|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 24, 2022 6:45:50 GMT
Got an eye for a pass but personally think you need more than that to your game. Don’t even mind a creative player being a bit of a pussy but he takes it to another level. Complete and utter non combatant. If Powell is a 7/10 presser, Vrancic is a 5 at best and Sawyers a 1 or 2. Sawyers is a good footballer but we'd need really aggressive defensive play from everyone else to compensate. It just doesn't make sense to me when we have Powell and Vrancic on the books. One of the key advantages of playing 3 CBs is to release the midfielders higher up the pitch so if you are playing 3 in midfield at most only one needs to be more defensive minded - so two thirds of your midfield needs to be attack minded. That being the case why on earth would we only need Powell and Vrancic as the attacking midfielders - especially with Powell's less than stellar appearance record? They aren't even the only attacking midfielders anyway - Baker is an attacking midfielder who is being asked to play deeper, TOB is an attacking midfielder and Clucas's best games for us have been when he's had licence to go forward. So last season in effect we had 3 specialist attacking midfielders (Powell, Vrancic and TOB), 3 who did a bit of both (Sawyers, Baker and Clucas) and 2 more defensive midfielders (Allen and Thompson). Unless we ditch the back three (and there is nothing to suggest we will) then that midfield balance is about right for the formation and style of football we are trying to play. Having a squad with only 2 attack minded midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make any sense and bundling Vrancic, Sawyers and Powell as an exclusive group is weird given what they bring is so different. If we don't keep Allen it makes far more sense to bolster the defensive midfield by looking for a more imposing replacement rather than not sign Sawyers because we already have 2 attack minded midfielders in Powell and Vrancic. I'm not even convinced going into a season with 2 attacking midfielders with a back 4 makes much sense unless we are looking to bring in someone from the Tony Pulis school of management.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 7:23:44 GMT
If Powell is a 7/10 presser, Vrancic is a 5 at best and Sawyers a 1 or 2. Sawyers is a good footballer but we'd need really aggressive defensive play from everyone else to compensate. It just doesn't make sense to me when we have Powell and Vrancic on the books. One of the key advantages of playing 3 CBs is to release the midfielders higher up the pitch so if you are playing 3 in midfield at most only one needs to be more defensive minded - so two thirds of your midfield needs to be attack minded. That being the case why on earth would we only need Powell and Vrancic as the attacking midfielders - especially with Powell's less than stellar appearance record? They aren't even the only attacking midfielders anyway - Baker is an attacking midfielder who is being asked to play deeper, TOB is an attacking midfielder and Clucas's best games for us have been when he's had licence to go forward. So last season in effect we had 3 specialist attacking midfielders (Powell, Vrancic and TOB), 3 who did a bit of both (Sawyers, Baker and Clucas) and 2 more defensive midfielders (Allen and Thompson). Unless we ditch the back three (and there is nothing to suggest we will) then that midfield balance is about right for the formation and style of football we are trying to play. Having a squad with only 2 attack minded midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make any sense and bundling Vrancic, Sawyers and Powell as an exclusive group is weird given what they bring is so different. If we don't keep Allen it makes far more sense to bolster the defensive midfield by looking for a more imposing replacement rather than not sign Sawyers because we already have 2 attack minded midfielders in Powell and Vrancic. I'm not even convinced going into a season with 2 attacking midfielders with a back 4 makes much sense unless we are looking to bring in someone from the Tony Pulis school of management. Sawyers does definitely not do a bit of both he’s completely non combatant. We have Powell, Vrancic and Baker who can play the most advanced midfield role we need more legs and physicality in any others we bring in but silly bollox MON don’t want that sort of player that bullies his midfield week in week out.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 24, 2022 7:24:49 GMT
If Powell is a 7/10 presser, Vrancic is a 5 at best and Sawyers a 1 or 2. Sawyers is a good footballer but we'd need really aggressive defensive play from everyone else to compensate. It just doesn't make sense to me when we have Powell and Vrancic on the books. One of the key advantages of playing 3 CBs is to release the midfielders higher up the pitch so if you are playing 3 in midfield at most only one needs to be more defensive minded - so two thirds of your midfield needs to be attack minded. That being the case why on earth would we only need Powell and Vrancic as the attacking midfielders - especially with Powell's less than stellar appearance record? They aren't even the only attacking midfielders anyway - Baker is an attacking midfielder who is being asked to play deeper, TOB is an attacking midfielder and Clucas's best games for us have been when he's had licence to go forward. So last season in effect we had 3 specialist attacking midfielders (Powell, Vrancic and TOB), 3 who did a bit of both (Sawyers, Baker and Clucas) and 2 more defensive midfielders (Allen and Thompson). Unless we ditch the back three (and there is nothing to suggest we will) then that midfield balance is about right for the formation and style of football we are trying to play. Having a squad with only 2 attack minded midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make any sense and bundling Vrancic, Sawyers and Powell as an exclusive group is weird given what they bring is so different. If we don't keep Allen it makes far more sense to bolster the defensive midfield by looking for a more imposing replacement rather than not sign Sawyers because we already have 2 attack minded midfielders in Powell and Vrancic. I'm not even convinced going into a season with 2 attacking midfielders with a back 4 makes much sense unless we are looking to bring in someone from the Tony Pulis school of management. Sawyers doesn't do 'a bit of both' though. That's the whole issue. He doesn't track runners, he doesn't close players down, his off the ball work is non-existent, which makes him a non-starter in one of the deeper roles.