Jump to content

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Stainless1983 said:

 

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.

Can't disagree bud. I just think we look a bit rudderless at times when we're under the cosh and he gives us that extra edge and leadership. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

Bannan out, Hutch in for me.

 

Hutch and Lee is the CM pairing. 

ive seen us home and away apart from Ipswich ,bannan gets bullied too easily its going to give carlos a headache trying to decide what to do. id play hutch on sunday for 60 mins if fit he needs match practice .the more options the better whether that's starting bannan or hutch or both depends on who we are playing ,against hudds bannan was subbed after 50 mins he had a shocker at there place . the main thing is finishing 3rd or 4th so we can play home leg 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shezzas left peg said:

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. 

 

Pretty much this for me generally bannan/jones, bannan/hutch both seem to sit too deep and make us more predictable and easy to play against. Away from home and possibly at wembley if we get there would go hutch and lee, at home or if we need a goal would go bannan and lee. Wouldnt be first choice but would also like to see jones/lee at some point as the balance could be good. Cant really make the case for dropping reach or wallace as both have had excellent second halves of the season.

 

Ultimately its great to be able to make our three most likely subs rhodes, hutch and ff as they are arguable our best three players and its a compliment to the rest of the team and a show of the strength of our squad that they cant get in at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SallyCinnamon said:

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.

 

Bannan/Lee and Bannan/jones have featured in many of our poorest performances this season. 

 

Its laughable that some are trying to give those partnerships (without Hutch) credit for our recent results. Absolutely laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Bannan/Lee and Bannan/jones have featured in many of our poorest performances this season. 

 

Its laughable that some are trying to give those partnerships (without Hutch) credit for our recent results. Absolutely laughable.

 

I don't understand.

 

How can Bannan and Jones, and Bannan and Lee not be given credit for the recent 6 wins, when they played in all 6?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

I don't understand.

 

How can Bannan and Jones, and Bannan and Lee not be given credit for the recent 6 wins, when they played in all 6?

 

It's not difficult.

 

I'm not saying the players in question deserve no credit for our recent wins. I'm saying this idea that results have improved because we're now playing with "a more creative" pairing, without Hutch, is flipping stupid.

 

Look at our recent wins in a bit more detail and you'll see that those particular midfield pairings haven't been as productive as you claim.

 

433, taking our chances, fullbacks improving, good individual performances from the likes of Hooper, Wallace, Reach, Bannan etc.........all things I'd put before simply playing Bannan/Lee and Bannan/Jones instead of Hutch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a couple more things for those who believe Bannan/Lee and Bannan/Jones without Hutch is the reason for our recent results...

 

What happened in the 3 games before our recent run? No Hutch.

Reading home. 0-2 Bannan/Jones

Villa away. 0-2 Bannan/Jones

Burton home. 1-1 Bannan/Jones. 

Yes a much more creative partnership! 

 

 

Onto our 6 game winning streak. 

Rotherham was a 433, so no midfield pair.

Cardiff game was 0-0 with a 442, we switched to 433 and won 1-0.

Derby, we were losing 1-0 with Lee/Bannan, switched to 433, won 2-1.

 

Certainly can't give a particular midfield pairing credit for those 3 wins. That's not to say those players didn't play their part, but that's different.

 

Then there's Newcastle and QPR who were both beaten with Bannan/Jones and Ipswich with Bannan/Lee. Good results, but I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that Hutch's absence in midfield was the reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

Just a couple more things for those who believe Bannan/Lee and Bannan/Jones without Hutch is the reason for our recent results...

 

What happened in the 3 games before our recent run? No Hutch.

Reading home. 0-2 Bannan/Jones

Villa away. 0-2 Bannan/Jones

Burton home. 1-1 Bannan/Jones. 

Yes a much more creative partnership! 

 

 

Onto our 6 game winning streak. 

Rotherham was a 433, so no midfield pair.

