Not just them, but the type of player who can get in and mix things up on the defensive side. If you're going to see as little of the ball as we did today, you need somebody to clog the channels.

Thats a very good observation. Inclined to agree. Its those type of players who when we were up against it dug in and grafted.

Missed them all season. They stopped the opposition's wingers getting a clear run on our full-backs.
Our shape defensively today was awful.

Boyd cannot get in the Sheff Wed squad and Arfield was getting less and less game time with us. Had they both played today for us they would have been crucified on this Board

warksclaret wrote:Boyd cannot get in the Sheff Wed squad and Arfield was getting less and less game time with us. Had they both played today for us they would have been crucified on this Board

The point was about the type of player.

Shape? What shape? We were at sixes and sevens all day. It was the kind of game where Defour was next to useless. If he's not controlling the game in the midfield going forward, what exactly is is role?

Thanks, taio.

Boyd maybe. Arfield yes. Barton certainly. But even with a back four as poor as ours is at the moment they would have struggled. We need a midfield enforcer. Have for a while.

Who would people prefer?... Boyd and Arfield, or Brady and JBG? The same people that complain that we don't attack enough?

You can't have it both ways. Some people just enjoy complaining.

FactualFrank wrote:Who would people prefer?... Boyd and Arfield, or Brady and JBG? The same people that complain that we don't attack enough?

You can't have it both ways. Some people just enjoy complaining.

I'd prefer Brady and JBG but thought the OP raised a fair point. Similar could be said about when Barton was at his best for us because he gave us bite and presence.

SMFH these are the types of players we don’t need. Our squad is full of them. We need technical players with pace and played in a system which allows them to actual venture forward and try to attack.

If we missed Boyd and arfield then God help us.One can't get in a poor Sheffield wed and the other cant get in a bang average Rangers team.Maybe bring back les Lawrence and Dave Jones.

Now you're talking.

Leave it to you lot to twist the words posted into something that wasn't meant. What I was saying was that on a day when we knew ahead of time that we weren't going to see a lot of the ball that a couple of wingers who knew how to play proper defence would have been very useful. Chelsea have world class attackers. We don't. Very simple.

Op agreed.

We are in the midst of change, to a different system, which has to be given time. With luck we survive and prosper going forward. With no luck, we swap to 442 from the outset and win some matches that way.

For me we missed playing Vydra behind Vokes or playing Barnes behind Wood from the start. We had absolutely nothing up front so when we got the ball we had nowhere to go with it. This meant possession kept getting turned over and invited more pressure on us. We made the change at 3-0 down but the damage was already done.

I don’t think it was the wide players that would have made the difference, more the realisation that Hendrick and Vokes as a partnership doesn’t work and hasn’t since the early part of last season. This is not another go at Jeff, he has played well a number of times this season, more stating the blindly obvious that the system doesn’t work (the same goes for playing Sam with Ashley).

When it came to protecting the back four, Dean Marney all day long for me. A terrible turn of fortune when he got injured.

Agree with the OP - Always got a minimum 100% from Boyd and Arfield. Players yesterday weren't pressing nearly as hard as they should - the space they gave them was suicide

In a team with JBG and Brady as wingers, if Boyd and Arfield are the answer, then it’s a stupid question.