Grabben/Brereton

[Polly 433]

Last season BB was our chosen striker as Murphy was off altogether and Velios out of favour. Grabben is struggling and Murphy isn't any better than last season. Surely on form BB has not dropped below Murphy or Velios. To send him out on loan is a big risk without a replacement of some description.

Although the striker position is a problem so is our soft central midfield. With two defensive minded CM's (Watson and Colback) service to strikers will be limited. I was pleased to see Geddy on form and being attack minded in first 4 games. This still worries me though as neither Watson nor Colback are enforcers. They read the game and play between the two penalty areas.

Saiss is more of an enforcer and being 6'3" can drop between the two CB's when at set pieces. This would allow us to play both Carvalho and our top scoring number 2 or two out and out strikers Grabben/Bereraton.

The problem of playing three at the back is when the opposition has only one striker and 10 get behind the ball, three of our men will be marking the one striker, plus goalie leaving 7 players trying to beat oppositions 10 men, all squeezed in between penalty area and 10 yards short of halfway line.

By having someone like Saiss means he can push on, leaving two to mark opportunity striker and wingback can push right up in to wing positions. This would give us versatility we do not have at moment.

 

[radfordinlondon]

I went.

It certainly was not one of Osborn's better games, but that could be applied to most of the side on Saturday

Again, a good deal of blame for our defensive frailties could be put down to what is happening in front of them.

I know a lot of people, certainly on here, seem to disregard the defensive responsibilities of our midfield; I would have thought that as a former defender, you would be more sympathetic to Osborn's plight.

As a former defender, if I was being put under similar pressure due to players ignoring their responsibilities, I would be having a not so quiet word with the offenders with a view to putting them straight.

The Penalty was clumsy rather than deliberate and was definitely nothing more than a yellow; it looked like he ran into the back of the player.

The Penalty was a very good example of how we are failing defensively as a team; the build up to the cross coming in was a comedy of errors - Osborn was then sucked in to the middle with not one but two players left unmarked on his outside.

Osborn is clearly a better midfield player and Robinson may turn out to be a better full back, but he will not perform any better if he experiences the same kind of support that Osborn as suffered from.

That's why I think Robinson will do better because it frees os to give him the cover lolly isnt providing.

 

[radfordinlondon]

No it wasn't

He asked if we stayed with 4 at the back, Osborn moving to LM and Robinson to LB. I was told me moved to more of a 3 at the back with Robinson on the left hand side of the 3 and Ben playing as an aggressive wing back.

Unless there was another question I can't spot...

Yes it was the bit about us exerting more pressure when os went back to LM

 

[Our Kids Dad]

I went.

It certainly was not one of Osborn's better games, but that could be applied to most of the side on Saturday

Again, a good deal of blame for our defensive frailties could be put down to what is happening in front of them.

I know a lot of people, certainly on here, seem to disregard the defensive responsibilities of our midfield; I would have thought that as a former defender, you would be more sympathetic to Osborn's plight.

As a former defender, if I was being put under similar pressure due to players ignoring their responsibilities, I would be having a not so quiet word with the offenders with a view to putting them straight.

The Penalty was clumsy rather than deliberate and was definitely nothing more than a yellow; it looked like he ran into the back of the player.

The Penalty was a very good example of how we are failing defensively as a team; the build up to the cross coming in was a comedy of errors - Osborn was then sucked in to the middle with not one but two players left unmarked on his outside.

Osborn is clearly a better midfield player and Robinson may turn out to be a better full back, but he will not perform any better if he experiences the same kind of support that Osborn as suffered from.

Penalty, from highlights - was stone wall (Cash's look soft) - Ben was out of position and actually dragged the player down - due to his positioning.

I do have sympathy for Osborn's plight and played full back & wing back in my younger days - dcm & sweeper as I got north of 30/35.

My argument all along has surrounded the fact that he is a better LM & with the experience at LB - it may well improve his game further, so that he also does the defensive side of that LM role.

Ben is often caught the wrong side if his player, he isn't great in the air (hardly a shock), gets dragged inside and I don't think his tackling is great, I'd also add that personally I think he lacks pace to operate as a full back.

That said - going forward, he is reasonable at crossing, has good skill - which allows him to beat his man - rather than needing pace, his distribution is streets ahead of Darikwa - great engine and no-one could ever fault his commitment.

I favour round pegs in round holes and see Ben giving it his all, in a position that he is not the best at... that is not a criticism merely an observation that reflects negatively against the manager, not the player!

