So no wingers needed

[Holmowl]

19 minutes ago, Southie_Owl said:

 

What do you think will be our best CM pairing?  We seem to have some great midfielders but it seems strange there's no obvious pairing in my mind 

 

Bannan & Lee = too weak?

Hutch & Lee = not enough creativity?

Hutch & Bannan = too deep?

Etc etc 

 

Im starting to think Hutch & Abdi would be good, but then you lose the control of Bannan and the work rate of Lee! 

 

Hopefully someone else has a better solution than I can come up with 

 

Here I am in a tiny minority. For me it's Bannan and Lee. 

 

Happy to explain, though I know my view is hardly shared on here.

 

First, there's the stats. Our results over the past two seasons with Lee-Bannan compare favourably with any other pairing.

 

Then, they complement each other and play as a genuine pair. With the ball they are joined by a two metre long elastic. The one with the ball always has his mate close at hand to pass to and from. Without the ball they are a pair of terriers. Neither are strong tacklers, but they put in three times as many nipping tackles and blocks as Jones or Hutch, so quantity not quality I suppose. Together they play higher up the field than when either Jones or Hutch plays. With Wallace on one side and the recently announced FF on the other they hound oppos high up the field like a pack of attack dogs. We win the ball back much higher and much quicker, then break wide and at pace.

 

That said, torryowl came up with an excellent post mid-season. His point was that provided we play a balanced team, with two proper CMs, two proper wingers, and two proper strikers, then because of the quality of our squad we can't really go wrong. So take a look at that six game run. Jones played in 4, and a half-fit Lee in two. We played Wallace and Reach. We played two from Hoops, Fletch and Tintin. It worked like a dream. Or should I say, like a team.

 

The one player I haven't mentioned is Abdi, and that is because it would be pure guesswork. Played wide, he and we were frankly lousy, but as a CM in a two I have no clue. We hardly saw it. Forest away he was imperious. Rotherham ( yes I know, Rotherham) at home he was really growing into it and beginning to pull every string. But he also had ineffective games as CM. As a guess, yes he could partner Jones or Lee, but not Bannan, and not Hutch who plays way too deep and would leave Abdi stranded.

 

Wow, I do go on.

 

 

[Southie_Owl]

16 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Here I am in a tiny minority. For me it's Bannan and Lee. 

 

Happy to explain, though I know my view is hardly shared on here.

 

First, there's the stats. Our results over the past two seasons with Lee-Bannan compare favourably with any other pairing.

 

Then, they complement each other and play as a genuine pair. With the ball they are joined by a two metre long elastic. The one with the ball always has his mate close at hand to pass to and from. Without the ball they are a pair of terriers. Neither are strong tacklers, but they put in three times as many nipping tackles and blocks as Jones or Hutch, so quantity not quality I suppose. Together they play higher up the field than when either Jones or Hutch plays. With Wallace on one side and the recently announced FF on the other they hound oppos high up the field like a pack of attack dogs. We win the ball back much higher and much quicker, then break wide and at pace.

 

That said, torryowl came up with an excellent post mid-season. His point was that provided we play a balanced team, with two proper CMs, two proper wingers, and two proper strikers, then because of the quality of our squad we can't really go wrong. So take a look at that six game run. Jones played in 4, and a half-fit Lee in two. We played Wallace and Reach. We played two from Hoops, Fletch and Tintin. It worked like a dream. Or should I say, like a team.

 

The one player I haven't mentioned is Abdi, and that is because it would be pure guesswork. Played wide, he and we were frankly lousy, but as a CM in a two I have no clue. We hardly saw it. Forest away he was imperious. Rotherham ( yes I know, Rotherham) at home he was really growing into it and beginning to pull every string. But he also had ineffective games as CM. As a guess, yes he could partner Jones or Lee, but not Bannan, and not Hutch who plays way too deep and would leave Abdi stranded.

 

Wow, I do go on.

 

 

 

Yes you do go on but it's not an easy answer!

 

i feel in history of football the successful teams tend to have a settled side and don't chop and change their players much  but it seems it's something we will do. Lets hope it will be successful 

 

i suppose if we sign a big strong centre back to sit behind Lee and Bannan it may not matter so much that they aren't a physically strong pairing, as you say they are hardworking and like to get in opposition faces 

[Animis]

20 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

Here I am in a tiny minority. For me it's Bannan and Lee. 

 

Happy to explain, though I know my view is hardly shared on here.

 

First, there's the stats. Our results over the past two seasons with Lee-Bannan compare favourably with any other pairing.

