Baird as captain

[climbon]

This is not to slate anyone, I've been impressed so far thi ls season especially 2nd half yesterday.

But the one thing that slightly concerns me is the choice of Baird as captain. Not because he isn't captain material but because of his playing ability. 

He is good, but only at right back. He doesn't work in the midfield and one Bryson, Hendrick and Hanson get back, along with any new signings there won't be a place for him there.

Now, as a right back he is up against Shotton, Christie and Isak. My fear is that as the captain he will be first name on the team sheet and the last one to be dropped. 

At right back he will be a solid defensive player ; good when we are under the cosh away from home. But, against the likes of Birmingham and certainly at home, we need that attacking overlap like Fozzy does to open up defenses.

Comparing last night to the Boro game, we had a similar amounts of possesion but had much more threat from wide areas due to attacking full backs.

I feel that Baird limits this attacking threat, and that by being captain he will be first choice, thereby hindering us in games we dominate possession wise.

Thoughts?

[RicME85]

I like the one attacking and one defensive fullback, keeps a bit of protection for when we are overloading the attack. 

Attacking with Martin, Ince, Russell and sometimes a fourth attacking player plus midfield backing up can cause issues when a team breaks on the counter. If you throw Forsyth and Christie into the mix that leaves a lot of players out of position.

[r_wilcockson]

I was thinking the same thing. Shackell was the obvious choice for captain as he is good enough to play every game. At the moment I wouldn't have Baird in the team as he doesn't bring enough to the table to warrant an automatic start. 

[Dimmu]

Hopefully he won't get into our midfield soon and if some of the RB's are better than him, it is just great.

Then give armband to Shackell and we march on.

[Ninos]

Baird was rewarded for the pre-season leadership with Shacks arriving late and all that, but this is the only real mistake PC has made so far. I was disappointingly surprised at the time, because Shacks was a really obvious choice. The decision will right itself anyway because if we get a centre mid in, and/or if Christie can reclaim the RB spot, then there really is no starting spot for Chris B. At that point, Shacks becomes Captain, although Thorne (in spite of age) would certainly be in line to lay claim as well. 

[climbon]

I like the one attacking and one defensive fullback, keeps a bit of protection for when we are overloading the attack. 

Attacking with Martin, Ince, Russell and sometimes a fourth attacking player plus midfield backing up can cause issues when a team breaks on the counter. If you throw Forsyth and Christie into the mix that leaves a lot of players out of position.

I agree with this idea however if the oposition know Fozzy is attacking and Baird is defensive then it becomes a little predictable. Nothing wrong with Christie and Fozzy, when one attacks the other stays back. Though I can see the issue of Baird being better defensively than Christie.

Hopefully he won't get into our midfield soon and if some of the RB's are better than him, it is just great.

Then give armband to Shackell and we march on.

Will he drop him though?? My issue is not with Baird being captain as such it's more with him being " less dropable" because he is captain.

[Ninos]

Climbon - I don't think PC will shy away from dropping him just because he's captain if he's not performing. He's a pretty smart fella.

[i-Ram]

Don't worry lads I don't think the club had captain or the armband stitched into the no. 12 shirt. For me at the moment he is first choice RB and he will do a very solid job there. If he doesn't, then he will not be picked. Really as easy as that. Baird is a fantastic pro. He won't be thinking I am nailed on for 46 games this season if I stay fit.

[TheDeadlySaul]

He is a good solid professional who speaks well and has a lot of experience. And at the end of the day the captains armband doesn't mean anything, we still have a lot of leaders in this team and they don't need an armband to prove it.

[Tombo]

It's not a captains armband, it's a scapegoat's armband. Anyone who puts it on becomes a target. Keogh must be glad to be rid of the ******* thing.

[Alph]

He'll play RB when we have our midfielders back. Or he'll play alongside Thorne in a 4231. Last night was forced selection and Thorne wasn't great either. In fact amongst the decent was the odd bloody terrible moment. 

As for captain... I don't know how fans seem to know who alpha males are among the group.Who other lads look to.  And it's an armband. An elastic band. If Shackell can't lead without it then he's got some serious mental issues

[Mafiabob]

Don't see the fuss to be honest... No problem him captain 

[Tombo]

Shackell was a big money signing, fan favourite, new to the club and a bit of a wow signing. To put him at the top of the pile and giving him the armband straight away would be a bit of a slap in the face to the players.

