Adam Armstrong

Butterfield is a centre mid. He, Hughes, Hendrick and Bryson played that day. Conor and Josh nailed them. Josh, literally so. Jacob now has a 3 inch scar on his ankle to prove it, he should have come off but that's by the by. Josh took Hendrick out similarly. It's what he does. Firm but fair. Mostly. And that allowed Conor to dictate as Hughes and Bryson stood on in amazement.

In other words, I'm not worried at all about any side playing an extra man in midfield.

The years where we've struggled as a club were the ******* years we felt this bizarre need to play three in midfield to match sides up. The years we were scared of losing, yet more often than not, lost anyway. Going 4-4-2 has seen us go from bottom of L1 to 3rd in the Championship.




We will lose some football matches. But it won't necessarily be down to Roberts, Hourihane or Winnall. Or Hammill. Or Bradshaw. Or whoever it is you'd like to swap for one of Chelsea's 38 loanee children.

 

We never struggled against QPR they had two shots on target all game that weren't penalties. Poulter lost most of his aerial duels with Roberts (even the QPR fans said similar) Poulter was slow and cumbersome and was pretty ineffectual. The only player who had any success against us was Chery. Plus not having possesion isn't a sign a team is struggling especially if its not in the style of play they are using.

 

What does Winnall do up front that is different to either Bradshaw or Armstrong that makes them incapable of playing with Watkins?

 

On what he does and what he contributes to the team Watkins is our best striker. He may not be as good a natural finisher as Winnall, Bradshaw or Armstrong, but he's tireless he harasses defences, creates opportunities out of nothing, battles with defenders, opens space for his partner up front, knocks a couple in for himself and not to mention he is by far the clubs 2nd best assister after Captain Fantastic

 

Nah - we battered QPR. That game was properly one sided. We were much worse against Derby - especially first half when we were just punting possession away... But I'm not having that we were ever outplayed by QPR.

 

he links. Now i'm not the biggest fan of Sam but he dovetail's really well. He makes it a 4411 on and off the ball. Okay without the ball too when he doesn't switch off. Can get around the oppp's deeper midfield player.

Payne., look at him. Clear without saying that he can link well.

Bradshaw and Watkins on the opener made the gap too big between midfield and defence. Huddersfield away too. PH noticed this too and he made the change and made a comment about it afte the game.

----------------------------------

having had a think about it. Kent can play the deeper role. Played AM in pre season and got rave reviews.

 

We should celebrate the options now at our disposal.

 

This post is crap because you know as well as I do that Winnall's lay off play is often tosh and that he is a poacher pure and simple. When he's on a roll. And when he is, he's great.

Otherwise his his link up play is mediocre. Bradshaw's control is far better, and he can easily be told to get nearer to midfield if that's what's needed.

Remains to be seen regarding Armstrong.

Payne is injured and anyway needs more time to see whether he can justify a place.

Finally, away games are always harder than home ones. I reckon pace on the break hurts them away from home. So it'd be Armstrong for me, for now.

 

Did you watch a different game to everyone else?

 

I do agree HT that for a significant part of both the Derby and QPR games we were giving the ball away cheaply.

We were not hurt by this however - indeed we looked more dangerous on the break than they did with the ball.

 

Some on here only see the result. People must not watch the game back.

 

We very often had no out ball.

But to suggest that Winnall would have provided it by holding it up goes against all I've seen at the Well. Hold up play is not his forte. Nor is sprinting after the hoof clearance out of defence.

 

We'll be rate in midfielde if we play 2 or 3. Because we have the best central midfielder in the league.

 

You don't win the league or get relegated by your performances though you do it by results, its great to play nice football (something you clearly dont agree with) and still be gaining results but too much is but on how pretty your football is. Ours is both entertaining and effective which is the best combination

 

Thing is when we do lose the ball we chase, hurry and hastle the opposition brilliantly and either win it back or force them to back track.

 

I think we have the 2 best central midfielders in the league, Scowen's been awesome..

 

I agree. So far the teams playing three in midfield are quickly reduced to two or even one because they are so busy doubling up on Hamill and Kent - leaving Hourihane & Scowen to take control.

 

doesn't matter.

He played on the left.

Heres a quote from one of the journo's that follow Derby It's Forsyth & Butterfield down the left for Derby at Barnsley. Hughes, Martin & Johnson all on the bench

Also like the Quote says Hughes didn't start.

 

Why are you so afraid to lose?

We play 4-4-2 now and I haven't checked recently but we must be in the top 5 most successful clubs results wise in England since the turn of the year.

I've been to every game so far and the only time we played ****, deserved to lose and also looked void of ideas/confidence was when we played Northampton and played an out and out 4-4-1-1.

Now I know you like to think we always play that to justify that it's not the 4-4-2 that wins us games. But we don't. Against Northampton Moncur barely got near the area when we were attacking.

When our wingers get the ball we always have 2 men in the box. Against Northampton we only had one. It got us knocked out of the cup.

Just embrace the 4-4-2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There was a 10/15 minute spell at the start of the 2nd half where QPR, who were chasing the game, had a spell of pressure. As every team appears to do in a game. As even Rotherham did in the first half last week. After we'd weathered that, and although we went behind in that period, we went back to the same tempo that we had in he first half. We were far superior that day for at least 70 of the 90 minutes.

I'd probably dispute that we were dominated for large parts in the Huddersfield and Ipswich games, but I'd only be basing those opinions on the commentary I listened to and opinions of others.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk