Will he drop his favorite CM?

[Spuddy01]

8 hours ago, Indoor Owl said:

 

Could you expand on this?

 

First I've heard of Hutch at RB.

 

Actually, speaking of controversial opinions, one thing I was thinking of is Lee back on his former position at right back:

 

Pace, work rate, and offensive ability.  I'm not anxious to see Hunt out there again anytime soon

I remember seeing something on sky a couple of year ago and they were talking about a future England team and they had Hutch at RB! He was still at Chelsea when it was on.

[Elvin Parsnip]

10 hours ago, Blue and white said:

When they are all fit we will see Bannan, Hutchinson and Lee all in the midfield. It's so so predictable.

 

Yep, with Bannan on the wing and a winger at left back.

[frastheowl]

 

It's been a problem for the past two seasons. And many of us have said it, time and time again.

 

Individually, Hutchinson is great. Fantastic player, who if he didn't have his injury problems would be a Premier League player. No doubt about that.

 

But he creates more problems that he solves when he's in midfield. 

 

Yes, he looks great when he's haring about flying into tackles, making those tackles. But he effectively leaves us playing with one in midfield, because he sits so bloody deep.

 

As a result, he doesn't see enough of the ball in areas that matter, and time and time again, we lose the midfield battle. I have never known, a side lose as many midfields as we do. It's an area of the pitch we just cannot control on a regular basis. And the main reason for that, is Hutchinson ridiculously deep positioning.

 

I've stated it in a thread already, but Hutchinson can solve our centre half problems. It'll suit him, and it'll suit us. He'll see more of the ball, and have more time on the ball, which will allow him to bring it out and play the football he can do. And it'll allow him to play more games. And most importantly, it'll mean we can focus bringing in a genuine all-round midfielder who can effectively play in a 4-4-2, instead shoe horning a bunch of specialist midfielders into our current abomination of a setup. At the moment, only Jones & Lee are complete enough to play in a 4-4-2. I'd look to bring in someone who can replace Jones. 

[Davetherave]

How come Lee recovered to play a few games at the end of last season

but is out at the start of this.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

10 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

It's been a problem for the past two seasons. And many of us have said it, time and time again.

 

Individually, Hutchinson is great. Fantastic player, who if he didn't have his injury problems would be a Premier League player. No doubt about that.

 

But he creates more problems that he solves when he's in midfield. 

 

Yes, he looks great when he's haring about flying into tackles, making those tackles. But he effectively leaves us playing with one in midfield, because he sits so bloody deep.

 

As a result, he doesn't see enough of the ball in areas that matter, and time and time again, we lose the midfield battle. I have never known, a side lose as many midfields as we do. It's an area of the pitch we just cannot control on a regular basis. And the main reason for that, is Hutchinson ridiculously deep positioning.

 

I've stated it in a thread already, but Hutchinson can solve our centre half problems. It'll suit him, and it'll suit us. He'll see more of the ball, and have more time on the ball, which will allow him to bring it out and play the football he can do. And it'll allow him to play more games. And most importantly, it'll mean we can focus bringing in a genuine all-round midfielder who can effectively play in a 4-4-2, instead shoe horning a bunch of specialist midfielders into our current abomination of a setup. At the moment, only Jones & Lee are complete enough to play in a 4-4-2. I'd look to bring in someone who can replace Jones. 

 

Sorry pal, I like your posts and all that, but you've got it wrong. 

 

You're blaming a player who does the job he's supposed to do (very well!) and completely ignoring the wee Scottish lad next to him who doesn't do his job properly. 

 

Bannan's the one who plays too deep. And he doesn't do it because he has to, he does it because it's the easy option. 

 

Carlos should sit him down and show him how Kieran Lee plays that role. See if he can learn a bit and stop hampering the team.

[frastheowl]

Just now, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Sorry pal, I like your posts and all that, but you've got it wrong. 

 

You're blaming a player who does the job he's supposed to do (very well!) and completely ignoring the wee Scottish lad next to him who doesn't do his job properly. 

 

Bannan's the one who plays too deep. And he doesn't do it because he has to, he does it because it's the easy option. 

 

Carlos should sit him down and show him how Kieran Lee plays that role. See if he can learn a bit and stop hampering the team.

 

I don't disagree with that one bit. 

 

Bannan is part of the problem, and I've said, I wouldn't play Bannan in a two man midfield either. And I agree it's because he takes the easy option. Bannan's best and most effective play, comes about when he gets the ball and drives forward with it. But you can't deny Hutchinson isn't part of that issue either.

 

When Lee plays alongside Hutchinson, we get away with it to an extent, because of how energetic and busy Lee is. But we still don't dominate a midfield...we just neutralise the problem a tad. Which is why, from here on in, it's got to be Jones-Lee, unless we bring someone else in OR change to a three man midfield.

 

The fact remains, when Hutchinson plays, we are at a disadvantage numbers wise in midfield. Which, when you consider, we often line up against three man midfielders, means that we are often left with a 3 vs 1 in there. It's totally ineffective. 

 

Hutchinson would be one of the best central midfielders in the Championship, at the base of a three. But as a two, I'm sorry, he causes far more problems than he solves. 

[elyowl1]

16 minutes ago, Davetherave said:

How come Lee recovered to play a few games at the end of last season

but is out at the start of this.

He was still injured and should never have been played .

 

We played the second leg against Huddersfield with a walking wounded team and Lee is still paying the price for coming back to soon. 

[Maltby owl83]

After watching the short highlights on YouTube, midfield is the problem without a doubt. Preston walked through our midfield as though they weren't there. It seems as though Carlos doesn't know how to set the midfield up any different than Bannan and Hutchinson sitting deep. It's just not dynamic enough as it is, only Lee offers us that. But even then whoever he plays with is Sat on our CB's toes. He has put too many restrictions on the midfield and won't change it. 

[IstillhateSteveBould]

18 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

I don't disagree with that one bit. 

 

Bannan is part of the problem, and I've said, I wouldn't play Bannan in a two man midfield either. And I agree it's because he takes the easy option. Bannan's best and most effective play, comes about when he gets the ball and drives forward with it. But you can't deny Hutchinson isn't part of that issue either.

 

When Lee plays alongside Hutchinson, we get away with it to an extent, because of how energetic and busy Lee is. But we still don't dominate a midfield...we just neutralise the problem a tad. Which is why, from here on in, it's got to be Jones-Lee, unless we bring someone else in OR change to a three man midfield.

 

The fact remains, when Hutchinson plays, we are at a disadvantage numbers wise in midfield. Which, when you consider, we often line up against three man midfielders, means that we are often left with a 3 vs 1 in there. It's totally ineffective. 

 

Hutchinson would be one of the best central midfielders in the Championship, at the base of a three. But as a two, I'm sorry, he causes far more problems than he solves. 

 

That's the answer in bold imo.

 

I would normally agree that playing with a midfielder as limited as Hutch (in an attacking sense) in a 442, is a problem. But we don't play a conventional 442. We push our fullbacks on, so 1 of our midfielders HAS to sit and they have be defensively sound. 

 

If we played with 2 conventional midfielders who both have to contribute attacking wise, while also expecting our fullbacks to bomb on, we'd get mullered. 

 

There has to be a balance and unless Carlos starts using his fullbacks differently, Hutch is by far the best option. 

 

In our system, the other midfielder has a really tough role. Lee (bless him) is an absolute machine and does it incredibly well. Bannan in that role hampers us massively. 

[MaxSW3]

Hutchinson is too defensive minded and doesn't move up the field much when he has the ball which is why the build up play is so slow.

[Maltby owl83]

That's the issue, our full backs are bombing on so Hutch has to sit, leaving us with 1CM going forward, we really need to change the system if he wants to play like that because 4-4-2 doesn't accommodate it. He has to change to   4-1-2-3 or a 5-3-2 if he wants to use attacking full backs.

[rob1601]

Without Hutchinson in the midfield we get bullied. Bannan and Lee aren't the type of player to bully other teams. Hutchinson also communicates with teammates, we are too nice and quiet. Bannan does not score enough goals so for me as soon as Lee is fit he gets left out as does Reach. Not convinced Abdi will do anything for us yet. He has shown nothing yet for various reasons. Forestieri should not be in a front two. Get him on the wing whether it is in a 4-3-3 or 4-4-2. Hooper with Rhodes or Fletcher up top. Get back to the fitness and work rate of the first season and we will be up there

[DobbinTheDonkey]

If you take Hutch out Bannan will be the one dropping in next to the centrehalves like he did last season. You can blame the player as much as you want, when Jones is in there he does the same. So if every player does, it tells me it's the system and the players are sticking to orders.

 

It's like when Westwood smashes one forward as soon as possible, it's orders no matter how many oppositions players are around the usual lone player. If it wasn't orders someone would have told him,

"Look Nando has 2 or 3 players around him, it's going to be difficult for him, have a look first." But it still continues....

Edited August 6, 2017 by DobbinTheDonkey

[frastheowl]

11 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

That's the answer in bold imo.

 

I would normally agree that playing with a midfielder as limited as Hutch (in an attacking sense) in a 442, is a problem. But we don't play a conventional 442. We push our fullbacks on, so 1 of our midfielders HAS to sit and they have be defensively sound. 

 

If we played with 2 conventional midfielders who both have to contribute attacking wise, while also expecting our fullbacks to bomb on, we'd get mullered. 

 

There has to be a balance and unless Carlos starts using his fullbacks differently, Hutch is by far the best option. 

 

In our system, the other midfielder has a really tough role. Lee (bless him) is an absolute machine and does it incredibly well. Bannan in that role hampers us massively. 

 

But, I'd be strongly against opting to a 3 man midfield, if the compromise was opting for a lone striker. To play only one striker, considering our options in that department would be a monumental waste.