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 24, 2022 8:17:24 GMT
One of the key advantages of playing 3 CBs is to release the midfielders higher up the pitch so if you are playing 3 in midfield at most only one needs to be more defensive minded - so two thirds of your midfield needs to be attack minded. That being the case why on earth would we only need Powell and Vrancic as the attacking midfielders - especially with Powell's less than stellar appearance record? They aren't even the only attacking midfielders anyway - Baker is an attacking midfielder who is being asked to play deeper, TOB is an attacking midfielder and Clucas's best games for us have been when he's had licence to go forward. So last season in effect we had 3 specialist attacking midfielders (Powell, Vrancic and TOB), 3 who did a bit of both (Sawyers, Baker and Clucas) and 2 more defensive midfielders (Allen and Thompson). Unless we ditch the back three (and there is nothing to suggest we will) then that midfield balance is about right for the formation and style of football we are trying to play. Having a squad with only 2 attack minded midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make any sense and bundling Vrancic, Sawyers and Powell as an exclusive group is weird given what they bring is so different. If we don't keep Allen it makes far more sense to bolster the defensive midfield by looking for a more imposing replacement rather than not sign Sawyers because we already have 2 attack minded midfielders in Powell and Vrancic. I'm not even convinced going into a season with 2 attacking midfielders with a back 4 makes much sense unless we are looking to bring in someone from the Tony Pulis school of management. Sawyers doesn't do 'a bit of both' though. That's the whole issue. He doesn't track runners, he doesn't close players down, his off the ball work is non-existent, which makes him a non-starter in one of the deeper roles. Having read his views on Powell and Sawyers, the only logical explanation is he gets them confused 🤣
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 24, 2022 10:39:32 GMT
One of the key advantages of playing 3 CBs is to release the midfielders higher up the pitch so if you are playing 3 in midfield at most only one needs to be more defensive minded - so two thirds of your midfield needs to be attack minded. That being the case why on earth would we only need Powell and Vrancic as the attacking midfielders - especially with Powell's less than stellar appearance record? They aren't even the only attacking midfielders anyway - Baker is an attacking midfielder who is being asked to play deeper, TOB is an attacking midfielder and Clucas's best games for us have been when he's had licence to go forward. So last season in effect we had 3 specialist attacking midfielders (Powell, Vrancic and TOB), 3 who did a bit of both (Sawyers, Baker and Clucas) and 2 more defensive midfielders (Allen and Thompson). Unless we ditch the back three (and there is nothing to suggest we will) then that midfield balance is about right for the formation and style of football we are trying to play. Having a squad with only 2 attack minded midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make any sense and bundling Vrancic, Sawyers and Powell as an exclusive group is weird given what they bring is so different. If we don't keep Allen it makes far more sense to bolster the defensive midfield by looking for a more imposing replacement rather than not sign Sawyers because we already have 2 attack minded midfielders in Powell and Vrancic. I'm not even convinced going into a season with 2 attacking midfielders with a back 4 makes much sense unless we are looking to bring in someone from the Tony Pulis school of management. Sawyers doesn't do 'a bit of both' though. That's the whole issue. He doesn't track runners, he doesn't close players down, his off the ball work is non-existent, which makes him a non-starter in one of the deeper roles. I did not say we should sign Sawyers because of his defensive abilities. I said we should consider signing Sawyers because O'Neill sets the midfield to take the game to the opposition and therefore on balance we need more attacking midfielders than defensive midfielders. Not signing Sawyers because we already have 2 attacking midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make sense because it doesn't support the way we are trying to set up. I did say Sawyers was asked to play in a more withdrawn role at times because that's what happened - I didn't say that was the best way of using him and the original argument was that we don't need Sawyers because we already had Vrancic and Powell which has absolutely nothing to do with his defensive qualities. If we need to bolster the defensive midfield we should be considering replacements for Allen (which might happen) or Thompson (which isn't going to happen) as they are the two most defensive minded midfielders we have in the squad. You might argue that we should set the midfield up more defensively in which case signing a more defensive midfielder than Sawyers would make sense but given there is no indication that O'Neill intends to do that replacing Sawyers with a more defensive midfielder just doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 24, 2022 11:00:42 GMT
