Two central midfielders conundrum

[Anon]

Just now, TroyDyer said:

Do you rate Bryson?

[ramit]

i like steel and velvet in central midfield, in our case that would be Johnson and Hughes

[brady1993]

I don't think the problem is to do with the balance of the two in midfield, I think the bigger problem is the balance with the two up front and the link between attack and midfield. Both Wilson and Vydra are looking to run in behind the defence which leaves us predictable, unbalanced and easy to defend against. One of them has to be dropped for someone who's job it is to bridge that gap. 

For me I'd either go with Butterfield or Bryson, as Butterfield played there to great success at Huddersfield and Bryson is better when played as your most attacking midfielder. As good as Hughes might be played there, I feel he is needed a little further back due to his defensive ability and his ability to dictate the flow of the game.

[Dimmu]

17 hours ago, Anon said:

That's frightening to look at. We simply don't have players who benefit from playing in a midfield 2. Hendrick was the strongest candidate for a 2 man midfield, but he's gone. I'd say Johnson is the next best suited, but his form has been in the toilet for 8 months and shows little sign of improving.

If it absolutely has to be 4-4-2 I'd go with Hughes and Johnson.

Pretty much thoughts. I think I wrote something similar when Hendrick was still ours.

And I Johnson was decent against Pool. Maybe he is coming back... 

[Mr Tibbs]

Speaks volumes that there's this much discussion on our current midfield two, both since coming back from injury just haven't got going. 

A four man midfield is probably not going to get the best out of them but they've both been well below par so far. 

[valleyram]

45 minutes ago, TroyDyer said:

Do you rate Bryson?

just slightly , him and will need to play but we need an enforcer beside them , its no rocket science

[brady1993]

7 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Speaks volumes that there's this much discussion on our current midfield two, both since coming back from injury just haven't got going. 

A four man midfield is probably not going to get the best out of them but they've both been well below par so far. 

The problem with this logic is that they were both were playing well at the back end of last season when they actually recovered from injury. They are below par because Pearson's 'tactics' don't suit how either plays their best football i.e. short passing, high pressing, attacking football. 

[Mr Tibbs]

1 minute ago, brady1993 said:

The problem with this logic is that they were both were playing well at the back end of last season when they actually recovered from injury. They are below par because Pearson's 'tactics' don't suit how either plays their best football i.e. short passing, high pressing, attacking football. 

Depends on what you class as 'well' I guess. Baring in mind both have shown what they're capable of at this level, I felt they were no where near that last season.

Inconsistent passengers, along with Jeff. 

Tactics is a big thing of course but not the sole reason. They haven't lost their footballing ability just because they're a man down in the middle. Again, I'd say they've been too pedestrian so far this year. Goals, assists and the odd MOTM performance from two players who clearly have ability isn't too much to ask IMO, regardless of formation. 

 

[brady1993]

2 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Depends on what you class as 'well' I guess. Baring in mind both have shown what they're capable of at this level, I felt they were no where near that last season.

Inconsistent passengers, along with Jeff. 

Tactics is a big thing of course but not the sole reason. They haven't lost their footballing ability just because they're a man down in the middle. Again, I'd say they've been too pedestrian so far this year. Goals, assists and the odd MOTM performance from two players who clearly have ability isn't too much to ask IMO, regardless of formation. 

 

I'd agree with you here if the they were the only two who were underperforming but the whole squad is underperforming. This to me suggests the problem is with management.

To be honest I don't think the problem is necessarily the formation but how the formation is set up. Both Hughes and Bryson like to play quick 1-2s of players to move up the pitch and into space but at the minute we have two strikers who aren't interested in that and just want to get onto the final ball. There needs to be more of a link between the midfield and the forwards.

[Mafiabob]

Heard that young fellow Jeff Hendrick was decent. Deemed inconsistent by some..... 

You couldn't make it up. 

[cannable]

1 hour ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Speaks volumes that there's this much discussion on our current midfield two, both since coming back from injury just haven't got going. 

A four man midfield is probably not going to get the best out of them but they've both been well below par so far. 

Whaaaa?

Willberforce was brilliant when he came back and Bryson was great whenever he had a fully fit Thorne behind him.

[LeedsCityRam]

2 hours ago, brady1993 said:

I don't think the problem is to do with the balance of the two in midfield, I think the bigger problem is the balance with the two up front and the link between attack and midfield. Both Wilson and Vydra are looking to run in behind the defence which leaves us predictable, unbalanced and easy to defend against. One of them has to be dropped for someone who's job it is to bridge that gap. 

For me I'd either go with Butterfield or Bryson, as Butterfield played there to great success at Huddersfield and Bryson is better when played as your most attacking midfielder. As good as Hughes might be played there, I feel he is needed a little further back due to his defensive ability and his ability to dictate the flow of the game.

I think that's a pretty good point actually although I do think the balance of midfield is more urgent. Having a quick striker opens up space & our 2 man midfield can't take advantage - agree that a link up attacking midfielder ahead of those 2 such as Bryson or Butterfield would be more effective to our overall play than another quick striker.

