2 in midfield

[prowl]

442 is meaningless. Really it's 4 in midfield without the ball because the wingers drop back and tuck in. If the ball is wide the winger on that side stays wide, the opposite side tucks in and the whole midfield moves over. In possession the wingers go wide and forward and the fullbacks move up in support depending on which side the ball is.

 

Our problem is we don't play 442. Hutch stays too deep and becomes a third CB in effect that leaves us one short in midfield. Bannan has a tendency to be too deep.  It means we are solid in defence but lightweight in possession. We need players who can go box to box and do so. Lee is the only one who does that. Maybe Luongo will.

 

It will be interesting to see what Monk does to sort it out. I expect a few changes in personel in the next window and a complete overhaul in the closed season.

 

[spike1867]

1 hour ago, oldishowl said:

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.

 

 

This is pretty much spot on.  As I have said many times on this forum, in any midfield, but 4-4-2 in particular, its the elements of that midfield that are important.  Buzzer, floater, spreader, runner.  Oldishowl gave two examples of modern times. Both Leicester and Brighton had creativity out wide in Knockaert and Mahrez.  I prefer two examples from the 90s.  One is the best midfield I've ever seen and the other, the best Wednesday midfield I've ever seen.  Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Beckham is the best complete midfield I've ever seen live.  Sheridan, Palmer, Worthington, Wilson (or Harkes) is the best Wednesday midfield I've ever seen. Both had the playmaker, the enforcer, the box to box midfielder and the player who knitted it all together. Some of those players could fulfill multiple roles but they all chipped in with goals.

 

I'm pretty sure the buzzer, floater, spreader, runner thing came from Ferguson, so it would be no surprise that Bruce got us playing with the same elements of midfield.  For us, without Lee, it was Reach who took on the role of runner, or box to box.  There is no better example of the difference of having someone like Reach in central midfield than the win against Derby at home under Jos.  Lucas Joao scored it, but we had a bit of link up play with Rhodes, Reach received the ball, played it out wide to the left back and then, wait for it....ran forward and committed Huddlestone to come out and close him down, which left the space for Joao to take up and get the shooting opportunity. Now, if that is Bannan who receives that ball and plays it out wide to the left back, he follows his pass for the return.  Which means Huddlestone never has to come and close down a midfielder who has broken the line, and Joao has his marker AND a midfielder cutting off supply.  So whats the point in Bannan, who is a very good passer, having the ball?  He has no target, nobody has pulled anybody out of position.  The midfield is missing the element of a runner.  I love KL, but he is the floater, finds positions, drifts into the box and beyond.  Sometimes you need a balls out, run the lungs out of everyone midfielder.  A Carlton, a Kante, a Keane. 

 

I don't personally like 4-4-2, it requires two central midfielders who put their foot in.  One thing about Sheridan was that even for a playmaker, he wasn't afraid to tackle.  If we had to play 4-4-2 at the moment, I'd say we lack a nippy mobile striker to partner Fletcher ( a Vardy, or Paul Williams type) and we lack full backs who are comfortable getting forward, but the best midfield for that would be Hutchinson, Luongo/Lee, Reach and Harris.

 

As fans we want to see the best talent we have performing week in, week out.  The reality is that the balance has to be right and somebody, as good a footballer as they are, might have to miss out.  I am of course  talking about Bannan, Forestieri and maybe Murphy. 

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

4-3-3 is the way to go. We’d have beaten QPR if we’d played it in my opinion as we’d have got Harris against Rangel one on one on a regular basis. Shame Bullen was tactically awful in that game.

 

For me the only problem we are having is a lack of support for Fletcher from midfield. Hutch and Bannan are fine in the deeper roles as I suspect Luongo will be too in time. Either Reach or Lee need to really step up their game to try and support Fletch. Can’t go with two up top anyway as the options are poor. Nuhiu is too similar to Fletch, Nando is suspended for 6 games and Rhodes and Winnall are poo. In an idea world, we’d have got 5 million for these two and kept Joao but I guess beggars can’t be choosers!

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

I don't think we've ever replaced Lopez

 

In my opinion, leaving him out of the play off final for the return of Hutchinson cost us the game

[Dutch McLovin]

442 is still the best formation if played correctly.