Sawyers doesn't do 'a bit of both' though. That's the whole issue. He doesn't track runners, he doesn't close players down, his off the ball work is non-existent, which makes him a non-starter in one of the deeper roles. I did not say we should sign Sawyers because of his defensive abilities. I said we should consider signing Sawyers because O'Neill sets the midfield to take the game to the opposition and therefore on balance we need more attacking midfielders than defensive midfielders. Not signing Sawyers because we already have 2 attacking midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make sense because it doesn't support the way we are trying to set up. I did say Sawyers was asked to play in a more withdrawn role at times because that's what happened - I didn't say that was the best way of using him and the original argument was that we don't need Sawyers because we already had Vrancic and Powell which has absolutely nothing to do with his defensive qualities. If we need to bolster the defensive midfield we should be considering replacements for Allen (which might happen) or Thompson (which isn't going to happen) as they are the two most defensive minded midfielders we have in the squad. You might argue that we should set the midfield up more defensively in which case signing a more defensive midfielder than Sawyers would make sense but given there is no indication that O'Neill intends to do that replacing Sawyers with a more defensive midfielder just doesn't make any sense. You said he was someone who did 'a bit of both' like Baker, and he absolutely isn't. That's why Baker works as one of those two deeper midfielders and Sawyers doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 24, 2022 13:03:15 GMT
Sawyers doesn't do 'a bit of both' though. That's the whole issue. He doesn't track runners, he doesn't close players down, his off the ball work is non-existent, which makes him a non-starter in one of the deeper roles. I did not say we should sign Sawyers because of his defensive abilities. I said we should consider signing Sawyers because O'Neill sets the midfield to take the game to the opposition and therefore on balance we need more attacking midfielders than defensive midfielders. Not signing Sawyers because we already have 2 attacking midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make sense because it doesn't support the way we are trying to set up. I did say Sawyers was asked to play in a more withdrawn role at times because that's what happened - I didn't say that was the best way of using him and the original argument was that we don't need Sawyers because we already had Vrancic and Powell which has absolutely nothing to do with his defensive qualities. If we need to bolster the defensive midfield we should be considering replacements for Allen (which might happen) or Thompson (which isn't going to happen) as they are the two most defensive minded midfielders we have in the squad. You might argue that we should set the midfield up more defensively in which case signing a more defensive midfielder than Sawyers would make sense but given there is no indication that O'Neill intends to do that replacing Sawyers with a more defensive midfielder just doesn't make any sense. Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 13:27:41 GMT
I did not say we should sign Sawyers because of his defensive abilities. I said we should consider signing Sawyers because O'Neill sets the midfield to take the game to the opposition and therefore on balance we need more attacking midfielders than defensive midfielders. Not signing Sawyers because we already have 2 attacking midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make sense because it doesn't support the way we are trying to set up. I did say Sawyers was asked to play in a more withdrawn role at times because that's what happened - I didn't say that was the best way of using him and the original argument was that we don't need Sawyers because we already had Vrancic and Powell which has absolutely nothing to do with his defensive qualities. If we need to bolster the defensive midfield we should be considering replacements for Allen (which might happen) or Thompson (which isn't going to happen) as they are the two most defensive minded midfielders we have in the squad. You might argue that we should set the midfield up more defensively in which case signing a more defensive midfielder than Sawyers would make sense but given there is no indication that O'Neill intends to do that replacing Sawyers with a more defensive midfielder just doesn't make any sense. Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield. It’s a sad state of affairs but Thompson is probably the best DM we have. He has fractionally more physical presence, is better at tackling and retaining possession than Allen. Last seasons midfield was a mess and it seems like MON wants to get the gang back together😡😡😡
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 24, 2022 13:37:38 GMT
Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield. It’s a sad state of affairs but Thompson is probably the best DM we have. He has fractionally more physical presence, is better at tackling and retaining possession than Allen. Last seasons midfield was a mess and it seems like MON wants to get the gang back together😡😡😡 I think Thompson is a younger Allen tbh, a nothing player really, can look tidy but offers very little in either direction. I can't figure out what MON is seeing, I'm not sure how anyone can look at that midfield and not think it was a problem that needed addressing.
