Xerdan shaquri

[boatshed bill]

I'm not sure I like the idea of a No 10 these days, it always used to be that skillful little fella with the brains to play off a target man and with the skill to unlock a defence.
out dated IMO.

[TVC15]

“He changed the system to accommodate 2 forwards who were in excellent form”

Really ? They were in excellent form ?

They enjoyed excellent form after he changed the system. That’s not why he changed the system as they were not in any real form before Hendrick got dropped.

[ontario claret]

If you've seen him play this year, you'll know that this is ridiculous.

[claretspice]

“He changed the system to accommodate 2 forwards who were in excellent form”

Really ? They were in excellent form ?

They enjoyed excellent form after he changed the system. That’s not why he changed the system as they were not in any real form before Hendrick got dropped.

That is just not right. We changed the system at West Brom. Wood had 3 in 2 and Barnes 3 in 3 immediately before then.

And in any event this is besides the point. When Hendrick made way he was replaced by a player Dyche knew would work his balls off.

[CoolClaret]

I'm not sure I like the idea of a No 10 these days, it always used to be that skillful little fella with the brains to play off a target man and with the skill to unlock a defence.
out dated IMO.

?
Number 10 is one of the most important positions of the modern game, especially as the most common formation in the top leagues is 4-2-3-1

[agreenwood]

Shaqiri is the nailed on to go to West Ham.

Talented. Questionable attitude. Huge wages.

It doesn’t get more West Ham.

[TVC15]

That is just not right. We changed the system at West Brom. Wood had 3 in 2 and Barnes 3 in 3 immediately before then.

And in any event this is besides the point. When Hendrick made way he was replaced by a player Dyche knew would work his balls off.

I agree Woods and Barnes had just started scoring in the 2 or 3 games before Hendrick was dropped but by this point Hendrick was being brought off after only 50 / 60 mins. Before these couple of games they were not in great form.

I agree this is besides the point though. Hendrick playing in this role never really worked - I like Hendrick but in this position he did very little but his attitude continued to be great.
When Barnes / Wood came in neither tried to play the same role as Jeff.

Personally i find it hard to see how a midfielder runner type player can play this role. It’s not really worked for us. 4-5-1 has worked and so has the traditional 4-4-2.

It’s not a big issue - we have done brilliant. It’s just an interesting debate / dilemma that if we are not playing 4-5-1 or a 4-4-2 with 2 of Barnes, Vokes and Wood up front do we have the players to play the formation we tried when using Jeff up front ? And if not but Dyche likes that formation who would be a good person to bring in to play that more advanced role ?

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Surely you can't deny that in a 4-5-1 with Hendrick being the front of 5, Shaquri in the front of 5 would be better?

It's just a case of cost and character appraisal.

Seeing Defour consistently set Shaquri up? Come on...who wouldn't want to try?

[claretspice]

I agree Woods and Barnes had just started scoring in the 2 or 3 games before Hendrick was dropped but by this point Hendrick was being brought off after only 50 / 60 mins. Before these couple of games they were not in great form.

I agree this is besides the point though. Hendrick playing in this role never really worked - I like Hendrick but in this position he did very little but his attitude continued to be great.
When Barnes / Wood came in neither tried to play the same role as Jeff.

Personally i find it hard to see how a midfielder runner type player can play this role. It’s not really worked for us. 4-5-1 has worked and so has the traditional 4-4-2.

It’s not a big issue - we have done brilliant. It’s just an interesting debate / dilemma that if we are not playing 4-5-1 or a 4-4-2 with 2 of Barnes, Vokes and Wood up front do we have the players to play the formation we tried when using Jeff up front ? And if not but Dyche likes that formation who would be a good person to bring in to play that more advanced role ?

We can debate whether Hendrick was a success in that role or not all day - I'd argue that given we've just finished 7th, and have very similar records playing 442 and 451, it's ludicrous to suggest that Hendrick in that role "has never really worked". It presumably worked pretty well in achieving what Dyche wanted to achieve because the team achieved way more than any of us thought it could achieve. Its easy to fondly imagine we might have achieved the same amount with more style and swagger if we'd had a more "creative" number 10 but its almost certainly an illusion given how far we've overachieved in the first place.

But again, that's besides the point. What we've played this season is either 442 with two hard working forwards, all doing the running and dirty stuff, or 4-5-1 with Arfield or Hendrick playing as the advanced midfielder, again both doing the running and dirty stuff. The original question here was whether we'd sacrifice on that to bring in a player like Shaquiri. I don't see anything in our selections this season or at any other time when Dyche has been manager to suggest we would.

[claretspice]

Surely you can't deny that in a 4-5-1 with Hendrick being the front of 5, Shaquri in the front of 5 would be better?

It's just a case of cost and character appraisal.

Seeing Defour consistently set Shaquri up? Come on...who wouldn't want to try?

Better with the ball, certainly. Without it - probably not.

[TVC15]

No need to debate it all day claretspice - it’s fine for you to think Hendrick did well in that role and fine for me and the majority of fans to think he struggled. All about opinions. No need to quote results and how well we have done - I already said that. Plus you can get positive results and players not play as well as others.

If you’ve watched the recent Keith Andrews show where they feature Burnley they comment on the fact that Hendrick did not enjoy playing the position - and I doubt he enjoyed getting hooked shortly after half time.

