Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see it written on here so often that a number of our midfielders can’t play in a 2.

 

I don’t see why not. Far worse players than the likes of lee, Hutchinson and Bannan have played in a 2 at this level and performed well.

 

I think it’s more to do with the tactics rather than an inability to play as a 2. It’s just that our managers in recent times have been tactically inept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 15/16 and 16/17 we played 2 in CM. It was extremely successful. The most successful partnership was Bannan-Lee. Shortly in this thread posters will say we were too lightweight, preferring opinion to results.

 

However, four years on, and several injuries later, I think we might struggle picking only two from a Luongo, Bannan, Lee and Hutch. The latter is a real issue in a two bcos he sits in as a third CB leaving us overrun.

 

We haven’t had enough evidence this season, but the one attempt to play a two man midfield of a Bannan-Hutch was a disaster.

 

Without our current personnel I like the 433. Plus, I Love width and balance in a team, which two from Harris, Reach, FF and Murphy provides.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bigger Guns said:

I see it written on here so often that a number of our midfielders can’t play in a 2.

 

I don’t see why not. Far worse players than the likes of lee, Hutchinson and Bannan have played in a 2 at this level and performed well.

 

I think it’s more to do with the tactics rather than an inability to play as a 2. It’s just that our managers in recent times have been tactically inept.

It’s not really whether they are better, or worse, than those two, it’s whether they have the physical attributes and mobility. In a two, you need both players to be able to defend, and to get up and down the pitch. Even United, who had such a pair in Fleck and Norwood, often had to supplement them with a narrow winger, or the extra midfield player. Think Brighton were the last team to successfully operate with a two at this level, but now they’ve switched to a three

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

In 15/16 and 16/17 we played 2 in CM. It was extremely successful. The most successful partnership was Bannan-Lee. Shortly in this thread posters will say we were too lightweight, preferring opinion to results.

 

However, four years on, and several injuries later, I think we might struggle picking only two from a Luongo, Bannan, Lee and Hutch. The latter is a real issue in a two bcos he sits in as a third CB leaving us overrun.

 

We haven’t had enough evidence this season, but the one attempt to play a two man midfield of a Bannan-Hutch was a disaster.

 

Without our current personnel I like the 433. Plus, I Love width and balance in a team, which two from Harris, Reach, FF and Murphy provides.

 

Agree with a lot of what you say. Hutch dropping deep is to do with our tactics though which is kind of the point I’m making. 

 

Under Bruce we played 2 in midfield and hutch played higher up the pitch and was at times brilliant.

 

These players are capable of playing in a 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

It’s not really whether they are better, or worse, than those two, it’s whether they have the physical attributes and mobility. In a two, you need both players to be able to defend, and to get up and down the pitch. Even United, who had such a pair in Fleck and Norwood, often had to supplement them with a narrow winger, or the extra midfield player. Think Brighton were the last team to successfully operate with a two at this level, but now they’ve switched to a three

 

Fleck and Norwood have similar physical attributes to Bannan and hutch and have done it successfully as a 2 at times. You make a good point about supplementing with a narrow winger but again this is down to their tactics. The point is they have the ability to play as a 2 but for one reason or another our managers in recent times have not been able to get that out of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bigger Guns said:

 

Agree with a lot of what you say. Hutch dropping deep is to do with our tactics though which is kind of the point I’m making. 

 

Under Bruce we played 2 in midfield and hutch played higher up the pitch and was at times brilliant.

 

These players are capable of playing in a 2.

I never really saw it as a genuine 4-4-2 under Bruce, with Reach often used as one of the three in midfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I rate Hutch, in a two man midfield Luongo would be my choice for the grafter role. He's not quite as strong defensively, but he's capable of winning the ball back and then can drive us forward himself. 

 

Put him alongside Lee and that's a high pressure, high tempo midfield with lots of energy. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, domSWFC said:

As much as I rate Hutch, in a two man midfield Luongo would be my choice for the grafter role. He's not quite as strong defensively, but he's capable of winning the ball back and then can drive us forward himself. 

 

Put him alongside Lee and that's a high pressure, high tempo midfield with lots of energy. 

 

That would be my 2 at present if we were to opt for a 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the other point is, how does it benefit for us to switch to a two? Ideally, you do it to allow the team to operate with a second striker, as we did with Hooper. Hooper then became link between midfield, and the main striker. Who do we have who can operate in this role? Perhaps Forestieri, but I’m not convinced he would do it, and he isn’t available for a while anyway. 

