Jump to content

Henri Lansbury - Signed for Aston Villa

DcFc Dyycheee

By DcFc Dyycheee
in Transfer Forum

Recommended Posts

Andrew James

Andrew James

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Supermac said:

If I was Lansbury and had watched us last night and Villa tonight I think I'd stay where I was til summer. 

That would really piss Fawaz off and make up for the times the players haven't been paid on time.

But I'm not 

Maybe I would head to Leeds, bar far the best team we have faced, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Van der MoodHoover

Van der MoodHoover

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RiddingsRam said:

Think that's the advantage of playing 2 holding midfielders.  Allow the front 4 more freedom to play .

We struggle to find one holding mid never mind 2.

Unless you are nigel pearson when you miraculously convert a lightweight box to box player plus a forward thinking playmaker into CDMs without any fuss. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RiddingsRam

RiddingsRam

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

We struggle to find one holding mid never mind 2.

Unless you are nigel pearson when you miraculously convert a lightweight box to box player plus a forward thinking playmaker into CDMs without any fuss. :thumbsup:

We've got 2 fit holding midfielders, de sart and Johnson , who looks so much better when he plays that bit deeper . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RiddingsRam

RiddingsRam

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, EnigmaRam said:

I agree. Playing 4231 away would suit us better. Then 433 at home.

There's not too much change really ! Well nothing drastic . Would just give will a bit more freedom to play behind the centre forward who could play a bit more on the shoulder ( again would probably suit us better with the current crop if strikers.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RamNut

RamNut

Posted
Posted

I don't think 4231 suits us.

we tried under clement and the midfield was a huge hole 

in that system midfielders are either attacking or defending,

there is no orthodox midfielder.....and we've got one of the best.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van der MoodHoover

Van der MoodHoover

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, RiddingsRam said:

We've got 2 fit holding midfielders, de sart and Johnson , who looks so much better when he plays that bit deeper . 

de sart is a natural CDM. Johnson is a convert who, whilst having some handy attributes, lacks other that are rather important to be really successful in the position.

if we want our system to function as best as it can then we need specialists where possible. George and de sart might be a good pairing IF George can ever get fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RiddingsRam

RiddingsRam

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, HantsRam said:

de sart is a natural CDM. Johnson is a convert who, whilst having some handy attributes, lacks other that are rather important to be really successful in the position.

if we want our system to function as best as it can then we need specialists where possible. George and de sart might be a good pairing IF George can ever get fit.

You say Johnson is not a natural in that position , yet the best football we've seen him play in a Derby shirt is in the defensive midfield role. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van der MoodHoover

Van der MoodHoover

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, RiddingsRam said:

You say Johnson is not a natural in that position , yet the best football we've seen him play in a Derby shirt is in the defensive midfield role. 

I have a slightly different opinion - the best I saw him was home to Hull (league not playoff) when he was forward of George Thorne and played as a driving runner - sort of Frank Lampard.

I can understand the more recent view of him being "best" at CDM - that would be true recently if you're comparing him to other odd positions hes played (eg left wing), or even compared to hughes/Bryson as CDMs.

I haven't been able to go as much this season so am admittedly a bit rusty on my Bradley form - I last saw him play v Liverpool in the EFL cup which was a one-off. Yet despite all the accolades he has received for his efforts there I don't believe he is a natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jono

jono

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

I have a slightly different opinion - the best I saw him was home to Hull (league not playoff) when he was forward of George Thorne and played as a driving runner - sort of Frank Lampard.

I can understand the more recent view of him being "best" at CDM - that would be true recently if you're comparing him to other odd positions hes played (eg left wing), or even compared to hughes/Bryson as CDMs.

I haven't been able to go as much this season so am admittedly a bit rusty on my Bradley form - I last saw him play v Liverpool in the EFL cup which was a one-off. Yet despite all the accolades he has received for his efforts there I don't believe he is a natural.

This is my opinion as well. His first few games with us were excellent. He was a perfect Mid Midfielder .. Crunching tackles, breaking up play and mauraudung forward. His passing is patchy but he is a buccaneer. I remember one goal he set up for CM .. Great football. Then something happened and he totally lost form. He has had a resurrection at DM and has done very well. He is strong and committed. He doesn't have GT's ability to do the perfect pass, or to know where he is going to pass before he gets the ball, but he has been strong and disciplined in the DM role 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comrade 86

Comrade 86

Posted
Posted

Apologies if already posted:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/derby-s-chances-of-signing-nottingham-forest-s-henri-lansbury-look-to-have-gone-up-in-smoke/story-30057811-detail/story.html

Fawaz Al Hasawi's decision not to sell Nottingham Forest to new US owners has virtually ended any chance bitter rivals Derby County had of signing Henri Lansbury in January.

Having pulled out of a deal with the American consortium led by John Jay Moores last night, Reds owner and chairman Al Hasawi is very unlikely to entertain an improved bid from the Rams for the 26-year-old midfielder, with Forest having already rejected one offer in excess of £2.5m this month.

Steve McClaren's Derby already looked to be fighting a losing battle in the race to try to sign Lansbury in the January transfer window, with Aston Villa looking to be in pole position, having tabled a bid of £3m-plus and offered the player wages of £40,000 a week.

Read more: Failed Nottingham Forest takeover had 'sad feeling of inevitability about it'

And now their hopes of sealing a controversial deal for the former Arsenal man have pretty much gone up in smoke.

It is unclear if Moores' consortium would have considered an increased offer for Lansbury from the Rams if they had gained control at the City Ground, despite the fierce rivalry between the two clubs.

image: http://www.nottinghampost.com/images/localworld/ugc-images/276368/binaries/Henri Lansbury has been the subject bid Derby.jpg

Henri Lansbury has told Forest he won't sign a new deal at the City Ground.

But Al Hasawi is almost certain not to do business with them.

Read more: Gary Rowett said to be unwilling to consider being Forest boss under Fawaz Al Hasawi

Lansbury has told Forest he will not sign a new deal at the City Ground, with his current contract set to expire at the end of the season.

He was not in their squad for their Championship clash against Birmingham City on Saturday, with Reds head coach Philippe Montanier saying he's not in the right frame of mind to play for the club.


Read more at http://www.nottinghampost.com/derby-s-chances-of-signing-nottingham-forest-s-henri-lansbury-look-to-have-gone-up-in-smoke/story-30057811-detail/story.html#kjAylbY683RQk8bQ.99

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tombo

Tombo

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RamNut said:

I don't think 4231 suits us.

we tried under clement and the midfield was a huge hole 

in that system midfielders are either attacking or defending,

there is no orthodox midfielder.....and we've got one of the best.

 

I think we've just misapplied it when we've tried in the past. 4-2-3-1 is not so different from 4-3-3 when you think about it. We played De Sart in the holding role the other night and Johnson and Bryson a little further forward. We call it 4-3-3 but it could be described as 4-1-4-1 or 4-1-2-3.

When we started getting overloaded, Johnson dropped back and lended a hand to De Sart. That virtually made us 4-2-3-1 or 4-2-1-3.

As a rigid formation and system, where everyone stays in position and nobody ventures out of their role, 4-2-3-1 is horrible for us. And that's exactly what Clement had them doing.

McClaren sets up 4-3-3 but it rarely stays so. There's much more freedom to swap positions and change the system play-by-play. With the Mac 4-3-3, you can't really get hung up on numbers. It's about the personnel and if we have that balance in skillsets or not.

Rigid managers like Clement and Pearson, their issue has been the wrong formation. When the more fluid styled McClaren has made errors, it's been the wrong players or the wrong balance of players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...