berner - is there something i don't know

[Lillehamring]

it came as quite a surprise to me to see berner get such a low mark against stevenage, i saw the game online and was quite impressed with the good things he did (granted, there was some less than great stuff) and a few people (only a few) have suggested he played well yesterday.

so it was (sort of) reassuring to read reynard's observation

3 This will be another unpopular thought but the inclusion of Berner playing (though not as well) the old Lennon role has given the side the balance in midfield we have been severely lacking. This clearly allowed both King and Oakley to have much more freedom to get forward and the interchange of positioning between all the midfield was the real difference between the two sides. Both of them played well though Oakley really should have scored.

what disturbed me though was that he/she was conscious that it would be perceived as an 'unpopular thought'.

it just seems that, like many players before him, a lot of fans have decided that they don't want berner to be any good?

perhaps time may show that he isn't but it strikes me how quick people are to write a player off, even before he's had chance to establish himself in the team.

he has played, i understand, in the midfield holding role for the last two games and, opposition notwithstanding, has been part of a midfield that has stepped up to score 3 out of the last 4 goals, yet i wouldn't be surprised if he finishes bottom or close to bottom in the match rackings again.

...any thoughts?

nb: please don't get on your high horses and start all the usual 'not at the match, how dare you' BS, i'm just putting out a suggestion for discussion.

[sbfox]

<cut>

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, what you linked was talking about how the 'Lennon role' was going to be seen as unpopular, rather than Berner himself. If you take out the bracket, the sentence reads, "unpopular thought but the inclusion of Berner playing the Lennon role". To me, this just says that the fans aren't going to want to see another Lennon-esque player in the centre of midfield and would rather stick with more creative players.

[Corky]

I think he brings balance to our midfield. King and Oakley are both attacking midfielders, so Berner sitting back allows them to go forward. It worked in the second half on Saturday, I can't comment about last night though.

[davieG]

If we ever decide to play with two proper wingers I'd be tempted to give him a run along side King instead of Oakley, he seems to have a bit more vision than Oakley, it would also be interesting to find out whether it's Berner that's helping to bring out the best in King or because we're playing with 3 central midfielders.

I think it also helps have a left footed player in the left CM role.

I'm inclined to think that King feels subordinated when Oakleys along side, I have similar feeling re Tunchev and Kisnorbo.

PS for all Oakley's improved contribution to the game whilst playing on the right I thought his first touch in many cases was very poor.

[Ric Flair]

I thought Berner did give us balance and allowed us to pass quickly between King, himself and Oakley, which didn't allow Yeovil time to get their shape in the centre and it led to us having more space and time on the ball to attack. King was fookin brilliant first half yesterday and had the confidence that he knew Berner was sitting back if he rampaged forward.

[The People's Hero]

Can only comment on the Brighton (away) and Bristol Rovers (home) games.

In the Brighton game, he was as guilty as anyone of surrendering possession and the initiative in the middle of the park, letting Brighton dominate in the second half.

In the Bristol Rovers game, his introduction along with Adams and Hayles had a very positive impact. In fact, against Rovers he looked extremely fit, tidy, capable and willing.

[Lillehamring]

interesting....

perhaps i misread reynard's post, and that in my own way, i'm as sceptical as anyone else when it comes to leicester...

although, if he can do anything close to what lennon did for us, i fail to see how it could be considered unpopular.

...people have been suggesting we need more muscle in the midfield, the counter argument being stuck with an ineffective tiatto type; is it fair to say that berner might be able to provide muscle AND have the capacity to play the ball...? if so, it frustrates me even more to see people dissmissive of him, before he's really had chance to prove himself - if i remember right, his was not a very popular signing, but it looks like he could be the missing midfield link, especially with clemence looking out for a long long time

[Lillehamring]

Can only comment on the Brighton (away) and Bristol Rovers (home) games.

In the Brighton game, he was as guilty as anyone of surrendering possession and the initiative in the middle of the park, letting Brighton dominate in the second half.

In the Bristol Rovers game, his introduction along with Adams and Hayles had a very positive impact. In fact, against Rovers he looked extremely fit, tidy, capable and willing.

yet he ranked 12th of all players, a good way behind adams? it seems that people have made their minds up anout him and can't see beyond that

perhaps?