Baird earned it in preseason. He said the players were already calling him skipper before he got the armband. He's not a wow signing, won't be on big wages, and isn't particularly...what's the word...."flash"? I suppose? Shacks, I love the guy, but the way people have talked about him being the "missing piece" getting the armband... You can see why that'd breed contempt? He's not a big time Charlie I don't think, but if he came in and got it all, he'd have been perceived that way.

[Alph]

Well remembered Tombo. The players were calling Baird "skipper" in pre season. 

Obviously carries an air of authority with him. Some people just do. That's what fans can't see. 

But it's not like some therapy game where you can only speak when you have the cushion. I'm sure Shackell is free to offer advice, guidance and reminders of people's jobs without an armband

[i-Ram]

He'll play RB when we have our midfielders back. Or he'll play alongside Thorne in a 4231. Last night was forced selection and Thorne wasn't great either. In fact amongst the decent was the odd bloody terrible moment. 

Probably not the right thread to post this, but I can't be arsed to look elsewhere, and I am out on the beer shortly.

A lot are saying Baird and Thorne weren't great last night, and perhaps Thorne was below par, but we were only playing two midfielders, and other than Ince consistently, none of our strikers were holding on to the ball. Russell in particular kept losing it leaving us exposed to regular counter attacks, and Martin IMO should have come off before Bent last night as he really didn't do a lot, other than bugger a decent penalty appeal up by acting like he had been hit across the upper torso by an anti-tank gun.  I thought Baird played quite well all in all, and I bet Thorne clocked some kilometres. Looking forward to playing with three decent midfielders again, and Baird back at RB.

[alanmarklewis]

Thorne gave it away more than usual yesterday but he has come back from an injury and looked tired so understandable! Baird was frustrating the hell out of me though, he spent more time in the left back position than anywhere else, especially in the first half. At times there was nobody in centre midfield, we need a couple of midfielders back desperately!

[Ambitious]

I'm in the minority but I really like Baird.

He's an excellent footballer at this level because he uses his head. I don't know what people were expecting of him in midfield - he's always just going to be defensive and he made one costly error in 90 minutes.

At right back, he's been formidable though. It would take someone with a brain to get the beating of him and there isn't many wingers at this level with that. 

As a captain, he uses his head and should, for me, be on the team sheet in one form or another. 

I believe there should be a snobbery when it comes to Baird, because if you read the game and really watch what happens off the ball then you see him constantly ordering and marshalling. He never losses the ball, well rarely, and he makes the right decision 9/10. 

[KBB]

I'm in the minority but I really like Baird.

He's an excellent footballer at this level because he uses his head. I don't know what people were expecting of him in midfield - he's always just going to be defensive and he made one costly error in 90 minutes.

At right back, he's been formidable though. It would take someone with a brain to get the beating of him and there isn't many wingers at this level with that. 

As a captain, he uses his head and should, for me, be on the team sheet in one form or another. 

I believe there should be a snobbery when it comes to Baird, because if you read the game and really watch what happens off the ball then you see him constantly ordering and marshalling. He never losses the ball, well rarely, and he makes the right decision 9/10. 

but he doesn't run all over the place, fly into tackles he is never going to win, shout at people and flap his arms about every 5 minutes to get the crowd "psyched up".

Its too subtle his leadership quality and playing ability and potential impact on the team. Oh well. I will wait until we have released him and then moan about us not replacing him properly, or suggest an 18 year old from Barcelona b team on loan who has the positional discipline of a 3 month border collie puppy to play the role, cuz he iz gud on FIFA init?!

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

I would play Baird at fullback all day long. If he loses form he gets dropped. Where has this thing about not being able to drop your captain come from?

[davenportram]

I'm impressed guys, someone has criticised a decision made by Clement and noone has had a dig at him just discussed the topic being raised, Well done, this could be a good thread.

 

For me its a good decision ahving a captain who can play more than one postiion. If he loses orm in one position you can get a nother couple of games trying him somewhere else before the fans start saying "hes only playing because hes captain" takes the pressure off a bit.