[Blackrod]

Not sure Shaquiri is right for us. No doubt a talented player but I desperately hope we don't see too much more of Hendrick as a 'running' 10.

[Lancasterclaret]

I get the idea that we need a more creative No 10, but unless he works as hard as Hendrick does then he's not going to be signed by SD. There are not many players who can create, score and work their socks off.

Best bet I reckon would be a young player with potential and see if he grows into the role (which is arguably what we have tried with Hendrick)

[Blackrod]

There's no doubt it's a big ask to get all the qualities needed for that position and a ready made player will cost.

[TVC15]

Tom Cairney looks a more creative player than Jeff and if Fulham don’t go up I think there will be a few clubs after him.

I agree that we probably won’t go for Shaqiri and I am not sure at his wages he would be worth the risk.

I also think it’s not as much of a priority for SD to get a new player in this position as some of the fans think.

We do need to be more of a goal threat but we have also lost 2 of our most creative players in Defour and Brady. With them back in the team and playing as they were before the injuries we become a different proposition and it also allows the likes of Hendrick to play like he did at Old Trafford.

Hendrick is a good player - there was a spell last season when he was our best player. It’s good to have so many options and so much quality - you need to pinch yourself when we are 7th and having this kind of debate !

[boatshed bill]

?
Number 10 is one of the most important positions of the modern game, especially as the most common formation in the top leagues is 4-2-3-1

My mum used to smoke them they were horrible!
I prefer the 4-3-3 set up these days, more fluent in my opinion.

[KRBFC]

“He changed the system to accommodate 2 forwards who were in excellent form”

Really ? They were in excellent form ?

They enjoyed excellent form after he changed the system. That’s not why he changed the system as they were not in any real form before Hendrick got dropped.

Wood was injured so Hendrick played the ''number 10'' role behind Barnes, I'm confident Wood would start every game if he was fully fit. When he was fit enough to be on the bench, Dyche subbed him on for Hendrick against Everton and Wood won the game, the following game Wood came on for Hendrick at West Ham and scored 2 and set up Barnes for the 1st. The following game at WBA Barnes and Wood started.

In the 2 games before Wood and Barnes started (WBA), Wood had 3 goals and 1 assist, Barnes had 2 goals. They were very much bang in form and we looked a much better team at West Ham when Wood came on for Hendrick.

I agree with your point though, Hendrick definitely isn't a number 10, much better deeper as a box to box midfielder.

[TVC15]

Before that spell we hardly played 4-4-2 though - was Man City one of the only games we reverted to this ?
4-5-1 (or 4-4-1-1 etc) was working a treat for a good chunk of the season but Jeff never really looked comfortable - though I do think that this was a very difficult position for him to play as the way we play it meant he got so little of the ball and when he did he was under a lot of pressure with often no Burnley players anywhere near him.

[claretspice]

As I've said before - and as I think Dyche says in that quote I posted from him above - I think too much is made of "badges". Whether the same deployment of players look to be playing 4-3-3 or 4-4-1-1 is largely a function not of tactics, but field position and the attributes of those players. If you're on the front foot and you've got players like Brady and Lennon, then presuming they are given licence to break beyond the centre forward in narrow positions, and it will look like a 4-3-3. If you're on the back foot and the wingers are being forced to defend (and particularly if they don't have the pace/willingness to get up fast on the break), it will look much more like 4-4-1-1 at that "third central midfielder" will look much more like a second striker. 4-3-3 suits someone like Hendrick, who everyone agrees is more of a midfielder than a forward, more than 4-4-1-1. So the more time in a game we're able to play something like 4-3-3, the more effective Hendrick will be. I've said before that if we set up next season with Defour in midfield and Lennon on the right flank, then Defour's ability to pick a forward pass will not only make the best of Lennon's pace and movement (he's all about making inside runs from outside right, and that needs someone like Defour to pick the pass), but it will also make the best of Hendrick because he'll spend much more of the game facing the opposition goal and with more than one player ahead of him.

But even aside from all this, whether we look like the set up is 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-3, we're highly unlikely to sign a player to fill a role in either the 3 or the "1", that does not first and foremost give 100%. and have the ability to do the defensive stuff we demand. As Lancaster says, finding a player who has that attitude with the technical quality we crave is a bit like looking for hen's teeth, so realistically we're either going to have to compromise on the creative bit, or find a kid who can be developed, which will be a longer term project in any event.

[boatshed bill]

Before that spell we hardly played 4-4-2 though - was Man City one of the only games we reverted to this ?
4-5-1 (or 4-4-1-1 etc) was working a treat for a good chunk of the season but Jeff never really looked comfortable - though I do think that this was a very difficult position for him to play as the way we play it meant he got so little of the ball and when he did he was under a lot of pressure with often no Burnley players anywhere near him.

I saw an analysis of Hendrick's work as a "No 10", can't remember where, he did a lot better than some will have you believe.

[TVC15]

Would not be surprised if his stats for distance covered etc were very good.
Most of the fans will judge a player in this position on assists, goals, attempts on goals etc and we did not see much of this from Hendrick.
Of course SD and his team look at a lot more than this and the one thing you can’t dispute is we finished 7th with Hendrick playing in most of the games so whatever is said playing him there “worked”