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on May 24, 2022 14:05:29 GMT
Sawyers released by WBA Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 14:14:59 GMT
It’s a sad state of affairs but Thompson is probably the best DM we have. He has fractionally more physical presence, is better at tackling and retaining possession than Allen. Last seasons midfield was a mess and it seems like MON wants to get the gang back together😡😡😡 I think Thompson is a younger Allen tbh, a nothing player really, can look tidy but offers very little in either direction. I can't figure out what MON is seeing, I'm not sure how anyone can look at that midfield and not think it was a problem that needed addressing. Yeah he’s not so much barking up the wrong tree more like he’s in the wrong fucking Forest on so many fronts. His approach to home games is criminal but there’s no suggestion it will change. Having acknowledged not so long ago that he could have no complaints if he were sacked it seems quite flabbergasting that it seems no big changes are in the offing.
|
|
|
Post by questionable on May 24, 2022 14:25:26 GMT
Serious question here but what does Sawyers offer that Clucas doesn’t both bang average players that have one or two good games every dozen or so games, 99% of the time you don’t know they’re even on the pitch.
If we’re seriously looking at him and retaining Allen what a bleak season lies ahead, ON really needed to have gone by now.
As much as we owe the Coates family it’s unfolding at a rate which will only get worse.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 24, 2022 14:48:22 GMT
Serious question here but what does Sawyers offer that Clucas doesn’t both bang average players that have one or two good games every dozen or so games, 99% of the time you don’t know they’re even on the pitch. If we’re seriously looking at him and retaining Allen what a bleak season lies ahead, ON really needed to have gone by now. As much as we owe the Coates family it’s unfolding at a rate which will only get worse. Sawyers is much better with the ball than Clucas is imo, can create for others and holds onto it well.
|
|
|
Post by Caerwrangonpotter on May 24, 2022 15:15:22 GMT
Serious question here but what does Sawyers offer that Clucas doesn’t both bang average players that have one or two good games every dozen or so games, 99% of the time you don’t know they’re even on the pitch. If we’re seriously looking at him and retaining Allen what a bleak season lies ahead, ON really needed to have gone by now. As much as we owe the Coates family it’s unfolding at a rate which will only get worse. Sawyers is much better with the ball than Clucas is imo, can create for others and holds onto it well. Buy Sawyers & bye bye Clucas then....if only it was that easy
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 24, 2022 15:44:25 GMT
I did not say we should sign Sawyers because of his defensive abilities. I said we should consider signing Sawyers because O'Neill sets the midfield to take the game to the opposition and therefore on balance we need more attacking midfielders than defensive midfielders. Not signing Sawyers because we already have 2 attacking midfielders in Vrancic and Powell doesn't make sense because it doesn't support the way we are trying to set up. I did say Sawyers was asked to play in a more withdrawn role at times because that's what happened - I didn't say that was the best way of using him and the original argument was that we don't need Sawyers because we already had Vrancic and Powell which has absolutely nothing to do with his defensive qualities. If we need to bolster the defensive midfield we should be considering replacements for Allen (which might happen) or Thompson (which isn't going to happen) as they are the two most defensive minded midfielders we have in the squad. You might argue that we should set the midfield up more defensively in which case signing a more defensive midfielder than Sawyers would make sense but given there is no indication that O'Neill intends to do that replacing Sawyers with a more defensive midfielder just doesn't make any sense. Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield. It's definitely the case that he prefers ball playing, attack minded midfielders and he's said as much on more than one occasion. Whether we've done it that well at times is a different matter. Teams like Birmingham and Luton sussed out what we were trying to do and successfully stifled the midfield. The answer to that isn't by playing more defensive minded midfielders - you would only do that if the midfield was being overrun (and it wasn't) or you are trying to set up as a team that defends and relies on the counter attack (and there is no evidence of a change of approach). If we intend to carry on with the same formation and style of play (and that's what it looks like we are going to do) then I agree we need 2 defensive midfielders. However it also means we need four or five attack minded midfielders in order to remain on the front foot. At the moment it looks like: Defensive: Thompson, Allen/Replacement Attack: Powell, Vrancic, Baker, Sawyers/Replacement, Clucas. Baker, Clucas and to a lesser extent Sawyers can play (or at least have played) in a more defensive role if need be. The thing I don't get is the idea that we don't need Sawyers BECAUSE we have Vrancic and Powell given that the way we are trying to play is for the midfield to be on the front foot. If we are looking to play more defensively in midfield then ditching an attacking midfielder like Sawyers for a defensive midfielder has merit but there is no evidence that we are going to do that. Why would O'Neill or any other manager for that matter compile a squad that doesn't actually fit his strategy? If we need a better physical presence in the midfield we should be looking for an Allen replacement, not sacrificing one of the attacking midfielders.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 24, 2022 15:58:17 GMT
You don't set up 'on the front foot' by just flooding your team with attackers though, you do it through balance.
Our best performance of the season was at home against West Brom, where we played Allen and Thompson in midfield, Sawyers ahead of them and Powell as part of a front two. We created an absolute bagful of chances and should've been out of sight.
