Orrible Midfielder

[Kilworthfox]

Interesting series of posts.

Last season we played a lot of games with defensive 'ball winning' midfielders in the side, Clemence, Weso and assorted defenders plus Oakley and what happened, we got relegated!

So far this season King and Oakley have been the best pairing we have had for years, but clearly something is not right in this area, leading to the clamour for a 'ball' winner to sort things out and break up the opposition attacks.

I think this is misguided, the problems that King and Oakley are having would not be solved by a change of personnel, any player would struggle with the workload we have placed on our center midfield at times this season.

We have a back 4 that is reluctant to press forward and compress the game, even worse, they have a tendency (in recent games) to sit deep, thus expanding the space in midfield. Add to that playing with 2 men up and 2 men wide leaves literally acres of space in central areas that any midfield pairing would struggle to control.

We do not need to change our players, just our way of playing!

No way mate! If we controlled more games in midfield last year we would not have gone down!

[marbelladave]

No way mate! If we controlled more games in midfield last year we would not have gone down!

Very possibly. But there is more to controlling midfield than just winning the ball! Last year we won plenty of ball just to give it back playing hoofball. It is every bit as important to do something positive when we have won the ball, this is what makes the King - Oakley pairing more effective than anything we had last year.

They are also pretty competent defensively, not in the all action / crunching tackle style but by cutting out attacks with interceptions and good positional play. As I said in my original post, our problems in this area stem from being stretched defensively so the pair have far more space to cover than they (or anyone else) can possibly manage.

[Ric Flair]

Very possibly. But there is more to controlling midfield than just winning the ball! Last year we won plenty of ball just to give it back playing hoofball. It is every bit as important to do something positive when we have won the ball, this is what makes the King - Oakley pairing more effective than anything we had last year.

They are also pretty competent defensively, not in the all action / crunching tackle style but by cutting out attacks with interceptions and good positional play. As I said in my original post, our problems in this area stem from being stretched defensively so the pair have far more space to cover than they (or anyone else) can possibly manage.

That's the problem we have had for several seasons, we have by-passed the midfield by hoofing it up from defence to our strikers, meaning the only times our central midfielders see the ball is from the ball coming back from the opposition when they clear our hoofs. If you have the right sort of midfielders to win those balls and get it down and play, then you have half a chance, but we didn't have those sorts of players.

[marbelladave]

That's the problem we have had for several seasons, we have by-passed the midfield by hoofing it up from defence to our strikers, meaning the only times our central midfielders see the ball is from the ball coming back from the opposition when they clear our hoofs. If you have the right sort of midfielders to win those balls and get it down and play, then you have half a chance, but we didn't have those sorts of players.

Just a thought, could we not stop playing hoofball?

The first 8-9 games we played the ball out of defense and King and Oakley were immense. The only exception was Millwall who bullied our young team to a defeat. For whatever reason we have stopped playing from defense and King and Oakley look a bit vulnerable but rather than fix the problem and get back to playing the ball out of defense, it appears that new, more combative (and probably less skillful) midfield players are required!

If there is any logic in that then I fail to see it!

[Ric Flair]

Just a thought, could we not stop playing hoofball?

The first 8-9 games we played the ball out of defense and King and Oakley were immense. The only exception was Millwall who bullied our young team to a defeat. For whatever reason we have stopped playing from defense and King and Oakley look a bit vulnerable but rather than fix the problem and get back to playing the ball out of defense, it appears that new, more combative (and probably less skillful) midfield players are required!

If there is any logic in that then I fail to see it!

I wish we could and to be honest it's only since Kisnorbo has returned to the side and Hobbs moved out of central defence that the passing amongst the defence has become a rarity. I wouldn't say King and Oakley have been immense together but they were more involved earlier in the season, my problem with both of them is they are too similar. I like both of them, but i'm yet to see both of them excel in the same game, not that that needs to happen every game as it's unusual for players to all play superbly in the same game, but the combination of the two isn't 'right' for me.

[JoeyB]

Lee Hendrie and Nick Montgomery (sp) would both be ace players if we got them, but i don't think we will some how

[yessae]

Douglas is our player of the season and one of the best defensive midfielders in the Championship. So Hands off him !

