for a genuine midfielder because they have probably spent years intuitively being more involved further up the field. Most mobile centre backs should be able to fulfill the role quite adequately. We have Cameron in there now who should be able to tailor his game to meet the needs of the team, I'm not suggesting breaking up a promising partnership but I'd imagine BMI could play the role to good effect too. Sometimes putting a player into a new position means intervening and giving guidance during the game which is also not something Hughes is either good at or likes to do. He's the polar opposite of Conte, somewhere in between would be just fine with me. Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. I'm not sure we're going anywhere with this, I've seen plenty of centre backs used to good effect as CDM's. I think its more natural for a central defender to do that job than a genuine midfielder. I've explained why I think it might not work well for Hughes in that I think his intervention and in game guidance is poor to non existent, a guide to this is how many times has he changed the outcome of a game that isn't going well using the initial gameplan, the answer is almost never.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 8:28:49 GMT
Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. I'm not sure we're going anywhere with this, I've seen plenty of centre backs used to good effect as CDM's. I think its more natural for a central defender to do that job than a genuine midfielder. I've explained why I think it might not work well for Hughes in that I think his intervention and in game guidance is poor to non existent, a guide to this is how many times has he changed the outcome of a game that isn't going well using the initial gameplan, the answer is almost never. I think his game management is a separate issue. Again, if it was such a piece of piss role that any half decent centre half could do it, we'd see more half decent centre halves doing it. That fact that we don't should really suggest fairly strongly that there's more to it than that.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:32:12 GMT
# I'll say again that if you can have the discipline to play centre back, given a player with good mobility said player should be able to play that sheilding role. Its all about imposing team instructions, chewing someones arse if they deviate and ultimately subing them off if they won't listen and continue to deviate. I disagree, IMO it is one of the simpler roles on the pitch given reasonable reading of the game which all centre backs should have, good mobility, ability to make simple passes and an imposed general area of operation and another line of defence behind you. Its not as easy for a genuine midfielder because they have probably spent years intuitively being more involved further up the field. Most mobile centre backs should be able to fulfill the role quite adequately. We have Cameron in there now who should be able to tailor his game to meet the needs of the team, I'm not suggesting breaking up a promising partnership but I'd imagine BMI could play the role to good effect too. Sometimes putting a player into a new position means intervening and giving guidance during the game which is also not something Hughes is either good at or likes to do. He's the polar opposite of Conte, somewhere in between would be just fine with me. Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. Having made a career as a centre back its highly unlikely that you're going to switch to CDM unless its to meet the needs of your team. Switching from CDM to centre back is much more likely because its a move you could make if your legs start going a bit. Perversely you're making my point for me in that you need a lot of the same qualities to fulfill the two roles otherwise you couldn't switch successfully from one to the other because your legs have started going a bit.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:34:27 GMT
I'm not sure we're going anywhere with this, I've seen plenty of centre backs used to good effect as CDM's. I think its more natural for a central defender to do that job than a genuine midfielder. I've explained why I think it might not work well for Hughes in that I think his intervention and in game guidance is poor to non existent, a guide to this is how many times has he changed the outcome of a game that isn't going well using the initial gameplan, the answer is almost never. I think his game management is a separate issue. Again, if it was such a piece of piss role that any half decent centre half could do it, we'd see more half decent centre halves doing it. That fact that we don't should really suggest fairly strongly that there's more to it than that. Certain centre backs not any decent centre back. I wouldn't dream of putting a Ryan Shawcross in that position.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 8:37:02 GMT
Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. Having made a career as a centre back its highly unlikely that you're going to switch to CDM unless its to meet the needs of your team. Switching from CDM to centre back is much more likely because its a move you could make if your legs start going a bit. Perversely you're making my point for me in that you need a lot of the same qualities to fulfill the two roles otherwise you couldn't switch successfully from one to the other because your legs have started going a bit. But if you're a CB who can't get in the team and you're offered a way back into the team you're going to do it, surely? And if you're a manager with injuries and suspensions it's a no-brainer as well? Yet we rarely see it. Actually the point you seem to be accidentally making is the suggestion that it's easier to play centre back...