Cardiff game was 0-0 with a 442, we switched to 433 and won 1-0.

Derby, we were losing 1-0 with Lee/Bannan, switched to 433, won 2-1.

 

Certainly can't give a particular midfield pairing credit for those 3 wins. That's not to say those players didn't play their part, but that's different.

 

Then there's Newcastle and QPR who were both beaten with Bannan/Jones and Ipswich with Bannan/Lee. Good results, but I'm not sure how anyone could come to the conclusion that Hutch's absence in midfield was the reason. 

Agree. Anyway who doesn't think Hutchinson is capable of playing the same destroyer role, but just 10 yards further up the field, is seriously underestimating how good a player he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bannan is so underrated & seems to be this seasons scapegoat. Agreed he hasn't hit the heights of last year but he hasn't always played his favoured position, he's played a large part through injury & had an ever revolving partner at the side of him.

 

Yet he still has more assists than anyone else. 

 

IMG_6263.PNG.80faa13232a1b50e4cbab9ee6c02c675.PNG

 

Hutchinson has just 1 assist in comparison & Lee has 0 assists. I know Lee has been out a while but he has still played over half the number of games as Bannan. Lee is however our 4th top

scorer despite being out injured. 

 

So yes in theory playing Bannan with Lee is more creative than Hutchinson & Lee.

Edited by Stainless1983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If fit Hutch needs to play against Fulham in playoffs should we face them. Absolutely bossed midfield at craven cottage before he went off injured. When Jones came on Fulham looked like scoring every time they came forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hirstys_12th_Pint said:

How good is our squad for us not to be desperate to rush Sam back.

 

Think we only have 2 players in Westwood and Lees that we would really miss in a major way.

 

Yes I think this is the key point. 

 

Though I would add Wallace to this elite list these days. Not seen enough in Macca's game to believe he could give us as much as Ross does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

It's not difficult.

 

I'm not saying the players in question deserve no credit for our recent wins. I'm saying this idea that results have improved because we're now playing with "a more creative" pairing, without Hutch, is flipping stupid.

 

Look at our recent wins in a bit more detail and you'll see that those particular midfield pairings haven't been as productive as you claim.

 

433, taking our chances, fullbacks improving, good individual performances from the likes of Hooper, Wallace, Reach, Bannan etc.........all things I'd put before simply playing Bannan/Lee and Bannan/Jones instead of Hutch.

 

 

You make great points.

 

But like all of us, we can only make our best guess about what is it that has turned us round.

 

So many important ingredients - the full backs, shifting the formation late on, improving individuals, more and better crosses, a faster tempo, confidence etc etc - but none of us, and that includes Carlos, know which of these has been most important, and which could be sacrificed without detrement.

 

All we know is that the current mix is working. Im not clever enough to know why. It just works. 

 

We have a complex machine working perfectly. We need to keep it clean and oiled, not start changing its parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bannan may have more assists but he's also played a shed load more minutes, not to mention the fact that he only has 1 goal. 

 

For what it's worth i'd play Bannan and Lee in CM for a home playoff tie, and Hutch and Lee in midfield for an away tie, That means dropping Bannan to the bench and not pushing him out wide where he's awful. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stainless1983 said:

Bannan is so underrated & seems to be this seasons scapegoat. Agreed he hasn't hit the heights of last year but he hasn't always played his favoured position, he's played a large part through injury & had an ever revolving partner at the side of him.

 

Yet he still has more assists than anyone else. 

 

IMG_6263.PNG.80faa13232a1b50e4cbab9ee6c02c675.PNG

 

Hutchinson has just 1 assist in comparison & Lee has 0 assists. I know Lee has been out a while but he has still played over half the number of games as Bannan. Lee is however our 4th top

scorer despite being out injured. 

 

So yes in theory playing Bannan with Lee is more creative than Hutchinson & Lee.

 

Reach has 8 yellows, same as Hutch? When the heck did he get those?! WTF:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...