Hutch

[Sultan_Pepper]

He's an excellent player but our improvement in style occurring when Bannan has been in the center with Jones and Lee isn't a coincidence I don't think

[19owl08]

2 hours ago, james o connor said:

I dont think he has changed his game, although like others (Fletcher being another) he has upped his effort levels a bit. I feel when he plays with Hutchinson or Jones, he isnt good enough going forward to be the out and out attacking midfielder, which he needs to be with these two. 

 

Alongside Lee, between them they provide a decent balance or attacking and defensive abilities. Bannans lack of goals is compensated by Lee as well. Im all for changing the team as and when required, but right now other than Sunday this does not need to happen. 

 

 

 

Good assessment & I think the Ipswich goal highlights just how Bannan & Lee as a pairing are the reason for his perceived improvement.

 

Because Lee gets forward one of the oppo midfielders has to go with him. This creates more space in the middle & Bannan has more time. It gives Bannan the confidence to also take the ball forward. Against Ipswich this is exactly what happened.

 

Bannan got the ball fairly deep but was able to run at Ipswich & slide the ball into the box. He was then clever enough to get straight back into position on the edge of the box in case the ball came back out. It did & he was able to play that through ball for Pudil.

 

As another poster alluded to... having Pudil in form is a big thing too as we wouldn't normally have someone making that run like Pudil did.

[pazowl55]

5 minutes ago, Stainless1983 said:

 

Good assessment & I think the Ipswich goal highlights just how Bannan & Lee as a pairing are the reason for his perceived improvement.

 

Because Lee gets forward one of the oppo midfielders has to go with him. This creates more space in the middle & Bannan has more time. It gives Bannan the confidence to also take the ball forward. Against Ipswich this is exactly what happened.

 

Bannan got the ball fairly deep but was able to run at Ipswich & slide the ball into the box. He was then clever enough to get straight back into position on the edge of the box in case the ball came back out. It did & he was able to play that through ball for Pudil.

 

As another poster alluded to... having Pudil in form is a big thing too as we wouldn't normally have someone making that run like Pudil did.

The way we play at the moment with Hooper coming deep and Reach and Wallace tucking in gives the fullbacks licence to roam. It's no coincidence that they have been the best that they have ever been in these last 6 games and we have won them all.

[19owl08]

4 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

The way we play at the moment with Hooper coming deep and Reach and Wallace tucking in gives the fullbacks licence to roam. It's no coincidence that they have been the best that they have ever been in these last 6 games and we have won them all.

 

The balance is perfect at the moment. For me there is only one position under consideration and that would be Fletchers... harsh I know.

 

I only say that because I think in some games we may need a different type of striker.

[pazowl55]

1 minute ago, Stainless1983 said:

 

The balance is perfect at the moment. For me there is only one position under consideration and that would be Fletchers... harsh I know.

 

I only say that because I think in some games we may need a different type of striker.

Hutchinson will still start when he is fit though and Forestieri. 

[SallyCinnamon]

He shouldn't walk straight back in when fit.

 

You shouldn't change a winning formula. Jones is ahead of Hutch for me as it stands.

[oldishowl]

It is chicken and egg this argument.

It is all about possesion and who has the ball.

At Ipswich we dominated the ball and played well as a team.

Now because we dominated the ball the midfield four were never put under real pressure defensively deep in our own half which I think was probably a good thing as winning tackles and headers around our box is not their strength. So all was ok.

 

Of course we had 4 midfielders capable of dominating the ball going forward and this is the argument of those that think Hutch shouldn't start. 

 

The big question is are we as a team , not just the midfield four, capable of dominating the ball and possession against the other sides in the playoffs such that the defensive frailties of the four don't cost us . And don't kid ourselves if we need to dig in and win tackles and headers in a scrap we will probably miss out if Hutch isn't playing.

 

Good luck with that Carlos. 

 

 

 

[Holmowl]

1 minute ago, SallyCinnamon said:

He shouldn't walk straight back in when fit.

 

You shouldn't change a winning formula. Jones is ahead of Hutch for me as it stands.

Me too.

 

The Hutch in CM period did a very important job, but we have fallen on a far better and more successful line-up.

 

[MightyOwl]

Love hutch for what he does but I wouldn't put him straight back in the team. Great option to tighten us up in an away leg but I think his presence actually harms the team at home. He's not really got the mind of a midfielder in the sense of thinking what pass he's gonna make before he receives it. He slows the tempo and drops a bit deep meaning we're effectively playing three at the back. 

[shezzas left peg]

17 minutes ago, MightyOwl said:

Love hutch for what he does but I wouldn't put him straight back in the team. Great option to tighten us up in an away leg but I think his presence actually harms the team at home. He's not really got the mind of a midfielder in the sense of thinking what pass he's gonna make before he receives it. He slows the tempo and drops a bit deep meaning we're effectively playing three at the back. 

This is what I was saying, at home they're gonna come and park the bus. This means plenty of possession, so for me we go with reach, Wallace wide, Bannan and Lee centre. If we're protecting a lead and going away where we're likely to be under the cosh and need ball winners I'd swap Bannan for hutch. Simple Tactical change without too much disruption. 