 

IMO Hutchinson is still key to everything we do. He is the best defensive midfielder in the league. However, that is if he plays further up field as he did under Bruce. The issue we have with it as been mentioned prior is either we need one of the wide men to come in and help (this is how Bannan is played best LM with the option to drift in) but for that to happen we need strong fit and up and down full backs which we lack.

 

Maybe Hutch and Luongo in CM would actually allow is to play 2 proper wingers. Hutch and Lee and we might have to play Bannan Wide left. Bannan shouldn't play CM in a 2, if he's in a 3 he should be the attacking one.

[Animis]

1 hour ago, prowl said:

442 is meaningless. Really it's 4 in midfield without the ball because the wingers drop back and tuck in. If the ball is wide the winger on that side stays wide, the opposite side tucks in and the whole midfield moves over. In possession the wingers go wide and forward and the fullbacks move up in support depending on which side the ball is.

 

Our problem is we don't play 442. Hutch stays too deep and becomes a third CB in effect that leaves us one short in midfield. Bannan has a tendency to be too deep.  It means we are solid in defence but lightweight in possession. We need players who can go box to box and do so. Lee is the only one who does that. Maybe Luongo will.

 

It will be interesting to see what Monk does to sort it out. I expect a few changes in personel in the next window and a complete overhaul in the closed season.

 

 

I agree with this. Neither Hutch or Bannan press the key areas in midfield and offer support to the strikers. Often you see no Wednesday player within a 10 yrds circumference of the centre circle. Opposition teams have far more possession and territory in dangerous areas than we do. Mobility in this area is key for us to challenge - personnel changes are probably needed.

[gurujuan]

We never really played a classic 4-4-2 under Bruce, as Reach operated as an auxiliary midfielder. Even then, it hardly made us any more potent, and didn’t make us any more solid. Obviously we were more solid than under Jos, but that was because he got so much wrong. Carlos’s 4-4-2 had the wingers playing really narrow, often supplemented by Hooper dropping back as well. His idea was to create a box in the middle of the field, which would be difficult for the opposition to penetrate. 

I didn’t enjoy it, and you can question whether we even needed to do it, but as a tactic, it was reasonably successful For me, it seemed to be all about getting the best out of Hooper. We no longer have Hooper now.

[Quist]

You have to construct a team around the players available to you. Howard Wilkinson went with his famous 3 centre halves method because it was what best suited the players we had  It was also different and unique and that also brings you results. When we played with two in middle a couple of seasons ago we had a unique set up when it was fathomed by opposition we started to lose games. 

To play with two in middle in a traditional way one of them needs to have really good engine and also pace and one has to be able to tackle and break up play. One of these has also to be a good distributor of the ball. These qualities are all required to operate with a successful two in the middle. 

Bannan has good distribution,

Hutchinson can tackle and break up play

Lee can make telling passes and uses to have engine to do the leg work required He may still posses this.

Pelupessy is a nearly man does not quite have engine and does not quite have distribution necessary,

Luongo based on QPR has ability to break up play and has good engine and also fair distributor.

 

At a guess I would say Luongo and Lee would be our most effective pair if Lee still has running power.

 

Grant, Shaw and Waldock all look promising in reserves and with right coaching could make grade to Championship level. they have energy and physicality to cope and some skill. Refinement is required.

[gurujuan]

3 minutes ago, Quist said:

You have to construct a team around the players available to you. Howard Wilkinson went with his famous 3 centre halves method because it was what best suited the players we had  It was also different and unique and that also brings you results. When we played with two in middle a couple of seasons ago we had a unique set up when it was fathomed by opposition we started to lose games. 

To play with two in middle in a traditional way one of them needs to have really good engine and also pace and one has to be able to tackle and break up play. One of these has also to be a good distributor of the ball. These qualities are all required to operate with a successful two in the middle. 

Bannan has good distribution,

Hutchinson can tackle and break up play

Lee can make telling passes and uses to have engine to do the leg work required He may still posses this.

Pelupessy is a nearly man does not quite have engine and does not quite have distribution necessary,

Luongo based on QPR has ability to break up play and has good engine and also fair distributor.

 

At a guess I would say Luongo and Lee would be our most effective pair if Lee still has running power.

