Someone please tell me

[Sam_DCFC_1994]

What Baird provides us with from midfield. Today he's been poor, not his biggest fan but generally bit my tongue. Today he hasn't shown for the ball, does not protect the back 4, doesn't dominate, doesn't impose, doesn't get involved in the game. For all his experience it doesn't add much to this team at all. 

[Srg]

You missed the absolutely gaping gap he leaves between midfield and defence... Just like for their goal. 

[Bridgford Ram]

We need someone in that position whether it is Thorne, Baird or Hanson.  Baird might not have had his best game (I didn't think he was that poor) but we need someone in there.

Problem is Thorne is head and shoulders above anyone else in our squad so with him missing it is hard for anyone to replace him.

[Warren Hobhead]

Hendrick, Butterfield and Johnson. 

 

If Thorne's fit, you could stick him in for one of the three depending. 

 

Baird's awful.

[TaiwanRam]

We need someone in that position whether it is Thorne, Baird or Hanson.  Baird might not have had his best game (I didn't think he was that poor) but we need someone in there.

Problem is Thorne is head and shoulders above anyone else in our squad so with him missing it is hard for anyone to replace him.

Have to agree with this, Baird wasn't particularly bad, just not at the level Thorne has shown in the fortunate glimpses we have seen him.

Hanson possibly a little young and a couple of rookie mistakes might destroy his confidence.

[Duracell]

Baird had a shocker today, no doubt about it, but there will be a fair few delighted to be apparently proved right after that performance having decided he's terrible based on very little evidence.

Unfortunately, I think the prospect of him ever recovering it for Derby has gone, because the boo boys decided after a backwards pass against Leeds (which the whole team had been guilty of, by the way) that he was rubbish. I think it's because these fans don't really know who to abuse half the time, so just decide to pick whoever wears the armband because they look different to the others. Not sure Keogh is playing significantly better this season - he's always been a good CB. But apparently he's a new player now.

Baird is a utility replacement for Eustace, and if he is given as wide a berth as Eustace was, he will have a part to play as a squad player this season. Unless we decide we want him to be fighting the opposition AND our fans by getting on his back.

Beginning to think we just shouldn't have a captain at all!

[Sexydadbod]

Baird is terrible. Doesn't give our defence any protection whatsoever

[Uptherams]

If we are going to play that role and Thorne is injured stick Hanson in there. Clement needs to stop shunning the lad. 

[Mostyn6]

the levels of ignorance in this forum astound me.

What you all fail to realise or acknowledge is that a) the position itself is a poisoned chalice, aside of Thorne, every player we've had in that position has been subject to criticism over the last 10 years! The position is so involved that the weaknesses are highlighted. b) Baird is doing what he is being paid to do. The manager picks him in that position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think "I'll play in DM where the ignorant and disgraceful fans that ruin the feelgood factor can boo me, not at rightback" c) The reason you spot Baird is because he was involved. He was far better than Johnson, Butterfield, Martin, Keogh and Russell today. You don't spot mistakes when players aren't involved to make them. d) Karl Robinson before the game suggested they were looking at getting in the gap between Defence and Baird, that would suggest naive tactics from Clement more than poor performance from Baird.

I can guarantee now, aside of Thorne, whichever player plays that role will get slated cos of the ignorance of fans to what the role actually involves.

[Anon]

He isn't a midfielder, at least not a midfielder who can build from the back and move play forwards. His passing is only marginally better than Shackell's, and that's saying something.

He may do well in the holding role for NI, but that is a completely different ball game. They don't look to dominate possession like we do and he often ends up playing more like a 3rd center half for them.

On the plus side, I don't think he's awful at shielding the back 4. Fair enough, he was ******** today, but who wasn't?

[Sexydadbod]

the levels of ignorance in this forum astound me.

What you all fail to realise or acknowledge is that a) the position itself is a poisoned chalice, aside of Thorne, every player we've had in that position has been subject to criticism over the last 10 years! The position is so involved that the weaknesses are highlighted. b) Baird is doing what he is being paid to do. The manager picks him in that position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think "I'll play in DM where the ignorant and disgraceful fans that ruin the feelgood factor can boo me, not at rightback" c) The reason you spot Baird is because he was involved. He was far better than Johnson, Butterfield, Martin, Keogh and Russell today. You don't spot mistakes when players aren't involved to make them. d) Karl Robinson before the game suggested they were looking at getting in the gap between Defence and Baird, that would suggest naive tactics from Clement more than poor performance from Baird.

I can guarantee now, aside of Thorne, whichever player plays that role will get slated cos of the ignorance of fans to what the role actually involves.

I'm sorry but Baird was diabolical today. We gave them too much space behind our midfield and they exploted that. Baird's role or should I say that role in particular is to protect the back 4 and Baird didn't do that. We looked a lot better when Hendrick was brought on and when pushed Johnson back

[Mostyn6]

I'm sorry but Baird was diabolical today. We gave them too much space behind our midfield and they exploted that. Baird's role or should I say that role in particular is to protect the back 4 and Baird didn't do that. We looked a lot better when Hendrick was brought on and when pushed Johnson back

it's too easy for you to say that, but if you was watching that game as a neutral, with no preconceived ideas, and no knowledge of who was who, you couldn't single Baird out for anything. If he was 5/10 when he was on the pitch, everyone else was the same or less at the same time. Aside of Carson and Christie and arguably Warnock, Baird performed as well as anyone when on the pitch. I admit that others raised their game after he went off. But to single him out is poor showing from anyone who does.