We really haven't done that much at all with a midfield three of, say, Allen, Vrancic and Powell or Allen, Vrancic and Sawyers.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 24, 2022 16:08:31 GMT
You don't set up 'on the front foot' by just flooding your team with attackers though, you do it through balance. Our best performance of the season was at home against West Brom, where we played Allen and Thompson in midfield, Sawyers ahead of them and Powell as part of a front two. We created an absolute bagful of chances and should've been out of sight. We really haven't done that much at all with a midfield three of, say, Allen, Vrancic and Powell or Allen, Vrancic and Sawyers. Sawyers didn't play against Albion; Vrancic did.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 16:08:49 GMT
Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield. It's definitely the case that he prefers ball playing, attack minded midfielders and he's said as much on more than one occasion. Whether we've done it that well at times is a different matter. Teams like Birmingham and Luton sussed out what we were trying to do and successfully stifled the midfield. The answer to that isn't by playing more defensive minded midfielders - you would only do that if the midfield was being overrun (and it wasn't) or you are trying to set up as a team that defends and relies on the counter attack (and there is no evidence of a change of approach). If we intend to carry on with the same formation and style of play (and that's what it looks like we are going to do) then I agree we need 2 defensive midfielders. However it also means we need four or five attack minded midfielders in order to remain on the front foot. At the moment it looks like: Defensive: Thompson, Allen/Replacement Attack: Powell, Vrancic, Baker, Sawyers/Replacement, Clucas. Baker, Clucas and to a lesser extent Sawyers can play (or at least have played) in a more defensive role if need be. The thing I don't get is the idea that we don't need Sawyers BECAUSE we have Vrancic and Powell given that the way we are trying to play is for the midfield to be on the front foot. If we are looking to play more defensively in midfield then ditching an attacking midfielder like Sawyers for a defensive midfielder has merit but there is no evidence that we are going to do that. Why would O'Neill or any other manager for that matter compile a squad that doesn't actually fit his strategy? If we need a better physical presence in the midfield we should be looking for an Allen replacement, not sacrificing one of the attacking midfielders. You’d think he might revise his strategy or tweak it being as it was so obviously rubbish last season. Our whole midfield lacks physicality so we need bigger more energetic more aggressive players in there. Sawyers is not your typical attacking midfielder he makes even fucking Vrancic seem like Rambo. He had the opportunity to rethink something that clearly wasn’t working but seems hell bent on saddling himself with most of the midfielders he had at his disposal at the end of the season, it’s hard to even try to give him the benefit of the doubt to go again when he’s being so stupid.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 24, 2022 16:09:54 GMT
You don't set up 'on the front foot' by just flooding your team with attackers though, you do it through balance. Our best performance of the season was at home against West Brom, where we played Allen and Thompson in midfield, Sawyers ahead of them and Powell as part of a front two. We created an absolute bagful of chances and should've been out of sight. We really haven't done that much at all with a midfield three of, say, Allen, Vrancic and Powell or Allen, Vrancic and Sawyers. Sawyers didn't play against Albion; Vrancic did. I meant Vrancic, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 16:16:55 GMT
Sawyers didn't play against Albion; Vrancic did. I meant Vrancic, sorry. Thompson got dropped the very next game after being the best of the midfielders. Great management.
|
|
|
Post by hardcastle on May 24, 2022 16:24:18 GMT
Powell and Vrancic are both signed up for next season (and are both attacking mids). Given that Sawyers can't play a defensive game where then does he fit in (unless we're playing Powell as a second forward)?
I'd love him to get back that that zip and poise he had at Brentford but is there really any evidence on what we've seen this season that he's still got it?
