Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Iloveyoubrady · Post by **Iloveyoubrady** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:27 pm

Obviously Hendrick is not a perfect fit for the position but can play with an out and out midfield 3 rather than a 2 with 1 further forward. Arfield is OK in the 10. Could Brady/gundmundson play there. Both play nice through balls - particularly Brady (spurs

!) but gundmundson played there in the past for Charlton. We were linked with Jota and Ings, they would fit the bill but maybe we would be better going for a pacy right winger and playing JBG in the 10 I feel he is good there. What do you guys think?

Edit - sorry about the number 10 confusing people

Diesel · Post by **Diesel** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:29 pm

Boyd?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:30 pm

Theresa May
Boris Johnson
&
David Davis

Perhaps it's time to drop Theresa and give somebody else a go?

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:32 pm

Don't go with shirt numbers. I'm 37 and a number 10 to me is a target man. Whereas number 9 is the main striker role.

9 and 10 have always been the two forwards as far as I'm concerned.

So it would be Wood or Vokes.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:44 pm

No guarantee Ings will be match fit in January, so can we stop linking him to us now?

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:00 pm

I'd just like any of them to occasionally drive forward and when faced with just one man to beat, have a go at getting past him into the box and having a shot. It doesn't happen as often as it should. I know we have quite a rigid framework and take no risks and that's fair enough but we need to have a go.

CFS · Post by **CFS** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:04 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:I'd just like any of them to occasionally drive forward and when faced with just one man to beat, have a go at getting past him into the box and having a shot. It doesn't happen as often as it should. I know we have quite a rigid framework and take no risks and that's fair enough but we need to have a go.

Need to have a go? Losing 1 this season not good enough? Beating Chelsea drawing away at spurs and Liverpool? Get a bloody grip mate.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 7:53 pm

Don't be a knob. I accept we've done damn well - all of my football-related posts are positive and supportive. I just feel there were one or two occasions yesterday there was a last man to be beaten and we, collectively, tended to shy away from that. I think, at times, Huddersfield were looking dodgy but we didn't capitalise. I think I've got a grip, mate.

pushpinpussy · Post by **pushpinpussy** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:09 pm

Lansbury

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:16 pm

Laughable.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:24 pm

If we're playing 4-4-1-1 and so need someone to play as a sort of "number 10" off a target man, then the stand out candidate for me is Arfield. Even yesterday he showed the ability to find pockets of space and link play in that role and he wasn't even playing there.

Its not Hendrick's role - he's an orthodox central midfielder, at his best picking the ball up and driving from deep (as he did once yesterday, and with more composure from Brady would have created a goalscoring opportunity).

CFS · Post by **CFS** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:32 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:Don't be a knob. I accept we've done damn well - all of my football-related posts are positive and supportive. I just feel there were one or two occasions yesterday there was a last man to be beaten and we, collectively, tended to shy away from that. I think, at times, Huddersfield were looking dodgy but we didn't capitalise. I think I've got a grip, mate.

All I want to say is take it under consideration that Huddersfield have only conceded 1 goal from open play this season. We pushed them hard but taking claret tinted specs off were not a team that's going to unlock such a defence as it showed v wba.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:43 pm

Of the current squad I'd say the only player possibly capable of playing this role is Brady.

He is inventive, skilful and has 2 good feet.

It's a very hard position to fill however - look round the other teams and how many have quality no 10 type players who are available for an affordable price.

Ings was great with Vokes but we have no idea whether he is the player he was or ever will be again.

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:53 pm

TVC15 wrote:Of the current squad I'd say the only player possibly capable of playing this role is Brady.

He is inventive, skilful and has 2 good feet.

He probably does but appears more reluctant than Dave Jones to demonstrate a pass with his right foot.

I don't think he is a bad choice but worry about his spacial awareness as he often gets caught out when dithering in possesion.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:59 pm

CFS wrote:All I want to say is take it under consideration that Huddersfield have only conceded 1 goal from open play this season. We pushed them hard but taking claret tinted specs off were not a team that's going to unlock such a defence as it showed v wba.

We had enough chances to beat WBA though.

Iloveyoubrady · Post by **Iloveyoubrady** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:01 pm

JohnMac wrote:He probably does but appears more reluctant than Dave Jones to demonstrate a pass with his right foot.

I don't think he is a bad choice but worry about his spacial awareness as he often gets caught out when dithering in possesion.

He has whipped in a few good balls with his right foot before but doesnt seem to want to do a short pass. He could be good behind the striker because then he would have the license to stay forward and be able to take risks. Also he could have more shots which could be a good goal threat for us. However, hopefully he will take more shots from the wing when he moves over to the right.

Roosterbooster · Post by **Roosterbooster** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:07 pm

claretspice wrote:the stand out candidate for me is Arfield. Even yesterday he showed the ability to find pockets of space and link play in that role

He kept finding space then losing the ball. If he does that then he might as well not find the space in the first place. All the build up play was redundant because of his and wood's inability to keep hold of it.