 

Personally, as we don't play with wingers anyway, I'd opt for a 4-4-2 narrow diamond. That way, Hutchinson can play at the base, Bannan can play alongside another midfielder, and then it allows either a FF or Abdi to play in the hole, behind Hooper and either Fletcher or Rhodes. And that system naturally allows our full backs to attack like Carlos wants them to. 

 

But, as it stands, if we are to continue to play this version of a 4-4-2, they have to address this issue in central midfield. And you cannot allow a central midfielder to just sit deep and protect like Hutchinson does. 

[Lord Snooty]

 

Catch 22

 

He can pick whoever he wants in midfield.

Well still be outnumbered every single week. 

Doesn't matter which combination it is, they'll spend 90 Minutes lurking about deep in our own half sh!tting themselves about being caught out of position if they make a forward run.

 

 

We could match teams systems. 

Except.......that's right.weve spent  £10m on a marquee signing that can't play the lone front role and needs a strike partner to get the best out of him. 

 

 

Ah ha! Shouts someone from the crowd.

Let's play 3-5-2 then we can match the oppositions 3 man midfield allowing us to have a creative runner to break the line AND play our top signing with a strike partner!!

 

It's a good shout...

 

Except for the fact .....we haven't got three centres halves.  

 

It's so glaring a f*cking up that I refuse to belive that a professional club has let themselves  be cornered into one viable tactic.

 

I'm sure Barry Allen has been messing with the time line again. ..because 18 months ago we were a simple tinkering away from being a side ready to challenge. We spunked more on fees and wages and look even more tactically boxed in that before.  

Edited August 6, 2017 by Lord Snooty

[oldishowl]

Another thread aimed at blaming someone else for Bannan's shortcomings.

 

Hutch is limited as a midfielder.

When the system we try to play works he is the best option we have to play the defensive midfield role. He is the best at sitting and covering across the pitch when the full backs get forward .He also gives us a bit of height.

 

The overall problem is the system ain't working. Teams playing 433 against us have both wide players and 3 central midfielders. This stops the full backs getting forward and because we are outnumbered in midfield we don't get enough of the ball so get pinned back.

 

Yesterday at the start of the game Bannan was very advanced in midfield, by the end he was so deep he disappeared. Partly his shortcomings and partly the fault of the system 

 

 

[flo]

56 minutes ago, elyowl1 said:

He was still injured and should never have been played .

 

We played the second leg against Huddersfield with a walking wounded team and Lee is still paying the price for coming back to soon. 

So you think we shouldn't of played him and probably not get the play offs. 

[Maltby owl83]

27 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

But, I'd be strongly against opting to a 3 man midfield, if the compromise was opting for a lone striker. To play only one striker, considering our options in that department would be a monumental waste.

 

Personally, as we don't play with wingers anyway, I'd opt for a 4-4-2 narrow diamond. That way, Hutchinson can play at the base, Bannan can play alongside another midfielder, and then it allows either a FF or Abdi to play in the hole, behind Hooper and either Fletcher or Rhodes. And that system naturally allows our full backs to attack like Carlos wants them to. 

 

But, as it stands, if we are to continue to play this version of a 4-4-2, they have to address this issue in central midfield. And you cannot allow a central midfielder to just sit deep and protect like Hutchinson does. 

But it wouldn't be a 1 up front. 

4-1-2-3 = FF on the left, Fletcher in the middle, Winall on the right of a front 3. Or 5-3-2 I'd start with Hooper and Rhodes up top.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

27 minutes ago, frastheowl said:

 

But, I'd be strongly against opting to a 3 man midfield, if the compromise was opting for a lone striker. To play only one striker, considering our options in that department would be a monumental waste.

 

Personally, as we don't play with wingers anyway, I'd opt for a 4-4-2 narrow diamond. That way, Hutchinson can play at the base, Bannan can play alongside another midfielder, and then it allows either a FF or Abdi to play in the hole, behind Hooper and either Fletcher or Rhodes. And that system naturally allows our full backs to attack like Carlos wants them to. 

 

But, as it stands, if we are to continue to play this version of a 4-4-2, they have to address this issue in central midfield. And you cannot allow a central midfielder to just sit deep and protect like Hutchinson does. 

 

But then we're trying to accommodate 2 strikers in systems that don't suit the rest of the squad.

 

We've un-workable up signing so many strikers.  Most of which are pretty similar and one paced. It's ridiculous. We don't need so many.

 

And playing with 1 lone central striker is far from being negative. You give yourself a better platform to build attacks and aren't asking as much from your fullbacks.

[elyowl1]

4 minutes ago, flo said:

So you think we shouldn't of played him and probably not get the play offs. 

No we shouldn't have played him it does no good to any player rushing them back from injury or is his long term fitness not a concern for you and we may have made the playoffs anyway your just assuming we wouldn't have. 

 

There are countless ex pro sportsmen struggling with their health because they have been rushed back to playing whichever sport because they have not had injuries effectively dealt with , I'm sure it's fine that Kieron may need a replacement hip surgery in the future just so we get in the playoffs obviously worse case scenario but I'm sure you get the point.