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 24, 2022 18:28:53 GMT
Its very hard to tell that's the case. We still need two defensive midfielders, or at least one if we pretend Thompson is one, before we sign any more attacking players for the midfield. It's definitely the case that he prefers ball playing, attack minded midfielders and he's said as much on more than one occasion. Whether we've done it that well at times is a different matter. Teams like Birmingham and Luton sussed out what we were trying to do and successfully stifled the midfield. The answer to that isn't by playing more defensive minded midfielders - you would only do that if the midfield was being overrun (and it wasn't) or you are trying to set up as a team that defends and relies on the counter attack (and there is no evidence of a change of approach). If we intend to carry on with the same formation and style of play (and that's what it looks like we are going to do) then I agree we need 2 defensive midfielders. However it also means we need four or five attack minded midfielders in order to remain on the front foot. At the moment it looks like: Defensive: Thompson, Allen/Replacement Attack: Powell, Vrancic, Baker, Sawyers/Replacement, Clucas. Baker, Clucas and to a lesser extent Sawyers can play (or at least have played) in a more defensive role if need be. The thing I don't get is the idea that we don't need Sawyers BECAUSE we have Vrancic and Powell given that the way we are trying to play is for the midfield to be on the front foot. If we are looking to play more defensively in midfield then ditching an attacking midfielder like Sawyers for a defensive midfielder has merit but there is no evidence that we are going to do that. Why would O'Neill or any other manager for that matter compile a squad that doesn't actually fit his strategy? If we need a better physical presence in the midfield we should be looking for an Allen replacement, not sacrificing one of the attacking midfielders. Its not about filling the midfield with either really, its fine to want more attacking midfielders but you have to balance it out, whether he likes it or not you need someone in there that can cover for those attack minded midfielders and cover their arses for them. The defensive options you've listed is a massive stretch imo, neither should be considered as the defensive option unless you're desperate and you main man is injured etc, neither can really do whats needed in that position. I think people are saying you don't need another if we have Powell and Vrancic is because most wouldn't play both and I think I'm in that group, same goes for Sawyers, for me its one of the three unless you're forcing Powell in as a striker. Sawyers can never and should never play in any sort of defensive role, its just not in him to do any of what would be needed. Re why would he compile a squad that doesn't fit, well he has, his entire Jan strategy did just that and partly some of the summer too. Surridge for example didn't fit and that was his big spend, its been a pretty awful squad build so far just look at the state its in now, massive gaps all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 24, 2022 18:30:17 GMT
Powell and Vrancic are both signed up for next season (and are both attacking mids). Given that Sawyers can't play a defensive game where then does he fit in (unless we're playing Powell as a second forward)? I'd love him to get back that that zip and poise he had at Brentford but is there really any evidence on what we've seen this season that he's still got it? The worry is MON thinks he can, and he must do given how often he played him further back.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 24, 2022 18:48:20 GMT
It's definitely the case that he prefers ball playing, attack minded midfielders and he's said as much on more than one occasion. Whether we've done it that well at times is a different matter. Teams like Birmingham and Luton sussed out what we were trying to do and successfully stifled the midfield. The answer to that isn't by playing more defensive minded midfielders - you would only do that if the midfield was being overrun (and it wasn't) or you are trying to set up as a team that defends and relies on the counter attack (and there is no evidence of a change of approach). If we intend to carry on with the same formation and style of play (and that's what it looks like we are going to do) then I agree we need 2 defensive midfielders. However it also means we need four or five attack minded midfielders in order to remain on the front foot. At the moment it looks like: Defensive: Thompson, Allen/Replacement Attack: Powell, Vrancic, Baker, Sawyers/Replacement, Clucas. Baker, Clucas and to a lesser extent Sawyers can play (or at least have played) in a more defensive role if need be. The thing I don't get is the idea that we don't need Sawyers BECAUSE we have Vrancic and Powell given that the way we are trying to play is for the midfield to be on the front foot. If we are looking to play more defensively in midfield then ditching an attacking midfielder like Sawyers for a defensive midfielder has merit but there is no evidence that we are going to do that. Why would O'Neill or any other manager for that matter compile a squad that doesn't actually fit his strategy? If we need a better physical presence in the midfield we should be looking for an Allen replacement, not sacrificing one of the attacking midfielders. Its not about filling the midfield with either really, its fine to want more attacking midfielders but you have to balance it out, whether he likes it or not you need someone in there that can cover for those attack minded midfielders and cover their arses for them. The defensive options you've listed is a massive stretch imo, neither should be considered as the defensive option unless you're desperate and you main man is injured etc, neither can really do whats needed in that position. I think people are saying you don't need another if we have Powell and Vrancic is because most wouldn't play both and I think I'm in that group, same goes for Sawyers, for me its one of the three unless you're forcing Powell in as a striker. Sawyers can never and should never play in any sort of defensive role, its just not in him to do any of what would be needed. Re why would he compile a squad that doesn't fit, well he has, his entire Jan strategy did just that and partly some of the summer too. Surridge for example didn't fit and that was his big spend, its been a pretty awful squad build so far just look at the state its in now, massive gaps all over the place. Yep. He’s hardly the first manager to assemble a squad that doesn’t suit how he wants to play. That’s where it started to go wrong for Pulis and Hughes. It’s what made Rowett such a total imbecile. Jones did it as well.
|
|
|
Post by homer32 on May 24, 2022 18:51:56 GMT
Sawyers must to worth taking on a free if we can agree reasonable wages or him.He’s a good footballer and is capable of opening up defences with his passing ability. For me he shouldn’t start games unless injuries to our better all round players give MON no option.He should be used off the bench when we need to get a goal and are losing or on top against defensive opposition.I agree the last player we need on the pitch when we’re defending a winning position.
|
|
|
Post by dirtclod on May 24, 2022 19:56:40 GMT
Sawyers didn't play against Albion; Vrancic did. I meant Vrancic, sorry. I'm still trying to figure out who that team was that showed up for us against WBA. I didn't even recognize them, they were like a totally different team. In a very good way.
