Jump to content

Bryson, Butters, Bradders


Bris Vegas

Recommended Posts

Assuming Huddlestone comes in and becomes a regular, it will make competition for midfield places even tougher.

If you had to assign one of Butters, Bryson and Bradders to one of the following, who would it be and why?

A) first-teamer

B) Bench player

C) Sell

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Sorry I don't think I explained the opening post very well.

You have to choose one to be first-teamer, one to be a bench player and one to be sold.

Thorne and Hanson are other midfield options, but I don't envisage them being in the picture all too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have Bryson as the first-teamer, Johnson as the backup and Butterfield to be sold. I'm just not sure a midfield of Huddlestone and Butterfield would work well because they're both probably better suited to being the play maker and I'd have Thorne as the direct backup/competition with Huddlestone, so we could probably afford to lose Butterfield. And I'd choose Bryson over Johnson simply for the understanding he has with Martin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David said:

A) Johnson

B) Bryson

C) Butterfield

I think this is how they currently rate, however it's fluid, apart from Butterfield.

Utimately I think Huddlestone & Thorne would be first choice, but Bradley has the shirt I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Bryson

B Butterfield

C Bradders

But I'm not sure a decision can be made without knowing the rest of the team. Thought Bryson has been good box-to-box, Butters has seemed more positive and Bradders looked aggressive and dangerous up front. So it does depend on what is needed as to who might be AB or C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

A) first-teamer

B) Bench player

C) Sell

 

A) Bryson - you'll need him next to Huddlestone, because he is the most mobile of all three; he will do all the running and can play relatively accurately short passes.

B) Johnson - we could say for him he is also relatively mobile, but his passing is terrible.

C) Butterfield - slow, he is not a really useful in this system 4-2-3-1. Should be sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, lioncoeur said:

A) Bryson - you'll need him next to Huddlestone, because he is the most mobile of all three; he will do all the running and can play relatively accurately short passes.

B) Johnson - we could say for him he is also relatively mobile, but his passing is terrible.

C) Butterfield - slow, he is not a really useful in this system 4-2-3-1. Should be sold.

You think there is a team in the football league stupid enough to take a punt on Butterfield ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ninos said:

You think there is a team in the football league stupid enough to take a punt on Butterfield ? 

Huddersfield were his previous employers, we might offer them Butterfield as an extra bonus in return for what they paid generously for Ince.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ninos said:

You think there is a team in the football league stupid enough to take a punt on Butterfield ? 

Well the positives are you've moved on from Martin I guess, now it's Jacobs turn.

Crackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First team: Johnson

Bench: Butterfield

Sell: Bryson

Bryson has been finished for years. I remember that thread I made a few years ago about us not needing him and how we played better without him and I've not changed my mind since.  It was after we beat Wolves 5-0 in 2014 when he was unavailable. He just kills any momentum in the side and the stats from last season back this up as he had more sideways and backward passes than any other midfielder, despite people criticising Butterfield for the same problem. People kept telling me that he was going through a bad spell but I was never convinced.

Unfortunately, no-one will buy him with the wages he's on. We should have sold him to Burnley when we had the chance with hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But having said all that Bryson would be a bit useful at times if we play 4-3-3 because he has a good partnership with Martin but any other formation he's useless. I'd be surprised if we made top 8 if Bryson started regularly. He's been a good servant but it's gone far too stale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...