 

Grant, Shaw and Waldock all look promising in reserves and with right coaching could make grade to Championship level. they have energy and physicality to cope and some skill. Refinement is required.

I don’t know, but do the development sides play with a two, or a three in the middle It looks as if it’s three to me, but perhaps somebody who watches them can clear that up

[Animis]

10 minutes ago, Quist said:

You have to construct a team around the players available to you. Howard Wilkinson went with his famous 3 centre halves method because it was what best suited the players we had  It was also different and unique and that also brings you results. When we played with two in middle a couple of seasons ago we had a unique set up when it was fathomed by opposition we started to lose games. 

To play with two in middle in a traditional way one of them needs to have really good engine and also pace and one has to be able to tackle and break up play. One of these has also to be a good distributor of the ball. These qualities are all required to operate with a successful two in the middle. 

Bannan has good distribution,

Hutchinson can tackle and break up play

Lee can make telling passes and uses to have engine to do the leg work required He may still posses this.

Pelupessy is a nearly man does not quite have engine and does not quite have distribution necessary,

Luongo based on QPR has ability to break up play and has good engine and also fair distributor.

 

At a guess I would say Luongo and Lee would be our most effective pair if Lee still has running power.

 

Grant, Shaw and Waldock all look promising in reserves and with right coaching could make grade to Championship level. they have energy and physicality to cope and some skill. Refinement is required.

 

Why Lee and Luongo didn't come on at half time against QPR was baffling. Bannan was lucky not to have been sent off for kicking out when he was booked, and clearly on a knife-edge. We were being overrun in the centre and Hutch was dropping further into the back three - his natural position. This then carried on until QPR scored both goals and then we panic.

 

Bullen seemed to be pre-occupied with the full backs not pressing - we're talking Fox and Palmer.

 

Hopefully Monk looks at his options, the formation he wants to play and then plays the best players available, not trying to keep senior pros happy.

[York_Owl]

4 hours 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.

How many times did Bannan and Lee actually play as a central pairing?

 

15/16 Bannan played predominantly wide left albeit very narrow to help out in central midfield.  He made the Championship team of the year as a left midfielder.  Wallace was good at this too.

 

The problem with any two (especially those in our squad) is that you just get outnumbered when the opposition play a three.

 

Lampard, Gerard and now Owen speak of the 4-4-2 as one of the reasons why the national team never really cut it at the major tournaments.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49619178

[pussface]

No Carlos fan, but I think this thread goes some way to explain his reluctance to play/acquire out and out wingers. We don't have the midfield or fullbacks to utilse them.

It's why despite being a player we've been cring out for over three seasons or more, Murphy has already been dropped. It will take some changing, but when Luongo is fully integrated, that will help to change things. His signing was very important and a step in the right direction.

[York_Owl]

5 hours 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

pigs never played with a two.  they play a 3-5-2 with three central midfielders.  Norwood plays in that sort of quarter back role, Fleck left of central and Duffy right of central (Lundstrum this season).

[jonnyowl]

We played with 3 in midfield and 1 upfront and apart from Reading and Huddersfield, i didn't think we carried enough of a goal threat.

 

We switched to a two in midfield and 2 upfront against QPR and couldn't keep hold of the ball.

[Quist]

48 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

I don’t know, but do the development sides play with a two, or a three in the middle It looks as if it’s three to me, but perhaps somebody who watches them can clear that up

They play 4-3-3 but I was judging this on not what they play but energy and commitment I have seen from them.

[Blatter]

5 hours 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. 

Put him in the middle of a back three the ‘cos that’s where always like to slot in.

you then have Bannan Lee Luongo and Reach to choose from in centre mid.

[Quist]

37 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Why Lee and Luongo didn't come on at half time against QPR was baffling. Bannan was lucky not to have been sent off for kicking out when he was booked, and clearly on a knife-edge. We were being overrun in the centre and Hutch was dropping further into the back three - his natural position. This then carried on until QPR scored both goals and then we panic.

 

Bullen seemed to be pre-occupied with the full backs not pressing - we're talking Fox and Palmer.

 

Hopefully Monk looks at his options, the formation he wants to play and then plays the best players available, not trying to keep senior pros happy.

they should have started the game against that opposition. I would have played 3 in midfield and had Reach with them. I think we should have considered Odubajo on right wing as his pace would have been useful. Ask back 4 to defend.