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on May 24, 2022 20:02:29 GMT
I'm still trying to figure out who that team was that showed up for us against WBA. I didn't even recognize them, they were like a totally different team. In a very good way. Them and both games vs Swansea and back to crap again each time. Yet we couldn’t beat the dross to save our lives.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 25, 2022 11:39:25 GMT
It's definitely the case that he prefers ball playing, attack minded midfielders and he's said as much on more than one occasion. Whether we've done it that well at times is a different matter. Teams like Birmingham and Luton sussed out what we were trying to do and successfully stifled the midfield. The answer to that isn't by playing more defensive minded midfielders - you would only do that if the midfield was being overrun (and it wasn't) or you are trying to set up as a team that defends and relies on the counter attack (and there is no evidence of a change of approach). If we intend to carry on with the same formation and style of play (and that's what it looks like we are going to do) then I agree we need 2 defensive midfielders. However it also means we need four or five attack minded midfielders in order to remain on the front foot. At the moment it looks like: Defensive: Thompson, Allen/Replacement Attack: Powell, Vrancic, Baker, Sawyers/Replacement, Clucas. Baker, Clucas and to a lesser extent Sawyers can play (or at least have played) in a more defensive role if need be. The thing I don't get is the idea that we don't need Sawyers BECAUSE we have Vrancic and Powell given that the way we are trying to play is for the midfield to be on the front foot. If we are looking to play more defensively in midfield then ditching an attacking midfielder like Sawyers for a defensive midfielder has merit but there is no evidence that we are going to do that. Why would O'Neill or any other manager for that matter compile a squad that doesn't actually fit his strategy? If we need a better physical presence in the midfield we should be looking for an Allen replacement, not sacrificing one of the attacking midfielders. Its not about filling the midfield with either really, its fine to want more attacking midfielders but you have to balance it out, whether he likes it or not you need someone in there that can cover for those attack minded midfielders and cover their arses for them. The defensive options you've listed is a massive stretch imo, neither should be considered as the defensive option unless you're desperate and you main man is injured etc, neither can really do whats needed in that position. I think people are saying you don't need another if we have Powell and Vrancic is because most wouldn't play both and I think I'm in that group, same goes for Sawyers, for me its one of the three unless you're forcing Powell in as a striker. Sawyers can never and should never play in any sort of defensive role, its just not in him to do any of what would be needed. Re why would he compile a squad that doesn't fit, well he has, his entire Jan strategy did just that and partly some of the summer too. Surridge for example didn't fit and that was his big spend, its been a pretty awful squad build so far just look at the state its in now, massive gaps all over the place. Why would you have only 2 attacking midfielders in a squad designed to have an attack minded midfield? If, for example (and this is only an example), we have 6 midfielders in the squad the right balance for the midfield would be 4 attacking and 2 defensive. You and others are effectively advocating 4 defensive and 2 attacking which makes sense if we are setting up in front of a back 4 and/or looking to play a counter attacking game but we aren't. What you and others are suggesting simply does not make any sense given how O'Neill is looking to set up the team. Whether he should set up the team differently is a perfectly legitimate argument in its own right but no-one is actually doing that - Sawyers, Powell and Vrancic's are just being lumped together as 3 interchangeable attacking midfielders fighting for 2 places when that simply isn't what is happening given the way we are trying to play. And given Powell's injury record having 2 players for the one position is insane - in fact our poor patch occurred when Powell, Vrancic and Sawyers were all out injured - how is reducing the attacking midfield options to 2 going to resolve that problem? In terms of recruitment Surridge wasn't the wrong type of player he just didn't settle, got injured, got himself sent off when he finally got his chance and wanted to be guaranteed first team football which wasn't going to happen. Baker was an excellent signing, Maja was ok, JPB looked good but got injured and we replaced a CB who didn't fit the bill as someone comfortable on the ball (Batth) with one that was (Jagielka). And even if the recruitment didn't match the game plan how is that an arguement for carrying on making the same mistake?