 

[MarlowBottom]

Last season BB was our chosen striker as Murphy was off altogether and Velios out of favour. Grabben is struggling and Murphy isn't any better than last season. Surely on form BB has not dropped below Murphy or Velios. To send him out on loan is a big risk without a replacement of some description.

Although the striker position is a problem so is our soft central midfield. With two defensive minded CM's (Watson and Colback) service to strikers will be limited. I was pleased to see Geddy on form and being attack minded in first 4 games. This still worries me though as neither Watson nor Colback are enforcers. They read the game and play between the two penalty areas.

Saiss is more of an enforcer and being 6'3" can drop between the two CB's when at set pieces. This would allow us to play both Carvalho and our top scoring number 2 or two out and out strikers Grabben/Bereraton.

The problem of playing three at the back is when the opposition has only one striker and 10 get behind the ball, three of our men will be marking the one striker, plus goalie leaving 7 players trying to beat oppositions 10 men, all squeezed in between penalty area and 10 yards short of halfway line.

By having someone like Saiss means he can push on, leaving two to mark opportunity striker and wingback can push right up in to wing positions. This would give us versatility we do not have at moment.

I very much doubt we will play 3 at the back at home. As i said earlier, it may be an option in some away games.

 

[Polly 433]

I agree MB. My point was with a player like Saiss one can play three at the back at times and four at the back on other occasions just by Saiss moving between two CB's or by holding in front of three or five midfield players.

 

[MarlowBottom]

Yeah very true. We often go like that in possession, with Colback dropping very deep between the 2 CB's.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Yes it was the bit about us exerting more pressure when os went back to LM

He didn't go to orthodox LM, nor Robinson to LB so a little redundant.

We exerted more pressure when their two best players went off mostly.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Penalty, from highlights - was stone wall (Cash's look soft) - Ben was out of position and actually dragged the player down - due to his positioning.

I do have sympathy for Osborn's plight and played full back & wing back in my younger days - dcm & sweeper as I got north of 30/35.

My argument all along has surrounded the fact that he is a better LM & with the experience at LB - it may well improve his game further, so that he also does the defensive side of that LM role.

Ben is often caught the wrong side if his player, he isn't great in the air (hardly a shock), gets dragged inside and I don't think his tackling is great, I'd also add that personally I think he lacks pace to operate as a full back.

That said - going forward, he is reasonable at crossing, has good skill - which allows him to beat his man - rather than needing pace, his distribution is streets ahead of Darikwa - great engine and no-one could ever fault his commitment.

I favour round pegs in round holes and see Ben giving it his all, in a position that he is not the best at... that is not a criticism merely an observation that reflects negatively against the manager, not the player!

You've a very old fashioned view of the fullback role.

 

[Our Kids Dad]

You've a very old fashioned view of the fullback role.

I don't think so - actually being able to defend, tackle, head the ball and being positionally sound are particularly useful attributes for a full back - coupled with being able to get forward, overlap and put crosses in.

I tend set the Youth teams up that I manage & have managed as 3-5-2 - with the wing backs more wingers than defenders. Those players have to have a really good engine, are pacy but understand when they have to track back & tuck in to help out the defence - Ben is more suited to that role, but as I said, he lacks pace.

So let's not confuse the 2 - Ben is a midfielder being asked to play full back - he is not a full back and we will continue to suffer if he continues to play there.

1st goal was Pantillimon's fault after a daft error to concede a corner in first few minutes.

We were then lucky to avoid conceding a second, moments later, when their right winger beat Benny easily and got a cross in that Grigg put into side netting. Not the first time this season.

Benny was directly responsible for their 2nd, clumsy challenge, caught the wrong side of his man & nothing to do with Lolley not providing cover... that's all down to Ben!


However, it is testament Ben's versatility than AK saw him as a more effective LM/W option removing Lolley and bringing on Robinson... exactly same as he did for the game against Reading.

Perhaps Robinson is not match fit, but in my opinion, Benny is not the answer at LB. LWB perhaps.