But you could probably try for Hughes or Prutton ( the latter being a better all round player ) . Definite quality for League 1.

[marbelladave]

I wish we could and to be honest it's only since Kisnorbo has returned to the side and Hobbs moved out of central defence that the passing amongst the defence has become a rarity. I wouldn't say King and Oakley have been immense together but they were more involved earlier in the season, my problem with both of them is they are too similar. I like both of them, but i'm yet to see both of them excel in the same game, not that that needs to happen every game as it's unusual for players to all play superbly in the same game, but the combination of the two isn't 'right' for me.

Perhaps saying they were immense is over egging it some, but when Tunchev played with either Hobbs or Morrison our back 4 held a higher line and played the ball out to Oakley and King who were very effective. Playing the ball out in this way allows the fullbacks to get forward and the wide men to make runs, we were so much more effective.

Rather than worry about new players, we need to go back to playing football, not hoofball! These are professional footballers of no little ability, our coaches need to sort things out. We have shown that we CAN play a passing game so why the hell are playing the way we are.?

[Ric Flair]

Perhaps saying they were immense is over egging it some, but when Tunchev played with either Hobbs or Morrison our back 4 held a higher line and played the ball out to Oakley and King who were very effective. Playing the ball out in this way allows the fullbacks to get forward and the wide men to make runs, we were so much more effective.

Rather than worry about new players, we need to go back to playing football, not hoofball! These are professional footballers of no little ability, our coaches need to sort things out. We have shown that we CAN play a passing game so why the hell are playing the way we are.?

I'm in agreement with you Dave. I would always try and adopt a passing approach, it is far better to try and maintain posession than hoofing the ball and hoping for a flick-on or to win the second ball.

Having watched the youths last night, I think Vasey has the ability within the next year to push on and he looks like an aggressive midfielder who can defend and attack in tandem. I like the look of him. So might not need any additions in centre mid.

[Kilworthfox]

Very possibly. But there is more to controlling midfield than just winning the ball! Last year we won plenty of ball just to give it back playing hoofball. It is every bit as important to do something positive when we have won the ball, this is what makes the King - Oakley pairing more effective than anything we had last year.

They are also pretty competent defensively, not in the all action / crunching tackle style but by cutting out attacks with interceptions and good positional play. As I said in my original post, our problems in this area stem from being stretched defensively so the pair have far more space to cover than they (or anyone else) can possibly manage.

First point is we did not win enough ball in midfield last year IMO.

The thing that makes the King & oakley pairing more effective this year compared with the last 4 years is the division we are in.

I believe Oakley is a competent defender & attacker, however king can only attack IMO.

I don't think the midfield set up with 2 wingers helps teh central midfielders, if we are to persist with the 4 in mid then we must have an out & out ball winner, not King. Sorry Andy

[Thracian]

First point is we did not win enough ball in midfield last year IMO.

The thing that makes the King & oakley pairing more effective this year compared with the last 4 years is the division we are in.

I believe Oakley is a competent defender & attacker, however king can only attack IMO.

I don't think the midfield set up with 2 wingers helps teh central midfielders, if we are to persist with the 4 in mid then we must have an out & out ball winner, not King. Sorry Andy

King is a far better attacker than Oakley. The stats show it even on the restricted role he currently plays. And, defensively, King is better in the air than Oakley.

Together they win the ball lots, even against a three-man midfield and one look at the possession statistics for each match would, I am sure, confirm as much. It's just that they don't go diving into tackles, and getting injured or booked, like some before them.

How well King/Oakley would have played together in the Championship is impossible to guess but, considering the stats relating to goals/assists from central midfield, I'd think it remarkable if their presence wouldn't have at least secured our survival in that division.

But King wasn't used despite all my urging and we did o down. Now he is being used and werre a game in hand from being top, people still doubt him when, by definition, no so-called ball winner in the present Divison One is showing a better set of results for their efforts.

We need cover and alternatives, I've never disputed that. But I'm far more concerned about our wingers getting proper help from behind and getting a forward who makes good runs to give them options.

[Corky]

The true cost of allowing Danny Tiatto to leave is now showing.

[Thracian]

The true cost of allowing Danny Tiatto to leave is now showing.