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on May 25, 2022 12:09:06 GMT
Its not about filling the midfield with either really, its fine to want more attacking midfielders but you have to balance it out, whether he likes it or not you need someone in there that can cover for those attack minded midfielders and cover their arses for them. The defensive options you've listed is a massive stretch imo, neither should be considered as the defensive option unless you're desperate and you main man is injured etc, neither can really do whats needed in that position. I think people are saying you don't need another if we have Powell and Vrancic is because most wouldn't play both and I think I'm in that group, same goes for Sawyers, for me its one of the three unless you're forcing Powell in as a striker. Sawyers can never and should never play in any sort of defensive role, its just not in him to do any of what would be needed. Re why would he compile a squad that doesn't fit, well he has, his entire Jan strategy did just that and partly some of the summer too. Surridge for example didn't fit and that was his big spend, its been a pretty awful squad build so far just look at the state its in now, massive gaps all over the place. Why would you have only 2 attacking midfielders in a squad designed to have an attack minded midfield? If, for example (and this is only an example), we have 6 midfielders in the squad the right balance for the midfield would be 4 attacking and 2 defensive. You and others are effectively advocating 4 defensive and 2 attacking which makes sense if we are setting up in front of a back 4 and/or looking to play a counter attacking game but we aren't. What you and others are suggesting simply does not make any sense given how O'Neill is looking to set up the team. Whether he should set up the team differently is a perfectly legitimate argument in its own right but no-one is actually doing that - Sawyers, Powell and Vrancic's are just being lumped together as 3 interchangeable attacking midfielders fighting for 2 places when that simply isn't what is happening given the way we are trying to play. And given Powell's injury record having 2 players for the one position is insane - in fact our poor patch occurred when Powell, Vrancic and Sawyers were all out injured - how is reducing the attacking midfield options to 2 going to resolve that problem? In terms of recruitment Surridge wasn't the wrong type of player he just didn't settle, got injured, got himself sent off when he finally got his chance and wanted to be guaranteed first team football which wasn't going to happen. Baker was an excellent signing, Maja was ok, JPB looked good but got injured and we replaced a CB who didn't fit the bill as someone comfortable on the ball (Batth) with one that was (Jagielka). And even if the recruitment didn't match the game plan how is that an arguement for carrying on making the same mistake? We've already got three for a midfield that looks anything but designed to be attack minded, four if you include Wright Phillips as a young back up. Surridge definitely was the wrong type of player, he wanted a hold up/target man with mobility, Surridge was brought in to do that and its not his game at all. Where am I saying he should make the same mistakes? I think he has and continues to do so.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on May 25, 2022 13:38:27 GMT
Its not about filling the midfield with either really, its fine to want more attacking midfielders but you have to balance it out, whether he likes it or not you need someone in there that can cover for those attack minded midfielders and cover their arses for them. The defensive options you've listed is a massive stretch imo, neither should be considered as the defensive option unless you're desperate and you main man is injured etc, neither can really do whats needed in that position. I think people are saying you don't need another if we have Powell and Vrancic is because most wouldn't play both and I think I'm in that group, same goes for Sawyers, for me its one of the three unless you're forcing Powell in as a striker. Sawyers can never and should never play in any sort of defensive role, its just not in him to do any of what would be needed. Re why would he compile a squad that doesn't fit, well he has, his entire Jan strategy did just that and partly some of the summer too. Surridge for example didn't fit and that was his big spend, its been a pretty awful squad build so far just look at the state its in now, massive gaps all over the place. Why would you have only 2 attacking midfielders in a squad designed to have an attack minded midfield? If, for example (and this is only an example), we have 6 midfielders in the squad the right balance for the midfield would be 4 attacking and 2 defensive. You and others are effectively advocating 4 defensive and 2 attacking which makes sense if we are setting up in front of a back 4 and/or looking to play a counter attacking game but we aren't. What you and others are suggesting simply does not make any sense given how O'Neill is looking to set up the team. Whether he should set up the team differently is a perfectly legitimate argument in its own right but no-one is actually doing that - Sawyers, Powell and Vrancic's are just being lumped together as 3 interchangeable attacking midfielders fighting for 2 places when that simply isn't what is happening given the way we are trying to play. And given Powell's injury record having 2 players for the one position is insane - in fact our poor patch occurred when Powell, Vrancic and Sawyers were all out injured - how is reducing the attacking midfield options to 2 going to resolve that problem? In terms of recruitment Surridge wasn't the wrong type of player he just didn't settle, got injured, got himself sent off when he finally got his chance and wanted to be guaranteed first team football which wasn't going to happen. Baker was an excellent signing, Maja was ok, JPB looked good but got injured and we replaced a CB who didn't fit the bill as someone comfortable on the ball (Batth) with one that was (Jagielka). And even if the recruitment didn't match the game plan how is that an arguement for carrying on making the same mistake? In either version of the system he supposedly wants to play, there are three midfield roles. There are two deeper midfield roles and an attacking midfield role ahead of them. Allen or Thompson can play in the deeper roles as the more defensive minded player. Baker and at an absolute push Clucas can play in one of the deeper roles as a box-to-box player with both some bite and creativity/goal threat. Powell and Vrancic can play as the most advanced midfielder, dedicated primarily to creativity. Sawyers, if he signs, is only capable of playing in that Powell/Vrancic bracket. Ideally, we need to improve on at least one and ideally both of Allen and Clucas to strengthen those areas.
|
|