 

Then, they complement each other and play as a genuine pair. With the ball they are joined by a two metre long elastic. The one with the ball always has his mate close at hand to pass to and from. Without the ball they are a pair of terriers. Neither are strong tacklers, but they put in three times as many nipping tackles and blocks as Jones or Hutch, so quantity not quality I suppose. Together they play higher up the field than when either Jones or Hutch plays. With Wallace on one side and the recently announced FF on the other they hound oppos high up the field like a pack of attack dogs. We win the ball back much higher and much quicker, then break wide and at pace.

 

That said, torryowl came up with an excellent post mid-season. His point was that provided we play a balanced team, with two proper CMs, two proper wingers, and two proper strikers, then because of the quality of our squad we can't really go wrong. So take a look at that six game run. Jones played in 4, and a half-fit Lee in two. We played Wallace and Reach. We played two from Hoops, Fletch and Tintin. It worked like a dream. Or should I say, like a team.

 

The one player I haven't mentioned is Abdi, and that is because it would be pure guesswork. Played wide, he and we were frankly lousy, but as a CM in a two I have no clue. We hardly saw it. Forest away he was imperious. Rotherham ( yes I know, Rotherham) at home he was really growing into it and beginning to pull every string. But he also had ineffective games as CM. As a guess, yes he could partner Jones or Lee, but not Bannan, and not Hutch who plays way too deep and would leave Abdi stranded.

 

Wow, I do go on.

 

 

 

As things stand it has to be Bannan & Lee. This assumes CC doesn't bring anyone else in which IMO will be a mistake as we've needed a strong, physical and dominant CM player since the Hull final. Jones was brought in who is simply a continuation of the type of players we already had. Whilst he did play in 4 of the 6-win run as you say, he wouldn't be the majorities choice in the CH so it proves stats are not always the way to look at things.

[Holmowl]

Just now, Animis said:

 

As things stand it has to be Bannan & Lee. This assumes CC doesn't bring anyone else in which IMO will be a mistake as we've needed a strong, physical and dominant CM player since the Hull final. Jones was brought in who is simply a continuation of the type of players we already had. Whilst he did play in 4 of the 6-win run as you say, he wouldn't be the majorities choice in the CH so it proves stats are not always the way to look at things.

 

I think almost no-one would have Jones-Bannan as our first pairing. 

 

And yet, as you say, four in four. It shows, imo, that balance is the key.

[Animis]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

 

I think almost no-one would have Jones-Bannan as our first pairing. 

 

And yet, as you say, four in four. It shows, imo, that balance is the key.

 

Balance is the key and OT sort of implies how CC looks at balance in that i don't think we'll have true wingers in the team. Boyd and Reach will be the 'wide' midfielders who will be expected to protect and support say Bannan/Abdi and Lee in the CM positions. 

 

Whether this will work will ultimately be retrospectively shown in the stats.

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Balance is the key and OT sort of implies how CC looks at balance in that i don't think we'll have true wingers in the team. Boyd and Reach will be the 'wide' midfielders who will be expected to protect and support say Bannan/Abdi and Lee in the CM positions. 

 

Whether this will work will ultimately be retrospectively shown in the stats.

 

When I refer to proper wingers I don't mean the Lee Sharp, Raheem Sterling, Marwood type wingers, stood on the white lines. I'm more than happy with wide attacking midfielders like Wallace, Boyd, Reach and FF. 

 

Its just compromise wide players like Lee, Bannan and Abdi that I cant abide. We lose all shape and threat.

[Guest]

I think everyone that watches us regularly has said in the past that Fessi should play wide left rather than centrally, it's just another debate/headache for CC amongst many others with the size of this squad

 

When you look at the squad , talk about some of the options CC already has at his disposal it's hardly surprising we're not doin much in the transfer market

 

It's 100% about CC finding the correct balance, my head hurts just looking at the options in central midfield 

[Animis]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

 

When I refer to proper wingers I don't mean the Lee Sharp, Raheem Sterling, Marwood type wingers, stood on the white lines. I'm more than happy with wide attacking midfielders like Wallace, Boyd, Reach and FF. 

 

Its just compromise wide players like Lee, Bannan and Abdi that I cant abide. We lose all shape and threat.

 

And I agree with you. My only issue is that due to the lack of someone dominant in the middle, the 'wide' men often have to concentrate on protecting the middle rather than supporting the attackers.

[Stevelknievel]

As long as FF is happy to do this because as we know a happy FF is a better player.

 

I know some will say it's not up to him and he should play where he's told to play (tough love and all that), but FF genuinely seems to want to play to his best every game and if it's not working his head can drop and last season he seemed to think being in the front two was where he should/wanted to be.

 

Hopefully CC has convinced him left is best because having FF fully firing, on the left with Rhodes/Hopper etc up front would be great. 

[IstillhateSteveBould]

FF's best performances (apart from the Norwich game), were up top. He was our best forward last season.

 

Closely followed by Fletcher.

 

Yet no one wants to see our 2 most productive forwards playing there. 

 

Neither Rhodes, Hooper or Winnall did enough to deserve to start ahead of those 2 at this point.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if it's Boyd left, Wallace right and FF/Fletcher up top against Preston. 

[owlandished]

To re-cap, and taking Carlos at his word that we'll be playing 442:

 

We have an abundance of wide players in the squad, 9 able to fill 4 positions

 

Hunt

Palmer

Wallace

Boyd

Matias

Pudil

Fox

Reach

Forestieri

 

Front 2 can be filled by any of these 7 (plus there is potentially Hirst):

 

Nuhiu

Joao

Rhodes 

Hooper

Fletcher

Winnall

Forestieri

 

Then we start to decrease the numbers whilst keeping the quality; central midfield has 2 positions to be filled by these 5

 

Lee

Bannan

Hutchinson

Jones

Abdi

 

But for central defence, we really look stretched: 2 out of these 4

 

Lees

Loovens

Hutchinson

er, Pudil

 

Which I guess is why Carlos is stating that we also need 2 new centre backs 

Edited July 15, 2017 by owlandished

[Animis]

7 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

FF's best performances (apart from the Norwich game), were up top. He was our best forward last season.

 

Closely followed by Fletcher.

 

Yet no one wants to see our 2 most productive forwards playing there. 

 

Neither Rhodes, Hooper or Winnall did enough to deserve to start ahead of those 2 at this point.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if it's Boyd left, Wallace right and FF/Fletcher up top against Preston. 

 

Has Boyd ever played on the left? 

[Suzuki_San]

8 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

Wouldnt be surprised if it's Boyd left, Wallace right and FF/Fletcher up top against Preston. 

 

"...Carvalhal said: “We have Ross (Wallace) and (George) Boyd on the right..."

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/versatility-of-forestieri-can-give-sheffield-wednesday-welcome-options-1-8651166

[Suzuki_San]

FWIW, I think it'll be FF left, Boyd right, Rhodes & Hooper up top.    

[Holmowl]

6 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Has Boyd ever played on the left? 

 

Roughly 60% RW, 40% LW.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

2 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Has Boyd ever played on the left? 

 

Nowhere near as often as he's played on the right but yes. 

 

Carlos has played all his wide players on both wings at some point. Doubt Boyd will be any different.

[Animis]

2 minutes ago, Suzuki_San said:

FWIW, I think it'll be FF left, Boyd right, Rhodes & Hooper up top.    

 

That would be the attacking option, as opposed to Reach. You would either play Reach or Pudil/Fox at LB based on how attacking CC wants to be.

 

The alternative is playing a back 3 and midfield 5 with three central midfielders with say Reach the wide left of these and FF wide of him.

[Animis]

4 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Nowhere near as often as he's played on the right but yes. 

 

Carlos has played all his wide players on both wings at some point. Doubt Boyd will be any different.

 

Possibly - I don't necessarily have a problem with this approach but it becomes a bit predictable in that they tend to check and cut in to cross/pass or attack, which doesn't test the opposites fully IMO, and sometimes slows our already slow build up play.

[theowlsman]

2 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

Im pleased too.

 

We have started poorly each of Carlos's two seasons. Chopping and changing and finding formations and players.

 

If the season could start with the current squad, plus one CB, I would be very happy.

 

I'd probably go with the 2 CBs Carlos has mentioned but otherwise the same here. Left back position should be ok with Pudil, Reach and Fox. Hunt, Palmer, and Lee if necessary at RB. I wouldn't say no to Snodgrass if absolutely pushed though. I'd reluctantly accept him and his free kicks if I must 

[Ash77]

We have plenty of wide midfielders but no proper wingers imo.

 

Ff our only starting pacy attacking player who can run at or past defenders, is more a no10 and will probably be top scorer again.

 

We need at least 1 pacy proper winger who can create chances and get it in the box regularly, maybe a young prem find on loan. cc doesnt seem to think such players are of much use tho

 

We'll hopefully continue to be good defensively but will probably continue to play in front of teams rather than stretching teams, getting behind teams and scoring enough goals, due to lack of pace in the side.