JG400 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Head slowy raising up appove parapet... Hanson in to replace Johnson My reasoning , I keep hearing that Huddlestone is not a distructive player and needs one along side him , don't think Johnson is good enough for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptherams Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Johnson isn't offering me anything. Just like Butterfield wasn't. Three games in and Tom is looking like he is going to be our player of the season. I particularly like how he gets stuck in without running around chasing shadows and how he doesn't protect the back four, but the center backs. Everytime, he is there, in the middle, ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Gnarly Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I agree to a certain extent, as the only issue seems to be who partners Huddlestone. Don't think Hanson is the right guy to be placed in next to him, rather see Bryson in there to supply the energy required in that role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thederbyram Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 When Thorne is fit.... Huddlestone and Thorne will do me nicely in there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 26 minutes ago, JG400 said: Head slowy raising up appove parapet... Hanson in to replace Johnson My reasoning , I keep hearing that Huddlestone is not a distructive player and needs one along side him , don't think Johnson is good enough for that Currently I think the cm next to Huddlestone should be the key area we look to improve. I'm not saying the likes of Bryson, Butterfield and Johnson aren't bad players but more that I just don't think any of them are ideal to pair with Huddlestone as a two with Vydra in the the hole. To my mind you want somebody who is good on the ball to help us tick, disciplined to hold his position so holes don't appear in the middle and is mobile to help cover for Huddlestone. Bryson - has the mobility to help cover for Huddlestone and is decent on the ball. For me though there are question marks over his fitness, his discipline to play in a deep lying 2 and he's looked iffy when played there before. Johnson - Is a decent ball winner and gives you physicality but isn't particularly mobile, is poor on the ball and is prone to getting dragged out of position. Butterfield - Would help on the ball and controlling the midfield in that regard and usually holds position well but isn't particularly mobile and isn't the best defensively. Thorne - Probably the best option we have but isn't currently fit and isn't particularly mobile. Whether his positional nouse will render this a non issue is yet to be seen. Hanson - to me he seems like he exhibits a lot of the issues Johnson does but is less physical and isn't as good going forward. Personally I think signing the *right* player could see us improve immensely and it might help just click everything together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRam Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 18 minutes ago, thederbyram said: When Thorne is fit.... Huddlestone and Thorne will do me nicely in there Huddlestone and Thorne would see players with average pace run rings around them. You can't have 2 players who's playstyle is to barely move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rample Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Get Elsnik in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDerby Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I've not seen anything from Hanson that makes me think he is anywhere near our starting 11, I don't even know what he's good at or what he would even bring to the team? I know he's one of our own but he wouldn't even look good in a league 2 side IMO. He's another who we need to ship out on loan or on a permanent basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thederbyram Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, SaintRam said: Huddlestone and Thorne would see players with average pace run rings around them. You can't have 2 players who's playstyle is to barely move. I wholeheartedly disagree. They aren't supposed to be particularly mobile when they're sitting in front of the back 4 and allowing those further forward to run and create. You also don't need legs to be effective there. They've both got ridiculous vision and anticipation and will be able to intercept, break down, and play the ball forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC1388 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 I am happy with Johnson in the 2 with Huddlestone, he is more mobile than people actually give him credit for and has a good engine on him as well as providing the physicality to match Huddlestone. You very rarely see him with his hands on his knees gasping for his breath back like you do with Russell + Bryson. For me Butterfield's positional sense in a 2 isn't good enough which is why Middlesbrough let him go when they went with a 2 and yes Bryson is probably the most energetic out of the 3 options but for me he doesn't look as fit as he used to be and is also prone to being dragged out of position. More than anything what we need is to give Johnson + Huddlestone a consistent run of games together in the 2 so they can build a partnership in there, that partnership is as important as the 2 CB's, chopping and changing game to game wont help. Neither of the 2 holding CM's should be pressing the ball either imo, they should be mirroring the movement of the CB's and giving us a strong basis through the middle, the 3 behind the striker should be pressing the oppositions CM's + full backs with our sole striker pressing their CB's. That way it leaves us with a solid back 4 with 2 in front holding their shape rather than being dragged left to right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, SaintRam said: Huddlestone and Thorne would see players with average pace run rings around them. You can't have 2 players who's playstyle is to barely move. There's a couple things I've been mulling over regarding this. Personally I'm not convinced Johnson is any more mobile than Thorne and lacks Thornes superior positional nouse to be in the right place at the right time. The other thing is with how we set up currently their job is to screen and shield the back 4 not to go chasing and harrying the opposition. They are both disciplined enough to not get caught out position so the only space would be directly in front of them and directly in behind the defence (and as all of our back 4 are mobile I don't see that as an issue). I'm not saying your wrong, it was my first instinct as well and it may still