Hutch's boro link

[NorthernOwl]

29 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

Really tho? I know we all love him for his commitment and he's a good player at this level, no question.. But from last seasons championship clubs i'd rather have mo diame..  or dale stephens.. or kevin mcdonald.. or danny williams.. or george thorne.. or the incoming lee cattermole, n'dong or huddlestone. Kayal might be on the list too, if i didn't still hate him for that body check on Nando. And there's others.. who are at worst on apar with Sam:  Tettey, Jedinak, Mulumbu, Bridcutt, Saiss, Colback, Hogg..

 

There are better players than a all of our players in this league. Infact i can only think of one wednesday player who would be in the top 5 of players in their position last season, and that's westwood.

 

we do need to be careful that we don't overrate our own player purely because they're our players.

 

Most of those players don't play the same role as Hutchinson. I mean the first player you've picked is Diame who generally plays as an attacking mid.

It seems to me that you've picked those players because you think they would be a better fit for our team. I'm not sure any are of them are better than Hutch as a pure DM which is what he does. Several of those won't be playing in the championship anyway and certainly wouldn't be the type of player we could realistically bring in.

[cookeh]

6 minutes ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

Most of those players don't play the same role as Hutchinson. I mean the first player you've picked is Diame who generally plays as an attacking mid.

It seems to me that you've picked those players because you think they would be a better fit for our team. I'm not sure any are of them are better than Hutch as a pure DM which is what he does. Several of those won't be playing in the championship anyway and certainly wouldn't be the type of player we could realistically bring in.

 

most of them aren't defensive mids? really? diame, fair. kayal.. maybe. and only 3 of the 16 will not be in the championship next season. you said "as good as you'll get at this level" yet somehow these other teams got them. ofc we wont be able to buy mcdonald now,but the point was hutch is not "as good as you'll get" at this level.

 

You also mention the point of 'better fits for the team'.. which is pretty much our squads problem. we have a lot of decent players, but no real way to play them. no obvious formation that will work with them, no real evidence of a plan to our recruitment. we have players like hutch and nando who are problems in terms of how you get them in a team. we have too many central midfielders to play two up front, and too many strikers to NOT play 2 up front. it's a mess and it needs sorting.

 

in a 442 i dont see hutch working. we can't really play 451/433 where hutch might work as we have too many strikers. 343 is probably the best fit for our personnel, but jones and bannan are probably the better two in the middle for that (tho there's no way to fit abdi/lee/nando in then).

 

we need changes this summer imo. if we just sign 4-5 new faces and don't ship some out we'll very quickly have an unhappy squad and a breach of FFP on ourhands.

[NorthernOwl]

2 minutes ago, cookeh said:

 

most of them aren't defensive mids? really? diame, fair. kayal.. maybe. and only 3 of the 16 will not be in the championship next season. you said "as good as you'll get at this level" yet somehow these other teams got them. ofc we wont be able to buy mcdonald now,but the point was hutch is not "as good as you'll get" at this level.

 

You also mention the point of 'better fits for the team'.. which is pretty much our squads problem. we have a lot of decent players, but no real way to play them. no obvious formation that will work with them, no real evidence of a plan to our recruitment. we have players like hutch and nando who are problems in terms of how you get them in a team. we have too many central midfielders to play two up front, and too many strikers to NOT play 2 up front. it's a mess and it needs sorting.

 

in a 442 i dont see hutch working. we can't really play 451/433 where hutch might work as we have too many strikers. 343 is probably the best fit for our personnel, but jones and bannan are probably the better two in the middle for that (tho there's no way to fit abdi/lee/nando in then).

 

we need changes this summer imo. if we just sign 4-5 new faces and don't ship some out we'll very quickly have an unhappy squad and a breach of FFP on ourhands.

 

I agreed with you that Hutch doesn't fit with our current style if you read my post again. My point was, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, that if you want someone to sit in front on the back 4 and provide protection Hutch does that as well as anyone at this level. With 3 in the centre of midfield he would be perfect.

 

Yes many of the players you mention could be described as defensive midfielders but with a few exceptions they are still not playing the same role as Hutch. In terms of breaking up play and protecting the back 4 I don't think any of them are better at that role. They may offer other attributes that Hutch doesn't and on that basis would probably suit us better if we insist on play a midfield 4.