[Tilley]

Was good last night.

King & Berner > King & Oakley.

[The People's Hero]

yet he ranked 12th of all players, a good way behind adams? it seems that people have made their minds up anout him and can't see beyond that

perhaps?

Yeah, that surprised me.

Having said that, he did the hustle and bustle and played the nice easy balls whilst the eye catching bits were left to others. Perhaps that reflected on the way people rated him.

He's no world beater... but he puts himself about and that and his versatility and fitness alone leads me to think he's good enough for us in this division (and possibly one higher).

[Lillehamring]

ok, thanks for your thoughts guys...

looking at the ratings, i think he'll probably be down the bottom again...

i guess he might just be one of those players that always does ok but never really amazes, perhaps he's the new phil gilchrist....

[Staf]

Thought Berner played well last night. Looked good when he was on the ball and played some nice passes.

[Fatbloke]

Agree, Bruno has added a certain something to a midfield that was worrying me a bit, no need for anyone to dislike the bloke, he`s been patient and now he`s got a shirt, on his last 2 performances he will be difficult to shift, well played !

[Thracian]

it came as quite a surprise to me to see berner get such a low mark against stevenage, i saw the game online and was quite impressed with the good things he did (granted, there was some less than great stuff) and a few people (only a few) have suggested he played well yesterday.

so it was (sort of) reassuring to read reynard's observation

what disturbed me though was that he/she was conscious that it would be perceived as an 'unpopular thought'.

it just seems that, like many players before him, a lot of fans have decided that they don't want berner to be any good?

perhaps time may show that he isn't but it strikes me how quick people are to write a player off, even before he's had chance to establish himself in the team.

he has played, i understand, in the midfield holding role for the last two games and, opposition notwithstanding, has been part of a midfield that has stepped up to score 3 out of the last 4 goals, yet i wouldn't be surprised if he finishes bottom or close to bottom in the match rackings again.

...any thoughts?

nb: please don't get on your high horses and start all the usual 'not at the match, how dare you' BS, i'm just putting out a suggestion for discussion.

You raise an interesting question.

a) I've no doubt that the presence of an extra man in central midfield has made us much more rounded in that department and enabled King/Oakley to express themselves more.

b) I've seen nothing yet to convince me that's to do with Berner as a specific individual because his play has been patchy. However, he does have the height that Pearson likes in King and I don't see any alternatives in the role.

c) However, a second reason we might have passer the ball bettter through midfield is having two passing and supporting full-backs, albeit briefly, in Edworthy and Powell. I say that because it seemed significant that when Edworthy went off to be replaced by a hoofer, our passing game went with him.

d) Berner's been described as being in the Lennon role but I haven't seen that. I'd say King has become the fulcrum in terms of distribution. Oaley has been free and Berner has supplemented both. Whenever King was by-passsed as the fulcrum - as for parts of the second half last night - our forward flow became a trickle.

e) If our improved passing is more down to available/supportive full-backs as much as Berner we might also consider the pace and potential impact we've lost by having two decent wingers sidelined. We scored one goal against Yeovil and than is pathetic. Four should have ben our minimum return last night they were so poor and so unambitious. Daggers summed it up with one or two others by wondering why on earth we continued using four defenders to combat one striker.

Three-five -two or 3-4-3 would have torn them to pieces, particularly if the extra man was a quickie.

Overall I'm pleased Berner's got some match-time in and I'm pleased that we've developed an alternative system as an option. But on the two occasions we used the latest approach only played one decent half in each. The defence restabilised, a big plus, but the attack still didn't have the sharpness it should considering the personnel at our disposal.

We can pose much more threat and for longer periods of time.

[Cat Burger]

I don't think he's played much football at all in the last couple of years and it seems he's getting better and better with games. He's not the kind of player who's going to make a massive mistake but neither will he score or create a telling final ball, I think he's turning out to be a reliable, honest addition to our club and I really like him.

