Jump to content

De Sart - Signed on loan


David

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply
18 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

My one major worry over Johnson still remains that I'm not convinced he can retain possession well enough for the style of football we want to try to play to be a first choice midfielder. I believe this becomes more of a problem the further forward he plays because of having less time on the ball. And it doesn't surprise me that McClaren is looking at bringing in a CDM who is very comfortable on the ball in De Sart as well as looking to bring in a more attacking midfielder like Lansbury.

With that said I do like Johnson and I'm more than will to have an open mind at being tried further forward. Either way I think he will be a real asset to squad going forward, even if we bring in a couple new faces.

Same boat, but you'd just have to go into it thinking that Hughes and De Sart would provide our midfield with enough football to be able to just let Johnson try and do a Hull 4-0 again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, McLovin said:

I'm like you Brady, I'm not a fan of playing Johnson further up. The only reason I think McClaren would possibly like to play him higher up is due to his pressing? We currently don't have any midfielders who can win the ball high up the pitch consistently. 

I'm not convinced he has the engine to do that does he ? Not in the sense of the very aggressive high pressing McClaren employed in his previous tenure. On midfielders winning the ball high up the pitch, I'd say Hughes does a reasonable job of this and Bryson (when he's on top form), whilst he doesn't win many tackles certainly pressures the opposition into mistakes if given the license to press high up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cannable said:

Same boat, but you'd just have to go into it thinking that Hughes and De Sart would provide our midfield with enough football to be able to just let Johnson try and do a Hull 4-0 again.

Yeah that's a valid counter argument and he certainly played well in attacking role against Hull that day. The 4-2(?) sticks out as another good performance in an attacking role from him as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Yeah that's a valid counter argument and he certainly played well in attacking role against Hull that day. The 4-2(?) sticks out as another good performance in an attacking role from him as well.

I think he only actually made 20 passes against Hull. 

Just have him as the running power. Just give him little footballing responsibility and see how it's going after a few games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Could well be a case of not wanting to have to rush Thorne back and rely on a play who hasn't played in 6 months coming back firing. I suspect there is a small element of McClaren learning his lesson after what happened at the back end of 14/15.

Don't think Thorne will be back all season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johnson has done a good job in there over the last couple of months, but for me I agree with those stating he is just not tidy enough on the ball. When it comes to him in tight areas, he often gets caught on the ball. He is a big strong lad who wins his headers and tackles, but is unable to dictate the pace of a game, which I think McClaren is looking for in that role. Thorne completely controls the tempo of a game in there and I think that is what we are looking for long term and need.

My issue with the midfield (except Hughes) is that we are too much sideways and backwards and this results in the lack of chances created. Thorne constantly broke the lines with his passes and Hendrick was always positive minded also. Butterfield has the ability in my opinion, but needs to take more risks and look to play forward more and in their half of the pitch. Lansbury for me would be a good addition as will add more of an attacking mindset from midfield.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This just gives us more depth which is good. Johnson can play lb if we're really desperate for a game or two. Also he can play dm or further up. A better option than Bryson is to be honest. At least this lad can get on the ball and play. If Johnson gets injured, suspended or out of form we have a replacement. Good signing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cannable said:

I think he only actually made 20 passes against Hull. 

Just have him as the running power. Just give him little footballing responsibility and see how it's going after a few games.

Actually thinking about it could in a roundabout fashion solve a problem we are having currently in that (and this opinion will probably prove unpopular) Johnson is hampering our ability to attack the opposition. As we are currently playing Johnson as the CDM it requires both Hughes and Butterfield to come deep for the ball to try to instigate moves, this means that they can't take up attacking positions further up field and try and exploit pockets of space. Now how much of this down to Johnson and how much of it's down to we can't rely on the CF to hold the ball up and allow the midfielders to gamble on runs forward as much, I don't know. I suspect both are contributing. I will add that I believe that Johnson has more than compensated for this with his defensive ability.  

By putting more of a playmaker, somebody who is supremely confident on the ball, where Johnson is currently would allow the other two midfielders to be much more forward thinking. And perhaps your right with Hughes there beside him, the need for Johnson to get himself on the ball would significantly reduced. Essentially have Johnson constantly breaking into the box and not worry about the build up play whatsoever. He is undeniably a goal threat in and around the box, perhaps this could prove very effective. For it to work though I suspect we will need a certain centre forward who is very good at getting involved in the build-up play.

He certainly played a major attacking part in one of the my favorite derby goals of all time (and yes this is mostly an excuse to show this goal again).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, brady1993 said:

Actually thinking about it could in a roundabout fashion solve a problem we are having currently in that (and this opinion will probably prove unpopular) Johnson is hampering our ability to attack the opposition. As we are currently playing Johnson as the CDM it requires both Hughes and Butterfield to come deep for the ball to try to instigate moves, this means that they can't take up attacking positions further up field and try and exploit pockets of space. Now how much of this down to Johnson and how much of it's down to we can't rely on the CF to hold the ball up and allow the midfielders to gamble on runs forward as much, I don't know. I suspect both are contributing. I will add that I believe that Johnson has more than compensated for this with his defensive ability.  

By putting more of a playmaker, somebody who is supremely confident on the ball, where Johnson is currently would allow the other two midfielders to be much more forward thinking. And perhaps your right with Hughes there beside him, the need for Johnson to get himself on the ball would significantly reduced. Essentially have Johnson constantly breaking into the box and not worry about the build up play whatsoever. He is undeniably a goal threat in and around the box, perhaps this could prove very effective. For it to work though I suspect we will need a certain centre forward who is very good at getting involved in the build-up play.

He certainly played a major attacking part in one of the my favorite derby goals of all time (and yes this is mostly an excuse to show this goal again).

 

 

Spot on. He is a make do CDM with all a make do's limitations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Ramdale said:

Johnson has done a good job in there over the last couple of months, but for me I agree with those stating he is just not tidy enough on the ball. When it comes to him in tight areas, he often gets caught on the ball. He is a big strong lad who wins his headers and tackles, but is unable to dictate the pace of a game, which I think McClaren is looking for in that role. Thorne completely controls the tempo of a game in there and I think that is what we are looking for long term and need.

My issue with the midfield (except Hughes) is that we are too much sideways and backwards and this results in the lack of chances created. Thorne constantly broke the lines with his passes and Hendrick was always positive minded also. Butterfield has the ability in my opinion, but needs to take more risks and look to play forward more and in their half of the pitch. Lansbury for me would be a good addition as will add more of an attacking mindset from midfield.

 

 

Superb analysis and correct, in a nutshell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

De Sart is a great passer of the ball from deep and it is that aspect of Thorne's game that we miss. Remember his quite extraordinary scalpel-precise incision to JR, splitting the Yeovil defence like Moses parting the Red Sea for JR to flick home maybe during Mac1? We've lost that...perhaps Clement's "tippy-tappy sideways 5 yards max" is a bad habit to break. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

De Sart is a great passer of the ball from deep and it is that aspect of Thorne's game that we miss. Remember his quite extraordinary scalpel-precise incision to JR, splitting the Yeovil defence like Moses parting the Red Sea for JR to flick home maybe during Mac1? We've lost that...perhaps Clement's "tippy-tappy sideways 5 yards max" is a bad habit to break. 

I think it was actually against Huddersfield. Otherwise your spot on :D.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...