[cannable]

13 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I think that's a pretty good point actually although I do think the balance of midfield is more urgent. Having a quick striker opens up space & our 2 man midfield can't take advantage - agree that a link up attacking midfielder ahead of those 2 such as Bryson or Butterfield would be more effective to our overall play than another quick striker.

I do believe Wilson is supposed to be the link up man.

[RiddingsRam]

8 minutes ago, cannable said:

I do believe Wilson is supposed to be the link up man.

And he did in spells against Ipswich! 

[Warren Hobhead]

23 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I think that's a pretty good point actually although I do think the balance of midfield is more urgent. Having a quick striker opens up space & our 2 man midfield can't take advantage - agree that a link up attacking midfielder ahead of those 2 such as Bryson or Butterfield would be more effective to our overall play than another quick striker.

I think this is why Butters has been stationed out wide recently. I'm assuming the idea is to have Christie doing the wing play and Butters moving a little inside and trying to link with the forwards or get shots off. He created a great chance for Wilson at Bristol. 

 

However, I don't get it. Why not just play three in midfield? It's what these midfielders are good at. 

 

I am not a coach but if I felt I had to play only 4-4-2 then I would go with Hughes and Butterfield. I like goals and creativity. 

[brady1993]

 

55 minutes ago, LeedsCityRam said:

I think that's a pretty good point actually although I do think the balance of midfield is more urgent. Having a quick striker opens up space & our 2 man midfield can't take advantage - agree that a link up attacking midfielder ahead of those 2 such as Bryson or Butterfield would be more effective to our overall play than another quick striker.

You see I don't think you can take the balance in midfield in isolation, it needs to be considered with everything in around it. I feel with an attacking midfielder, it would ease the balance problems in midfield. 

41 minutes ago, cannable said:

I do believe Wilson is supposed to be the link up man.

I think this might perhaps be the case but I really don't think he's cut out for it. He's currently averaging 8.8 passes per game and in each game he's had the lowest amount of touches on the ball of any starting derby player. This suggests to me he either isn't doing his job of linking up the play or that isn't his purpose

[jono]

I don't agree that a two man midfield is really a two man midfield. The wingers are part of the equation so all the talk of being over run isn't really logical. If we are using the width properly then our opponents midfield is stretched by the flank players and difficult to "over run" 

go through the threads and look at the number of times posters (including me ) have said things like .. They bossed us by having two banks of four. 

for me Hughes is one of the central players and then we pick one more and they have to learn to dovetail. These boys are skilled professionals .. Pigeonholing them as DM or 1 of 3 is just too simplistic. AND we need a right winger ( give me a bone to gnaw 

[brady1993]

16 minutes ago, jono said:

I don't agree that a two man midfield is really a two man midfield. The wingers are part of the equation so all the talk of being over run isn't really logical. If we are using the width properly then our opponents midfield is stretched by the flank players and difficult to "over run" 

go through the threads and look at the number of times posters (including me ) have said things like .. They bossed us by having two banks of four. 

for me Hughes is one of the central players and then we pick one more and they have to learn to dovetail. These boys are skilled professionals .. Pigeonholing them as DM or 1 of 3 is just too simplistic. AND we need a right winger ( give me a bone to gnaw 

Surely you could apply the same logic to a "three man midfield" ? The problem isn't being over run, it's that we don't have enough players involved in building up the play to break down teams.  

[RiddingsRam]

48 minutes ago, jono said:

I don't agree that a two man midfield is really a two man midfield. The wingers are part of the equation so all the talk of being over run isn't really logical. If we are using the width properly then our opponents midfield is stretched by the flank players and difficult to "over run" 

go through the threads and look at the number of times posters (including me ) have said things like .. They bossed us by having two banks of four. 

for me Hughes is one of the central players and then we pick one more and they have to learn to dovetail. These boys are skilled professionals .. Pigeonholing them as DM or 1 of 3 is just too simplistic. AND we need a right winger ( give me a bone to gnaw 

Mk Dons at home last season springs too mind for me  ! They literally sat with two banks of 4 soaked the pressure up then nicked a goal in the 80 odd minute . You don't have to be the best team over 90 to win a game . How many times last season did we say . How did we lose that game ? .

[LeedsCityRam]

1 hour ago, Warren Hobhead said:

I think this is why Butters has been stationed out wide recently. I'm assuming the idea is to have Christie doing the wing play and Butters moving a little inside and trying to link with the forwards or get shots off. He created a great chance for Wilson at Bristol. 

 

However, I don't get it. Why not just play three in midfield? It's what these midfielders are good at. 

 

I am not a coach but if I felt I had to play only 4-4-2 then I would go with Hughes and Butterfield. I like goals and creativity. 

Agree, its like Pearson is trying to shoehorn players into a 4-4-2 when our strength is arguably in centre midfield, ergo playing 3 in there making more sense.

Maybe he's doing this for defensive solidity but don't see why a flat 4 man midfield is intrinsically more sound than a 3 man centre midfield. Particularly when playing central midfielders/goal shy strikers who can't tackle out wide.