[reynard]

it came as quite a surprise to me to see berner get such a low mark against stevenage, i saw the game online and was quite impressed with the good things he did (granted, there was some less than great stuff) and a few people (only a few) have suggested he played well yesterday.

so it was (sort of) reassuring to read reynard's observation

what disturbed me though was that he/she was conscious that it would be perceived as an 'unpopular thought'.

it just seems that, like many players before him, a lot of fans have decided that they don't want berner to be any good?

perhaps time may show that he isn't but it strikes me how quick people are to write a player off, even before he's had chance to establish himself in the team.

he has played, i understand, in the midfield holding role for the last two games and, opposition notwithstanding, has been part of a midfield that has stepped up to score 3 out of the last 4 goals, yet i wouldn't be surprised if he finishes bottom or close to bottom in the match rackings again.

...any thoughts?

nb: please don't get on your high horses and start all the usual 'not at the match, how dare you' BS, i'm just putting out a suggestion for discussion.

In reply my thought was simply along the lines that some on here seem to have an already pre-formed opinion of Berner based upon a few appearances. If he or anyone else can play the "lennon" role then we should all be grateful as we have desperately neede someone like that for a long time. Berner will never set the footballing world on fire but his performance last night gave both King and oakley the freedom to perform in a way in which they have not looked capable in the league this season. Despite the desire from some on here to see us play non stop beautiful attacking football all the best sides need someone to break up the play and to play some simple short passes which is exactley what he did yesterday.

he also adds height to the midfield and seems to have a reasonable amount of pace and mobility.

[reynard]

You raise an interesting question.

a) I've no doubt that the presence of an extra man in central midfield has made us much more rounded in that department and enabled King/Oakley to express themselves more.

b) I've seen nothing yet to convince me that's to do with Berner as a specific individual because his play has been patchy. However, he does have the height that Pearson likes in King and I don't see any alternatives in the role.

c) However, a second reason we might have passer the ball bettter through midfield is having two passing and supporting full-backs, albeit briefly, in Edworthy and Powell. I say that because it seemed significant that when Edworthy went off to be replaced by a hoofer, our passing game went with him.

d) Berner's been described as being in the Lennon role but I haven't seen that. I'd say King has become the fulcrum in terms of distribution. Oaley has been free and Berner has supplemented both. Whenever King was by-passsed as the fulcrum - as for parts of the second half last night - our forward flow became a trickle.

e) If our improved passing is more down to available/supportive full-backs as much as Berner we might also consider the pace and potential impact we've lost by having two decent wingers sidelined. We scored one goal against Yeovil and than is pathetic. Four should have ben our minimum return last night they were so poor and so unambitious. Daggers summed it up with one or two others by wondering why on earth we continued using four defenders to combat one striker.

Three-five -two or 3-4-3 would have torn them to pieces, particularly if the extra man was a quickie.

Overall I'm pleased Berner's got some match-time in and I'm pleased that we've developed an alternative system as an option. But on the two occasions we used the latest approach only played one decent half in each. The defence restabilised, a big plus, but the attack still didn't have the sharpness it should considering the personnel at our disposal.

We can pose much more threat and for longer periods of time.

Ok thracian I have a lot of time for your opinions but some of this just isn't accurate.

Last night the role played by Berner was exactly that which Lennon used to do. break up the play, intercept the passes and redistribute the ball mainly with short passes often sideways or backwards. This in my opinion is exactly what we have required for some time. it is ok to try and play with two wingers/wide but we have looked poor at times with this formation and frankly overun in the centre of midfield.

King is simply not the fulcrum. he played the best I have seen him play last night simply because he knew there was cover behind/around him and this allowed him to attack more than nhe has been doing. The same applied to oakley.

Yes we should have scored more goals but I would be more concerned if we had created no chances at all but we did.

The real reason we didn't score more was because we lost composure at the vital time of playing that final pass. For this the whole side should be blamed but especially the two creative midfielders. yet if oakley had been more composed or if their keeper had not made an excellent save in the second half you would have had the 3 goal result we deserved.

Our passing has improved this season because we presumably have a manager who wishes to build from the back and in Tunchev we have a quality centre half who knows how to pass the ball.

we could have tried a different formation but the players we have available hardly inspire confidence. Personally gradel occupied his rightful position yesterday one which he fully merits based on this season's displays. Adams seems ok but some way off the finished article. Of those on the bench hayles is finished, dickov half fit and not the player he was and DJ has never shown that he can hit the proverbial barn door.