Sparky Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 i think most of us would agree that hume has been a quality signing by levein but can i put this question forward . 4 goals in how ever many games he has played is not overly impressive . would hume be better used in a attacking midfield position or wide areas IF we had 2 strikers who could put the ball in the net . my personal veiw is that i think he could be deverstating in a role behind a decent front 2. your veiws ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 i think most of us would agree that hume has been a quality signing by levein but can i put this question forward . 4 goals in how ever many games he has played is not overly impressive . would hume be better used in a attacking midfield position or wide areas IF we had 2 strikers who could put the ball in the net . my personal veiw is that i think he could be deverstating in a role behind a decent front 2. your veiws ?? Ive been thinking this for a while Sparks, he is actually officially a midfielder isnt he? or at least started out life as a midfielder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 I would play 4-3-1-2 with Hume being the AM or Smith being the AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City_4_Life Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 Yeh i think he would be good in a role behind a decent front 2. But the problem is we aint got a decent front 2, so we need him to play up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted 2 January 2006 Author Share Posted 2 January 2006 Ive been thinking this for a while Sparks, he is actually officially a midfielder isnt he? or at least started out life as a midfielder got a feeling i can remember seeing him on the right wing for tranmere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filbertway Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 He's the only person who can shoot in oor team, so striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 i think most of us would agree that hume has been a quality signing by levein but can i put this question forward . 4 goals in how ever many games he has played is not overly impressive . would hume be better used in a attacking midfield position or wide areas IF we had 2 strikers who could put the ball in the net . my personal veiw is that i think he could be deverstating in a role behind a decent front 2. your veiws ?? As I said when he was signed, , he is an attacking midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparky Posted 2 January 2006 Author Share Posted 2 January 2006 Yeh i think he would be good in a role behind a decent front 2. But the problem is we aint got a decent front 2, so we need him to play up front. yeah thats a good call , hopefully we can put that right soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katy Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 As I said when he was signed, , he is an attacking midfielder. Well there you go then! CL wont play him there anyway, hes already playing out of position so he'll be loathed to play him where hes apparently best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickyTrev Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 In behind a front two. One of which is Hammond the other is just a goalscorer and a finisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobbo Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 He had a rep of scoring great long rangers for Tranmere, we're yet to see it but playing a deeper role would suit his long range shooting I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitesh Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 I agree, he would be great behind 2 strikers but only 2 strikers who can score , something which we dont have at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 I would play 4-3-1-2 with Hume being the AM or Smith being the AM. I suggested it two months ago. It was clear then that neither Elvis nor Hume were going to be prolific. Indeed any two of our three recognised strikers would rarely carry enough potency. We needed all three and the only way that could be done was putting Hume in the hole. But then you'd never enjoy the luxury of two wingers so you'd have to play attacking full-backs and allow one winger to roam so it would only have been short term patchwork. EG: Douglas; Stearman, McCarthy, Dublin, Sheehan; Hughes, Joey, Smith; Hume, Elvis, DeVries. Or: Douglas; Stearman, McCarthy, Dublin, Sheehan; Hughes/Williams, Joey, Tiatto; Hume, Elvis, Smith. However, we've moved on from there, or at least downwards so I think our attacking line-up now needs to be laced with battlers so, as Levein will persist with 4-4-2 because it would be crazy changing the main system at this stage, I'd go: Douglas; Stearman/Maybury, McCarthy, Dublin, Sheehan; Smith, Hughes, Joey, Tiatto; Elvis, Hume. Any striker would take Elvis's place and any right winger would allow Smith to switch into Tiatto's place although I actually like the combative Tiatto in present circumstances if he can be persuaded to stay around and do his job. He can work the left, both inside and outside and he can cover for Sheehan's attacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 -------------------Henderson------------------- Stearman----McCarthy------N-EJ---Sheehan ---------Hughes----Joey----Williams---------- ---------------------Smith---------------------- -----------------Hume----Elvis----------------- subs Douglas, Maybury, Hammil, MdV, Kisnorbo I like this one by napalm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 If Hume was playing for one of the top two he'd be in double figures by now! He would be better in the hole but for now I think we have to play him up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 -------------------Henderson------------------- Stearman----McCarthy------N-EJ---Sheehan ---------Hughes----Joey----Williams---------- ---------------------Smith---------------------- -----------------Hume----Elvis----------------- subs Douglas, Maybury, Hammil, MdV, Kisnorbo So what did we do with Gerrbrand? Sell him? Because, surely you don't think he's not good enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supedaj Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 why not play him right wing? if he played there (and well enough) for tranmere, he should be moved right wing and partner new striker signing up front with hammond. would solve sylla problem too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpddd1975 Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 I thought he had already decided to play in midfield, whether he was supposed to be or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 2 January 2006 Share Posted 2 January 2006 i think most of us would agree that hume has been a quality signing by levein but can i put this question forward . 4 goals in how ever many games he has played is not overly impressive . would hume be better used in a attacking midfield position or wide areas IF we had 2 strikers who could put the ball in the net . my personal veiw is that i think he could be deverstating in a role behind a decent front 2. your veiws ?? It would be but Levein has no tactical clue so he wouldn't know to put Hume behind the front two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bald reynard Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 I really do believe that Hume's best position would be in midfield. He's not a natural out-and-out striker but a goal scoring midfielder (and came to us as such). There's a place on the left side of midfield he could easily fill with his abilities and pace (probably more '2 footed' than anyone else in the squad - and I think he played regularly there for Tranmere). It would solve a problem position (get rid of Tiatto) and 'free up' a central striker position - which I would fill with O'Grady (ideal 'target man' and 'foil' for Matty). I think a midfield of Low, Williams, Johnson/Hughes (probably the latter, given Tueday's performance) and Hume would be as good as we could get without buying anyone else ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maybes Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 I really do believe that Hume's best position would be in midfield. He's not a natural out-and-out striker but a goal scoring midfielder (and came to us as such). There's a place on the left side of midfield he could easily fill with his abilities and pace (probably more '2 footed' than anyone else in the squad - and I think he played regularly there for Tranmere). It would solve a problem position (get rid of Tiatto) and 'free up' a central striker position - which I would fill with O'Grady (ideal 'target man' and 'foil' for Matty). I think a midfield of Low, Williams, Johnson/Hughes (probably the latter, given Tueday's performance) and Hume would be as good as we could get without buying anyone else ? Good idea. Never going to happen though. Cant see kelly doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magictv Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 I like it too, doubt it will happen though. -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 I refer you to this post and this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
escape2victory Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 Year he could play a similar role to McSheffery at Coventry, who starts on the left but often drifts inside behind the front two, making him difficult to mark. This would probably mean playing Hughes on the right otherwise if we played another winger our central midfield would get over run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 10 August 2006 Share Posted 10 August 2006 Like all positive attacking ideas, it's not us fans you have to convince. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.