I've always thought JBG could play that role. He's a real threat around the box

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:07 pm

claretspice wrote:If we're playing 4-4-1-1 and so need someone to play as a sort of "number 10" off a target man, then the stand out candidate for me is Arfield

The number 10 IS the target man. But I agree that Arfield can do a good job behind the lone striker.

JohnMac · Post by **JohnMac** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:14 pm

Iloveyoubrady wrote:He has whipped in a few good balls with his right foot before but doesnt seem to want to do a short pass. He could be good behind the striker because then he would have the license to stay forward and be able to take risks. Also he could have more shots which could be a good goal threat for us. However, hopefully he will take more shots from the wing when he moves over to the right.

He isn't afraid to shoot with it that's for sure, that late effort would have been a worldy had it been on target.

CFS · Post by **CFS** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:20 pm

Spijed wrote:We had enough chances to beat WBA though.

From my head I don't think we had a shot on target v wba.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:24 pm

CFS wrote:From my head I don't think we had a shot on target v wba.

Wasn't that down to our wastefulness though?

Walters should have buried his header at the end!

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:29 pm

Are people seriously now saying we did not play well against WBA ?
We played excellent that day - arguably our best performance of the season. Dyche himself said so.
Statistics can be misleading - if you miss an open net from 1 yard hitting the ball over the bar then that's a shot off target. Yet if you scuff a shot that pea rolls along the ground which the keeper could "throw his hat on" - that's a shot on target.

The best 2 chances yesterday were both from Burnley. The Wood header and the cross from Ward which but for great defending would have meant an open net.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:30 pm

CFS wrote:From my head I don't think we had a shot on target v wba.

I think you're right, we didn't. But WBA only had one which was their goal.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:38 pm

I don't think we have the players to play 4-4-2 as well this season as we did last season and previous seasons.

Also if a team sits in and defends then our 4-5-1 (4-4-1-1) really struggles as well.

RVclaret · Post by **RVclaret** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:31 pm

Someone of similar ilk to Pascal Groß at Brighton. Natural behind striker, creative but not neccesserily quick.

Couldn’t say who but I bet Brighton fans had no clue who Groß was either. It’s called scouting.

CFS · Post by **CFS** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:34 pm

Spijed wrote:Wasn't that down to our wastefulness though?

Walters should have buried his header at the end!

He should have as should wood v udders. It's partly down to wastefulness yet still there to see we can't break teams down wba and udders who both sat back.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:04 am

Rowls wrote:Theresa May
Boris Johnson
&
David Davis

Perhaps it's time to drop Theresa and give somebody else a go?

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:07 am

I'd be VERY tempted to try Brady in there and put Taylor on the wing

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:13 am

Vegas Claret wrote:I'd be VERY tempted to try Brady in there and put Taylor on the wing

I've said it before, but Taylor for Leeds often played as a wing back. He spent most of his time in the opposition's half. I think he could do it on the wing as it won't be exactly foreign to him. I still think Ward and Taylor could be an immense left sided partnership.

NRC · Post by **NRC** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:02 am

Ulvestad.

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:28 am

NRC wrote:Ulvestad.

Exactly.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:54 am

JohnMac wrote:He isn't afraid to shoot with it that's for sure, that late effort would have been a worldy had it been on target.

It wouldn't have counted though, the flag had gone up for Wood running back into an onside position to challenge for the initial header.

jlup1980 · Post by **jlup1980** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:04 am

We only have Arfield who can play behind the striker at the moment. He's the only one who reacts to the knock downs even if it means coming inside from a wide position like he did at the weekend. Hendrick doesn't react quickly enough even when he's fit. He hasn't got the same anticipation. Scotty has all the quality to play that role, plus the work rate to please SD's framework.

People can say he lost the ball at the weekend but he was pretty much the only player who tried a few defence splitting passes. Also we didn't get the ball to him quickly enough on occasion. There was certainly one time in the 2nd half when he was calling for the ball running into the box and Ward delayed the pass by a few seconds meaning the ball ended up behind Arfield rather than into his stride. These little errors or hesitations cost you dear in this league.

I went on the match with a Huddersfield fan at the weekend and he was very happy when Arfield went off. In his words "he's the only one who looks like making anything happen". That says it all for me.

Iloveyoubrady · Post by **Iloveyoubrady** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:33 am

Vegas Claret wrote:I'd be VERY tempted to try Brady in there and put Taylor on the wing

He does seem to have the technical attributes and often finds nice through balls. However, would he be wasted there because his balls into the box could be lethal with wood and Vokes - two big strikers. I think he needs to be instructed to just swing balls into the box rather than attempting short passes and passing back to the defence just for them to hoof it up.

Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: no. 10 - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: no. 10 - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: no. 10 - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: no. 10 - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?

Re: Attacking mid - who should we get/who do we have?