Bullen tried to revert to a partial CC style with high pressing full backs, neither of the two playing could ever play this system. It just demonstrated his inability to do the job. The two in question did not have legs to operate as a two in midfield. I have said on many occasions Bannan is a very talented footballer but fitting him into a successful promotion winning team is very difficult. He is excellent against certain sides but a liability against others. this season we had real options in midfield first time for 3 years and we have not used them. 

[Holmowl]

5 hours 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.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Look at our two “partnerships” then wonder why the system was a disaster.

 

Look at Fletch/FF and Bannan/Hutch. Then compare to their front two and their central pair.

 

Many say that Lee and Bannan don’t work as a pair, but one is always there to work with the other.

[Holmowl]

3 hours ago, torres said:

Organise it correctly and 442 can work for us as well as any formation.

 

The theory of playing it against QPR was correct, the way the team/staff went about it in practice however, was all over place.

 

 

 

100%.

 

Put two CMs that work as a pair. Put two proper strikers that work as a pair.

[Ante's Bubbly]

4 hours 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.

 

A very good post that (and much shorter than mine), but you did that on purpose didn't you (use of the word Shortly with reference to Bazza and Lee in midfield)? The fur & feathers will fly now after that one! If you have a big strong midfielder that can boss the middle of the park, tackle and provide pinpoint balls out to the attack, you are a very lucky team aren't you. The fact is that these kinds of players are not so easy to find and lots of successful teams operate very well with small lean midfielders. I wish that we could have a really good dead ball specialist. Somebody to take good corners and free kicks.

 

As for the Bannan/Lee combo, they seem to have peaked a couple of seasons ago and while still having something to offer, right now if we did go up, we would have to get some younger, fitter replacements in there for the future. I am a big fan of Barry Bannan, but if you have to be honest about him, he is possibly not capable of producing his best football every game now, he has been having a very indifferent season so far and has never really been a consistent free kick and corner taker either, so a player in that mould would be useful, if we can bring anybody in this winter, with Luongo possibly a fairly natural replacement for Kieren Lee, who is 31 now? Having said that Lee could possibly go on for another 5 years, but you get the feeling that sooner or later all that running is going to catch up with him.  

 

I also agree with the Hutchinson and Bannan fiasco. I think this combo failed mainly because, as you say Hutch has a defenders brain and instinctively prefers to play there, while Bannan also likes to play from the back, which leaves the whole of the midfield wide open. I would prefer to see Hutchinson play in a back three, if he is going to play, or even in a back four if Tom lees is going to be out for any length of time. The running that Reach has done in that midfield spot, doing the running for Hutch and Bannan has been admirable, but for me he is wasted there and should be used where he creates the most threat to the opposition and that is on the wing. I think there was too much of a rush to get Murphy in there and we would be much better off having Reach and Harris on the wings, swapping them over every now and then to totally fry the brains and legs of the opposing fullbacks. 

 

Also regarding midfielders, I don't mind us having loads of midfielders (and I include wingers in that description), as long as some of them are natural finishers, but the only natural finisher we have in midfield is Reach, yet he has been utilised more doing the running in midfield and setting other people up who are worse finishers than he is. This leaves only Fletcher up front, who can possibly score 12 in a season, but is by no means prolific there. He works hard but misses a hell of a lot. I know this sounds a bit controversial, but I would rather see Fletcher or Nuhiu alongside one of our more natural finishers like Forestieri, Winnall, or Jordan Rhodes. We always said that Rhodes was not getting on the scoresheet regularly enough because of the lack of service, but with a target man to play off and two wingers, he may even start to get back to being the player we thought we had signed with more chances available to him. I thought he looked lively and hungry pre-season bagging a few goals and working the defence hard. The cup game against Rotherham used a strange looking eleven that had never played together before, against a very physical team that fouled Rhodes twice to stop him from scoring, which in the end gave Big Dave the chance to score. I thought there was some merit in trying out that combo again with the full backing of Reach, Harris, Bannan, Lee etc.

 

All of our tactical discussions are probably going to be blown out of the water with the new man however, as he gets to grips with the players and best formations, so lets hope he hits the ground running with a good win against Huddersfield.

 

UTO