 

[Polly 433]

BO has strived manfully at LB but isn't a championship promotion challenging LB and will be found wanting, especially in the air. He will be targeted and opposition will load up their right side. He does however offer options going forward and if playing left wing or wingback will offer great support. Should we go three at the back or Robinson play in back four with BO in front of them then they will be a tight defence. The same goes on the right. If Byram or TD then they remain defensively weak unless a third centre back is covering. If Forest are four at the back, with Robinson at LB the opposition will target their leftwing, our fightback and not Osborn. That is why we should play three at the back, with wingback not four with fullbacks. We do not have personnel with two good quality defensive fullbacks.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

I keep hearing a lot of implied criticisms of Lolley for not tracking back. But certainly against Reading in the first half I thought he was probably doing more defending than Ben at times. Certainly got him out of a few scrapes. Maybe he was lazier in the second half the other side of the pitch to me

 

[radfordinlondon]

He didn't go to orthodox LM, nor Robinson to LB so a little redundant.

We exerted more pressure when their two best players went off mostly.

mostly eh? and you picked all that up off the radio.

 

[paz1967]

we havent seen the new LB anyway yet really. He might be useless, what will happen if he has 2 bad early games? He is an enigma of sorts young bennie, For last cple of seasons id have played 352 with him on the left of midfield personally. There are going to be pros n cons to every set up im sure

 

[Calvin Plummer]

mostly eh? and you picked all that up off the radio.

Wigan comments, Forest comments, stats. Powell is their playmaker and sets the tempo of their game but rarely lasts longer than an hour. Grieg the focal point of attack. Both departed and the match changed. It's a common failing in their team according to their fans.

Do you have any evidence otherwise?

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Oh laughing smiley face just makes you look a prick when you've nothing of substance to add.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Penalty, from highlights - was stone wall (Cash's look soft) - Ben was out of position and actually dragged the player down - due to his positioning.

I do have sympathy for Osborn's plight and played full back & wing back in my younger days - dcm & sweeper as I got north of 30/35.

My argument all along has surrounded the fact that he is a better LM & with the experience at LB - it may well improve his game further, so that he also does the defensive side of that LM role.

Ben is often caught the wrong side if his player, he isn't great in the air (hardly a shock), gets dragged inside and I don't think his tackling is great, I'd also add that personally I think he lacks pace to operate as a full back.

That said - going forward, he is reasonable at crossing, has good skill - which allows him to beat his man - rather than needing pace, his distribution is streets ahead of Darikwa - great engine and no-one could ever fault his commitment.

I favour round pegs in round holes and see Ben giving it his all, in a position that he is not the best at... that is not a criticism merely an observation that reflects negatively against the manager, not the player!

I don't think so - actually being able to defend, tackle, head the ball and being positionally sound are particularly useful attributes for a full back - coupled with being able to get forward, overlap and put crosses in.

I tend set the Youth teams up that I manage & have managed as 3-5-2 - with the wing backs more wingers than defenders. Those players have to have a really good engine, are pacy but understand when they have to track back & tuck in to help out the defence - Ben is more suited to that role, but as I said, he lacks pace.

So let's not confuse the 2 - Ben is a midfielder being asked to play full back - he is not a full back and we will continue to suffer if he continues to play there.

1st goal was Pantillimon's fault after a daft error to concede a corner in first few minutes.

We were then lucky to avoid conceding a second, moments later, when their right winger beat Benny easily and got a cross in that Grigg put into side netting. Not the first time this season.

Benny was directly responsible for their 2nd, clumsy challenge, caught the wrong side of his man & nothing to do with Lolley not providing cover... that's all down to Ben!


However, it is testament Ben's versatility than AK saw him as a more effective LM/W option removing Lolley and bringing on Robinson... exactly same as he did for the game against Reading.

Perhaps Robinson is not match fit, but in my opinion, Benny is not the answer at LB. LWB perhaps.

Everything you post is very English from the 90s ignoring the evolution of fullbacks in the modern game. Defensively minded first, support the CB's, do the odd overlap, job done. It's just not representative of the majority of play these days. Gary Neville style fullbacks are no longer in vogue, even a defensive coach like Jose uses two converted wingers as his fullbacks. How great in the air or tackle do you think Ashley Young is?

Watch how City play too, fullbacks that are comfortable moving into central midfield, not overlapping, allowing their wide men to hug the touchline with extra space.

The trend continues at Liverpool with Robertson and Alexander-Arnold.

And this is England slowly catching up with a shift in play that began with Brazil, made its way to continental Europe and is now pervading the Premier League.

The flexibility allows for everything from 3-5-2, 3-4-3, 3-1-4-2 etc to be an option.

Robinson might be great in the role, as comfortable on the ball and transition with some extra defensive quality - then great but currently I don't think you even understand the role that's being asked of Ben.