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:42:50 GMT
Having made a career as a centre back its highly unlikely that you're going to switch to CDM unless its to meet the needs of your team. Switching from CDM to centre back is much more likely because its a move you could make if your legs start going a bit. Perversely you're making my point for me in that you need a lot of the same qualities to fulfill the two roles otherwise you couldn't switch successfully from one to the other because your legs have started going a bit. But if you're a CB who can't get in the team and you're offered a way back into the team you're going to do it, surely? And if you're a manager with injuries and suspensions it's a no-brainer as well? Yet we rarely see it. Actually the point you seem to be accidentally making is the suggestion that it's easier to play centre back... I disagree we see it a hell of a lot. Its easier to get away with limited mobility as a centre back yes but you need virtually all the same qualities to play both positions well. Busquets would probably make a decent centre back but Glenn Whelan wouldn't, make what you will from that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2016 8:42:55 GMT
Imbula was brought in to replace NZonzi.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:48:46 GMT
Imbula was brought in to replace NZonzi. And Joe Allen was bought in to replace?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Oct 26, 2016 8:50:35 GMT
Imbula was brought in to replace NZonzi. That was the first error in judgement.
|
|
|
Post by stoneroses on Oct 26, 2016 8:51:41 GMT
# I'll say again that if you can have the discipline to play centre back, given a player with good mobility said player should be able to play that sheilding role. Its all about imposing team instructions, chewing someones arse if they deviate and ultimately subing them off if they won't listen and continue to deviate. I disagree, IMO it is one of the simpler roles on the pitch given reasonable reading of the game which all centre backs should have, good mobility, ability to make simple passes and an imposed general area of operation and another line of defence behind you. Its not as easy for a genuine midfielder because they have probably spent years intuitively being more involved further up the field. Most mobile centre backs should be able to fulfill the role quite adequately. We have Cameron in there now who should be able to tailor his game to meet the needs of the team, I'm not suggesting breaking up a promising partnership but I'd imagine BMI could play the role to good effect too. Sometimes putting a player into a new position means intervening and giving guidance during the game which is also not something Hughes is either good at or likes to do. He's the polar opposite of Conte, somewhere in between would be just fine with me. Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. Completley agree CD, having a specialist CDM is one of the most important positions in the team and can be the focal point of an 11 if done well. The best in recent years Pirlo, Makelele, Gattusso, Kroos, Alonso, Carrick, Busquets, Kante, Vidal, Scholes (in his later days) are all specialists in this position, the ability to read the game and dictate the flow of play are crucial, the lower the standard you can sacrifice the footballing side of it slightly and concentrate on a CDM who just breaks up play. Any good CDM who reads the game well though and has outstanding ability will play for one of the very top clubs as its very difficult to do both. None of them players there would i dream of playing Center Half in a first 11 unless i was playing a team who was so much worse and you get away with an out and out ball playing center half along side a ball winner. Center halves who play CDM , two spring to mind, Phil Jones and Dier only do it because of there athleticism and probably get shoe horned into more positions than they should because they can get about the pitch better than most.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Oct 26, 2016 8:57:34 GMT
Why, in that case, isn't the game absolutely littered with centre halves who have gone on to become first rate central defenders? You see far more DMs drop back to play CB than the other way round. If it was as simple as you're suggesting, why have so few of the game's great tactical minds done it? It's a specialist position, it's not the glorified CB role higher up the pitch that you're suggesting. Cameron has never managed to convince doing the role alone. Right up to the League Cup game against Hull, when he was terrible at it. Completley agree CD, having a specialist CDM is one of the most important positions in the team and can be the focal point of an 11 if done well. The best in recent years Pirlo, Makelele, Gattusso, Kroos, Alonso, Carrick, Busquets, Kante, Vidal, Scholes (in his later days) are all specialists in this position, the ability to read the game and dictate the flow of play are crucial, the lower the standard you can sacrifice the footballing side of it slightly and concentrate on a CDM who just breaks up play. Any good CDM who reads the game well though and has outstanding ability will play for one of the very top clubs as its very difficult to do both. None of them players there would i dream of playing Center Half in a first 11 unless i was playing a team who was so much worse and you get away with an out and out ball playing center half along side a ball winner. Center halves who play CDM , two spring to mind, Phil Jones and Dier only do it because of there athleticism and probably get shoe horned into more positions than they should because they can get about the pitch better than most. Yes but you're talking about the very best CDM's not replacing an ailing Glenn Whelan. Mascherano David Luis Demarchelis
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on Oct 26, 2016 9:04:07 GMT
'Adopted' is a good word.
We've reached where we are, more by necessity than design (the fact that our record signing can't even make the bench is testament to as much).
Hughes has been forced to react (and credit to him for doing so) to his failings, by adopting a formation and personnel that clearly wasn't ever in his thinking in the summer.
Let's not pretend there was a method here, originally.
(And) he pretty much always has been wedded to Whelan or indeed (as you say) 'a' Whelan ... his formations have always had one.
Indeed (I would argue) the very crux of his issues this season, has been not to realise that this area of his starting XI was in severe need of attention.
It's not a first, the 433. Disagree on the Whelan point. He's tried all sorts of combos, not always out of necessity without Whelan or a Whelan. Even when N'Zonzi was here. For a while it looked like he wanted two box to boxers. VG and Adam. Combinations of Cameron, Adam, Afellay, VG, Afellay even Wilson and Ireland. I reckon part of the unusually high defensive line was about eradicating the need for a protective sitter. Didn't work too well. There's plenty to indicate it's an ongoing quest. I dunno about Hughes and a grander first XI plan. I've come to appreciate his flexibility, in tweaking and testing the squad etc. It's a method in itself.. a longer term direction plan the ability to be reactive when shit happens. And a squad which enables a choice of formations. I reckon there's a template of the type of player, for the type of role, but a perfect fit is pretty elusive. He brings them in, tries them out, drops them and they have to fight back in, or take a chance through injury etc. It's how it works ain't it. I am with you on this one. Goodness knows how many Prem managers have tried something which has not worked out, reverted to something different and found a modicum of success. I don't see what the big fuss is about. Hughes had the guts to drop his £18m midfielder and find a solution with a player he has inherited that has so far worked extremely well. All credit to him. I also don't agree that Whelan has been obviously bad for a year. He has been his normal consistent self, which is either just good enough or not good enough dependent on whether you are a fan of his or not. Is the day approaching when we need to find a replacement? Absolutely, and we might have stumbled upon it with Geoff Cameron for another season or two until we can land a Schneiderlin, Carvalho, etc
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 9:04:16 GMT
But if you're a CB who can't get in the team and you're offered a way back into the team you're going to do it, surely? And if you're a manager with injuries and suspensions it's a no-brainer as well? Yet we rarely see it. Actually the point you seem to be accidentally making is the suggestion that it's easier to play centre back... I disagree we see it a hell of a lot. Its easier to get away with limited mobility as a centre back yes but you need virtually all the same qualities to play both positions well. Busquets would probably make a decent centre back but Glenn Whelan wouldn't, make what you will from that. But like you say, Shawcross wouldn't make a DM. Hardly any of the top clubs across Europe use this visionary practice you're preaching. Even players like Kompany were far more effective as CBs than as DMs.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Oct 26, 2016 9:06:13 GMT
Completley agree CD, having a specialist CDM is one of the most important positions in the team and can be the focal point of an 11 if done well. The best in recent years Pirlo, Makelele, Gattusso, Kroos, Alonso, Carrick, Busquets, Kante, Vidal, Scholes (in his later days) are all specialists in this position, the ability to read the game and dictate the flow of play are crucial, the lower the standard you can sacrifice the footballing side of it slightly and concentrate on a CDM who just breaks up play. Any good CDM who reads the game well though and has outstanding ability will play for one of the very top clubs as its very difficult to do both. None of them players there would i dream of playing Center Half in a first 11 unless i was playing a team who was so much worse and you get away with an out and out ball playing center half along side a ball winner. Center halves who play CDM , two spring to mind, Phil Jones and Dier only do it because of there athleticism and probably get shoe horned into more positions than they should because they can get about the pitch better than most. Yes but you're talking about the very best CDM's not replacing an ailing Glenn Whelan. Mascherano David Luis Demarchelis Mascherano is a DM who moved to central defence. He struggled there at first and adapted his game to become a good one. Luiz has never looked anywhere near as good as a DM. Demarchelis has looked past it at Citeh wherever he's played, bar one decent spell at centre half.
|
|