[shezzas left peg]

51 minutes ago, Stainless1983 said:

 

Good assessment & I think the Ipswich goal highlights just how Bannan & Lee as a pairing are the reason for his perceived improvement.

 

Because Lee gets forward one of the oppo midfielders has to go with him. This creates more space in the middle & Bannan has more time. It gives Bannan the confidence to also take the ball forward. Against Ipswich this is exactly what happened.

 

Bannan got the ball fairly deep but was able to run at Ipswich & slide the ball into the box. He was then clever enough to get straight back into position on the edge of the box in case the ball came back out. It did & he was able to play that through ball for Pudil.

 

As another poster alluded to... having Pudil in form is a big thing too as we wouldn't normally have someone making that run like Pudil did.

I said this in football out on the pitch it's all about partnerships and understanding, the last 6/7 games now we've had hunt/Wallace right and pudil/Reach left and they're beginning to forge very effective partnerships. I like the idea too of having hutch in there If we go 4-3-3 as it enables him to sit and let the other two in the middle have freedom to work some magic. 

[ChapSmurf]

4 hours ago, shezzas left peg said:

Just a simple question as I was wondering what his injury status is??? Will he be fit for the playoffs as I do think a midfield 2 of hutch and Lee would be really beneficial in the away legs for protecting the back four and not conceding. 

 

Machines don't get injured; they just need maintenance. Hutch is simply having an upgrade to his marking and tackling sub-routine, to include the new tackling parameters of "maim" and "destroy".

 

But in response to your question, I hope is he back. He is part of the spine, that starts with Westwood, Lees, Lee and ends with the likes of Hooper. A key "link" player in my opinion, that allows quicker transitions between the plays.

[the third man]

Hope he is back, as back up off the bench, if he plays it will mean Bannon on the wing which will wreck the balance of the team

 

 

[james o connor]

1 hour ago, Holmowl said:

Me too.

 

The Hutch in CM period did a very important job, but we have fallen on a far better and more successful line-up.

 

Dunno why you have been negged for making a very accurate assessment 

[19owl08]

59 minutes ago, shezzas left peg said:

I said this in football out on the pitch it's all about partnerships and understanding, the last 6/7 games now we've had hunt/Wallace right and pudil/Reach left and they're beginning to forge very effective partnerships. I like the idea too of having hutch in there If we go 4-3-3 as it enables him to sit and let the other two in the middle have freedom to work some magic. 

 

I really hope we stay with what we have as there's the consistency & balance. Hutch on the bench gives that option for a plan B to go 433 if required or to change the set up.

 

Problem with starting Hutch is that if we are getting dominated physically with him already on the pitch, we don't really have much of a plan B. Or if we are winning but getting pushed back in the late stages we don't have a midfield enforcer with fresh legs to come on & help.

[SallyCinnamon]

For how good he was, he sat too deep in central midfield, was like having a third centre back. We've looked better with Bannan and Lee or Bannan and Jones.

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

It's horses for courses.

 

Lets put it this way.

 

If we were playing Fulham away or at Wembley, with all their midfield runners and pace, would you really want a midfield two of Bannan and Lee?

 

its up to Carlos to make those tough calls.

Edited May 3, 2017 by HirstWhoScoredIt

[lee81]

2 minutes ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said:

It's horses for courses.

 

Lets put it this way.

 

If we were playing Fulham away or at Wembley, with all their midfield runners and pace, would you really want a midfield two of Bannan and Lee?

 

its up to Carlos to make those tough calls.

I'd want bannan and Lee / Jones as I actually think we look a more solid outfit. 

 

As others have said bannan gets overwhelmed when playing 442 with hutch, the opposites have acres to exploit. 

 

It's taken 3/4 of the season but Carlos is finally playing his best team and not trying to crowbar our best 11 players into the side. 

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, lee81 said:

I'd want bannan and Lee / Jones as I actually think we look a more solid outfit. 

 

As others have said bannan gets overwhelmed when playing 442 with hutch, the opposites have acres to exploit. 

 

It's taken 3/4 of the season but Carlos is finally playing his best team and not trying to crowbar our best 11 players into the side. 

 

Yes me too.

 

We win too few second balls with Bannan and Hutch, as Bannan is miles away from Hutch so doing the lone midfield role.

 

Watch his close Lee and Bannan work as a pair. It's a myth that we get overrun. 

[HirstWhoScoredIt]

18 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Yes me too.

 

We win too few second balls with Bannan and Hutch, as Bannan is miles away from Hutch so doing the lone midfield role.

 

Watch his close Lee and Bannan work as a pair. It's a myth that we get overrun. 

But when they have played together how many teams have we played with incisive passing like Fulham's?

 

A team that tries to get in the pockets between defence and midfield.

 

A team with a number 10 like Cairney?

 

Its a dilemma.

 

In an ideal world I would match up against them.  Hutch sitting with Bannan and Lee ahead of him. Forestieri on the left and McManaman the right of a front 3.

 

I think we have better players so we would win.

 

Realistically, we can't change st this stage though. And Carlos wouldn't drop Walllace but he isn't  suited to being in a front three.

 

Real issues for Carlos. But good issues.

 

Itll be interesting to see what he does.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by HirstWhoScoredIt