Nuhiu, Rhodes and Winnall, are either completely wrong, or not good enough 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A two man midfield needs a hard working striker who can hold the ball up as well as wide men who can also defend.

 

Currently we aren't holding it up and the ball is just coming straight back at us putting us on the back foot with wide open spaces.

 

As for Bannan, I just hope Monk can find a way of including him because at the moment he seems more of a limiting factor and his skills a luxury we can't afford. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, northeastowl said:

IMO we can’t play with a two because when fit the two picked are always Bannan and Hutch and both of them get a nose bleed if they go in the oppositions half. If we are to play a two then Luongo or Lee have to play. 

 

I personally think the big problem with playing a 2 is Bannan. No presence, strength or tackling ability. Don’t get me wrong he’s got his strengths however it’s like playing with 1 in midfield. 

 

You think the problem in a two is Bannan? Have you seen the position Hutch takes up, between the two CBs? He is often the last man!

 

Do you think Luongo or Lee could succeed as 1 in CM?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

You think the problem in a two is Bannan? Have you seen the position Hutch takes up, between the two CBs? He is often the last man!

 

Do you think Luongo or Lee could succeed as 1 in CM?

 

Hutchinson's tendency to drop deep was there for all to see against QPR last week. His average position (23) was practically the same as Iorfa's (27), which is far from ideal.

 

638876989_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_13.png.01854661055fb3a01480480be6d002cb.png

 

Compare how deep our midfield are to QPR's, and the issue becomes even more stark:

 

1136692981_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_03.png.302f94e3e077db9893638dc87c4fc58d.png

 

Six of their players' average positions were in our half, compared to our three.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Hutchinson's tendency to drop deep was there for all to see against QPR last week. His average position (23) was practically the same as Iorfa's (27), which is far from ideal.

 

638876989_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_13.png.01854661055fb3a01480480be6d002cb.png

 

Compare how deep our midfield are to QPR's, and the issue becomes even more stark:

 

1136692981_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_03.png.302f94e3e077db9893638dc87c4fc58d.png

 

Six of their players' average positions were in our half, compared to our three.

Great info. ( Once I'd worked it out) 

Is it likely that our 23 & 27 were marking their 9 & 21?

Next time can you do us in blue please.lol

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are lots of variations on 442 but if you mean a proper 442 with two wingers and two strikers then the answer is no, although having Luongo would give us more of a chance.

 

Ironically Monk played 442 last season at Birmingham with two from Klieftenfeld, Davis or Gary Gardner

 

Brighton got promoted with a two of Dale Stephens and Kayal

Leicester won the Premier League with a two of Drinkwater and

Kante

 

All the midfielders are runners who  get up and down the pitch and can tackle but can play just enough as well.

We just don’t have two who are physical enough or play that way.

 

If you play wide players like Bannan and Ross Wallace like Carlos did then you have more of a chance because they come inside to help all the time but then you lose pace going forward.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They clearly can play in a central 2. Bruce lost 3 games playing 2 central players last season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Hutchinson's tendency to drop deep was there for all to see against QPR last week. His average position (23) was practically the same as Iorfa's (27), which is far from ideal.

 

638876989_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_13.png.01854661055fb3a01480480be6d002cb.png

 

Compare how deep our midfield are to QPR's, and the issue becomes even more stark:

 

1136692981_ScreenShot2019-09-09at08_50_03.png.302f94e3e077db9893638dc87c4fc58d.png

 

Six of their players' average positions were in our half, compared to our three.

 

That’s a great picture.

To me the key thing it shows is how compact they are in the middle of the pitch which allows them to dominate it.

Their 12, 10 and 19 are almost on top of each other in the centre where the battles need to be won and is why they picked up every loose ball.

 

Also shows the value of 352 as they still have two strikers up the pitch.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again though, you would only sacrifice a man in midfield, if you could bring in another striker who could make a difference We don’t have such a player 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crying out for 3-5-2.

 

Westwood

 

borner, hutch, lees at back

 

reach, bannan, lee, luongo, Harris.

 

fletcher Rhodes.

 

Subs from

dawson

iorfa

odubajo

palmer

fox

thorniley

pelupessy

nando

nuhiu

murphy

winnal

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can work, but not consistently. There are games when we're brushed aside lacking physical presence in the middle and concede too much possession. I didn't like Bullen's strategy based on counter-attacking. I don't think it's wise to limit ourselves in that way. If we're to improve, we must keep the ball better with more incision when we have it. We're a 40-60% possession side. The stronger teams are 50-70% and more potent. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...