hold true. However the more I think about it the more i think we might be able to mitigate it entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeDerby Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, thederbyram said: I wholeheartedly disagree. They aren't supposed to be particularly mobile when they're sitting in front of the back 4 and allowing those further forward to run and create. You also don't need legs to be effective there. They've both got ridiculous vision and anticipation and will be able to intercept, break down, and play the ball forward. I think that the two sitting in front of the back 4 need to be athletic, well at least one. Last year Chelsea played the formation perfectly with Kante and Matic. Matic being the one with the vision, break up play and driving forward. Kante being the one covering ground, helping out the defence massively, dropping into full back positions one necessary. Basically covering the whole defensive area of the pitch. Two 'plodders' with vision but no mobility could work when we are in possession of the ball but could leave us vulnerable. I don't think Huddlestone or Thorne are both particularly good defensively but are both good with the ball at their feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thederbyram Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, JoeDerby said: I think that the two sitting in front of the back 4 need to be athletic, well at least one. Last year Chelsea played the formation perfectly with Kante and Matic. Matic being the one with the vision, break up play and driving forward. Kante being the one covering ground, helping out the defence massively, dropping into full back positions one necessary. Basically covering the whole defensive area of the pitch. Two 'plodders' with vision but no mobility could work when we are in possession of the ball but could leave us vulnerable. I don't think Huddlestone or Thorne are both particularly good defensively but are both good with the ball at their feet. Chelsea also played 3/5 at the back which meant the fullback positions in effect needed to be covered. We play with 4 where the full backs may get forward, but aren't playing as full-on wing backs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said: I am happy with Johnson in the 2 with Huddlestone, he is more mobile than people actually give him credit for and has a good engine on him as well as providing the physicality to match Huddlestone. You very rarely see him with his hands on his knees gasping for his breath back like you do with Russell + Bryson. For me Butterfield's positional sense in a 2 isn't good enough which is why Middlesbrough let him go when they went with a 2 and yes Bryson is probably the most energetic out of the 3 options but for me he doesn't look as fit as he used to be and is also prone to being dragged out of position. More than anything what we need is to give Johnson + Huddlestone a consistent run of games together in the 2 so they can build a partnership in there, that partnership is as important as the 2 CB's, chopping and changing game to game wont help. Neither of the 2 holding CM's should be pressing the ball either imo, they should be mirroring the movement of the CB's and giving us a strong basis through the middle, the 3 behind the striker should be pressing the oppositions CM's + full backs with our sole striker pressing their CB's. That way it leaves us with a solid back 4 with 2 in front holding their shape rather than being dragged left to right. I agree with most of what you've said apart from on Johnson. For me there are problems with playing Johnson there; there is a slight tendancy to getting dragged out of position, whilst not being immobile I don't think hes particularly mobile either and of course the major problem is his horrendous pass accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 <tin hat> Actually think Huddlestone and Johnson is about right. Huddlestone's got the passing, Johnson has the physicality. </tin hat> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFC1388 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 Just now, brady1993 said: I agree with most of what you've said apart from on Johnson. For me there are problems with playing Johnson there; there is a slight tendancy to getting dragged out of position, whilst not being immobile I don't think hes particularly mobile either and of course the major problem is his horrendous pass accuracy. I agree his passing isn't the best but it isn't the worst, I think he is a better at passing than Bryson and most of Butterfield's passes go backwards or sideways. Plus he has Huddlestone next to him to get moves going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady1993 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, DCFC1388 said: I agree his passing isn't the best but it isn't the worst, I think he is a better at passing than Bryson and most of Butterfield's passes go backwards or sideways. Plus he has Huddlestone next to him to get moves going. I disagree entirely. Johnson's passing accuracy consistently averages out to around 70% over the course of a year and usually ranges between 55%-75%. Which to be blunt is awful for a midfielder at this level. Butterfield's and Bryson's are significantly higher both average somewhere between 80-85% and are usually closer to 85%. The argument that Butterfield has too much of a tendancy to go backwards or sideways is something of a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TroyDyer Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 54 minutes ago, thederbyram said: When Thorne is fit.... Huddlestone and Thorne will do me nicely in there Unfortunately that may as well say "when we sign Kante from Chelsea..." I like Hanson. We need a ball winner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, brady1993 said: I disagree entirely. Johnson's passing accuracy consistently averages out to around 70% over the course of a year and usually ranges between 55%-75%. Which to be blunt is awful for a midfielder at this level. Butterfield's and Bryson's are significantly higher both average somewhere between 80-85% and are usually closer to 85%. The argument that Butterfield has too much of a tendancy to go backwards or sideways is something of a myth. Is it? for the 2 in the formation the only 3 players I think can play it effectively are: Johnson, Huddlestone and Thorne Hanson isn't good enough in my opinion. Butterfield has been s**** for a year now and Bryson for me is much stronger further up the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 We desperately need another agile midfielder to play alongside Huddlestone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.