[Shang]

Everyone played badly in midfield at the start, MK Dons bossed the game and played very high pressure. Thorne would have struggled in there too if he was playing today.

When Hendrick came on, we effectively played 2 DMs with Ince as a 10 to try to contain the Dons pressure. One guy can't contain 3 players in between the lines, it's impossible.

[rammieib]

the levels of ignorance in this forum astound me.

What you all fail to realise or acknowledge is that a) the position itself is a poisoned chalice, aside of Thorne, every player we've had in that position has been subject to criticism over the last 10 years! The position is so involved that the weaknesses are highlighted. b) Baird is doing what he is being paid to do. The manager picks him in that position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think "I'll play in DM where the ignorant and disgraceful fans that ruin the feelgood factor can boo me, not at rightback" c) The reason you spot Baird is because he was involved. He was far better than Johnson, Butterfield, Martin, Keogh and Russell today. You don't spot mistakes when players aren't involved to make them. d) Karl Robinson before the game suggested they were looking at getting in the gap between Defence and Baird, that would suggest naive tactics from Clement more than poor performance from Baird.

I can guarantee now, aside of Thorne, whichever player plays that role will get slated cos of the ignorance of fans to what the role actually involves.

Mostyn, I have to disagree with this. Baird's performance today wasn't because of what he did the few times he had the ball, it was more to do with his shocking positional sense which he never got right at all in the game. The DM position is so important but it must stop attackers dropping of and picking up the ball. He failed in this role completely and we need to be thankful that MK were so bad. The best example is look at their goal. The gap between Baird and our defence was huge. Baird in his position did absolutely zero in preventing anything. 

I'm not a fan of his, and the worst mistake was giving him the arm band because we as supporters expect more from a player who has the captaincy. 

Thankfully Clement made the adjustment before it was too late. We had to go to two defensive midfielders to shore the space up but with Hendricks and Johnson, it's two players not scared of the forward pass. Hendrick was especially good - he offered more than Baird did but was playing the same role effectively.

[Posh Ram]

We looked better defensively when we switched to a 4-2-3-1, keeping the ball better and the two excellent in providing a bit of attacking spark. Would start that formation next week, perhaps playing Martin in the hole and Bent up front. Russell and Ince on the wings.

Agree Baird was poor today although he wasn't helped out much by Butterfield or Johnson. 

[Mostyn6]

Mostyn, I have to disagree with this. Baird's performance today wasn't because of what he did the few times he had the ball, it was more to do with his shocking positional sense which he never got right at all in the game. The DM position is so important but it must stop attackers dropping of and picking up the ball. He failed in this role completely and we need to be thankful that MK were so bad. The best example is look at their goal. The gap between Baird and our defence was huge. Baird in his position did absolutely zero in preventing anything. 

I'm not a fan of his, and the worst mistake was giving him the arm band because we as supporters expect more from a player who has the captaincy. 

Thankfully Clement made the adjustment before it was too late. We had to go to two defensive midfielders to shore the space up but with Hendricks and Johnson, it's two players not scared of the forward pass. Hendrick was especially good - he offered more than Baird did but was playing the same role effectively.

you're entitled to your opinion. But I predict that the player in that position next season will get criticised, and the season after, and forever. 

[Anon]

you're entitled to your opinion. But I predict that the player in that position next season will get criticised, and the season after, and forever. 

You could say that about any position. Every left back we've had has been continuously slated by some people. If the criticism is unfounded then by all means call it out and explain why people are wrong, but do it by actually analysing Baird rather than claiming "poisoned chalice".

[uttoxram75]

Hanson should play if Thorne's out.

Not slagging Baird off its just that Hanson's a better all round player.

Same with Warnock and Fozzy. Fozzy's just better.

 

[Tombo]

the levels of ignorance in this forum astound me.

What you all fail to realise or acknowledge is that a) the position itself is a poisoned chalice, aside of Thorne, every player we've had in that position has been subject to criticism over the last 10 years! The position is so involved that the weaknesses are highlighted. b) Baird is doing what he is being paid to do. The manager picks him in that position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think "I'll play in DM where the ignorant and disgraceful fans that ruin the feelgood factor can boo me, not at rightback" c) The reason you spot Baird is because he was involved. He was far better than Johnson, Butterfield, Martin, Keogh and Russell today. You don't spot mistakes when players aren't involved to make them. d) Karl Robinson before the game suggested they were looking at getting in the gap between Defence and Baird, that would suggest naive tactics from Clement more than poor performance from Baird.

I can guarantee now, aside of Thorne, whichever player plays that role will get slated cos of the ignorance of fans to what the role actually involves.

We did win the game though. And despite the amount of times they had that space in between midfield and defence they had very few real chances. Only time they ever really looked like scoring was after they got the first one. So how naïve is it really?

[Mostyn6]

You could say that about any position. Every left back we've had has been continuously slated by some people. If the criticism is unfounded then by all means call it out and explain why people are wrong, but do it by actually analysing Baird rather than claiming "poisoned chalice".

until someone actually points out specific errors that Baird makes, I cannot defend him. My point mainly is that perceived poor play (by Baird) is generally just common place amongst all DMs in the game. Baird has the most ground to cover of all players on the pitch, so he's bound to not be in a certain area at a certain time.

As it happens, I don't rate Baird as such, but this is just a direct transfer of last season's criticism aimed at Mascarell now on to Baird. The position is the problem, not the player. I say this because nobody can specifically point to something that Baird does badly that others wouldn't do. Hendrick was the same in this position, as well Bryson, as was Hughes, as was Shotton, as was Warnock and so on..... they're all horses for courses.