 

I think it will be more than 3/16 not in the championship next season as quite a few are rumored to be on the move.

[slinger208b]

1 hour ago, cookeh said:

 

who do we not have capable cover for? we were reasonably well stocked all over the pitch last season. Left back maybe, but i still think fox is capable of coming good. we've created a hole at center back by letting sasso go.. but other than that our cover is capable of stepping up.

 

you can't just force people to stay at the club. bannan's a happy bunny right now, but if you put him on the bench for 20 games he'd be looking to leave. he wants to play first team football and has his international career to think about. you might want to rotate people out of being starting 11 players to being back ups, but they probably wont want to do that and ultimately will demand a move. so.. nice dream, but it's not realistic.

 

we currently have a pretty solid squad, but need a first choice center back, probably a back up (given that loovens and hutch will probably get injured). then we're looking at positions we can easily upgrade. right wing is an obvious one, tho it would would pretty much make it a certainty that wallace would leave at the end of the season. the other postion is defensive mid. people knock jones, but he settled in well in the 2nd half of the season and was pretty efficient. we should look for a new first choice probably, given jones' age and hutch's injuries tho. we might just hang onto both, as jones is old and seemed reasonably ok with being a rotation player this season, and hutch is probably needed at centerback. if we sign a new first choice  defensive mid and a new center back, i don't expect hutch to stick around too long tho. he's got his career back and should enjoy every game he can play. best of luck to him.

 

Did you read the post I quoted? 

 

I was asking a generic question to address the point of perceived improvement, not aimed at any particular player or position...

[cookeh]

25 minutes ago, slinger208b said:

 

Did you read the post I quoted? 

 

I was asking a generic question to address the point of perceived improvement, not aimed at any particular player or position...

 

and mine was a 'generic' answer.. using a couple of examples to highlight why your generic 'question' was flawed.

 

but mostly i kinda want to neg you for asking "did you even read" a post that i wrote.

10/10 for default forum insults, but you might want to pay more attention so you look a bit less silly.

[slinger208b]

1 hour ago, cookeh said:

 

and mine was a 'generic' answer.. using a couple of examples to highlight why your generic 'question' was flawed.

 

but mostly i kinda want to neg you for asking "did you even read" a post that i wrote.

10/10 for default forum insults, but you might want to pay more attention so you look a bit less silly.

 

Unfortunate that you should read that as an insult.

 

The lack of attention is probably due to being in Ibiza so I guess all the sangria had a major influence.

 

You asked who we didn't have adequate cover for, indicating you didn't understand the question as this alluded to an answer in the present situation. I evidently failed to notice whether or not you were the OP as it seemed inconceivable to me that the author would be totally oblivious to the content.

 

My question was one based on 'what if', in response to the post it quoted...

[cookeh]

1 hour ago, slinger208b said:

 

Unfortunate that you should read that as an insult.

 

The lack of attention is probably due to being in Ibiza so I guess all the sangria had a major influence.

 

You asked who we didn't have adequate cover for, indicating you didn't understand the question as this alluded to an answer in the present situation. I evidently failed to notice whether or not you were the OP as it seemed inconceivable to me that the author would be totally oblivious to the content.

 

My question was one based on 'what if', in response to the post it quoted...

 

 

well lets see if we can reach an understanding.

 

> My op was about how when you sign new starting 11 players, the existing  starting 11 players don't drop to the bench, then normally leave.

# You responded suggesting that we needed to improve the depth of the squad, not just the quality of the starting 11, as cover was insufficient.

> I responded asking who do we not have sufficiently good cover for? i.e. if as you suggested we should maintain an eye on improving the squad and not just the team, then which areas do you think are weak. then reiterated that if we replace first team players, like bannan (since some crazy folk seem to want rid of him anyway) he wont stay to sit on the bench, likewise for Hutch.

# You replied with "did you even read"

 

So.. feel free to clear up where the miscommunication happened, as right now i'm not sure what you're on about other than wanting to say you're in ibiza and slip in the word 'evidently' to try and sound smarter, and possibly more sober.