Exactly. And successor Weso didn't ever prove resilient enough to string more than five League games together last season so, tenacious or not, that's hardly an advert. Even the mighty Hendrie only managed seven before injury started to affect his game.

We really don't know when we're well off.

Kingy's managed 17 x 90 minute games this season and has missed just one, making his stint in terms of minutes played the biggest contribution towards our lofty position of all the players including the ever-present Howard, who has lost a little more than 90 minutes in substitution time. No-one else comes close to the record of those two.

[Ric Flair]

The true cost of allowing Danny Tiatto to leave is now showing.

[Corky]

We need him in the midfield, he was immense

[Thracian]

BRING BACK TERMINATOR TIATTO :scarf:

[marbelladave]

First point is we did not win enough ball in midfield last year IMO.

The thing that makes the King & oakley pairing more effective this year compared with the last 4 years is the division we are in.

I believe Oakley is a competent defender & attacker, however king can only attack IMO.

I don't think the midfield set up with 2 wingers helps teh central midfielders, if we are to persist with the 4 in mid then we must have an out & out ball winner, not King. Sorry Andy

Another example of 'modern football management'! If the team are not playing the 'right' way, dump someone and get someone new! Why not change the way we play? Maybe even play to the strengths of the players we do have?

Our wingers are not having much joy out wide, so why not get them to play narrower, cutting in on goal and supporting the front man (men)? Also this will help cut down the space King and Oakley have to cover so should help them be more effective.

If we play without out and out wingers, we can drop Howard to the bench and let Fryatt lead the attack with another quicker player supporting down the middle. Something like this;

King Oakley

Adams Gradel Dyer

Fryatt

Porter can cover any of the 3 attacking positions, Hayles and Dickov can cover Fryatt or play Dickov in the hole. There are plenty of options, the key is to be flexible and to keep the ball on the ground!

[marbelladave]

King is a far better attacker than Oakley. The stats show it even on the restricted role he currently plays. And, defensively, King is better in the air than Oakley.

Together they win the ball lots, even against a three-man midfield and one look at the possession statistics for each match would, I am sure, confirm as much. It's just that they don't go diving into tackles, and getting injured or booked, like some before them.

How well King/Oakley would have played together in the Championship is impossible to guess but, considering the stats relating to goals/assists from central midfield, I'd think it remarkable if their presence wouldn't have at least secured our survival in that division.

But King wasn't used despite all my urging and we did o down. Now he is being used and werre a game in hand from being top, people still doubt him when, by definition, no so-called ball winner in the present Divison One is showing a better set of results for their efforts.

We need cover and alternatives, I've never disputed that. But I'm far more concerned about our wingers getting proper help from behind and getting a forward who makes good runs to give them options.

Spot on!

It is common to judge a player, particularly a midfielder, by the amount of effort that he appears to put in. Lots of chasing and crashing tackles may look impressive but a better player may simply take up better positions, denying the opposition options and making them make bad choices or simply picking out the odd interception. Defensively I think King and Oakley do this pretty well, if we can just get our back 4 to push up a little and get our wide men to tuck in they would be even better!

[Jimmy]

Spot on!

It is common to judge a player, particularly a midfielder, by the amount of effort that he appears to put in. Lots of chasing and crashing tackles may look impressive but a better player may simply take up better positions, denying the opposition options and making them make bad choices or simply picking out the odd interception. Defensively I think King and Oakley do this pretty well, if we can just get our back 4 to push up a little and get our wide men to tuck in they would be even better!

not really Makelele hardly went into crunching tackles but he is the type of midfielder people are saying we need

[Thracian]

not really Makelele hardly went into crunching tackles but he is the type of midfielder people are saying we need

Sure. I'd have liked Billy Bremner and Johnny Giles in their time but I don't see their sort knocking about Division One.

[Jimmy]

Sure. I'd have liked Billy Bremner and Johnny Giles in their time but I don't see their sort knocking about Division One.

I said type, yet you have to resort to mocking my point as it could mean the end of your current fave's run in the team if we managed to find someone of that style we could get

[Kilworthfox]

King is a far better attacker than Oakley. The stats show it even on the restricted role he currently plays. And, defensively, King is better in the air than Oakley.

Together they win the ball lots, even against a three-man midfield and one look at the possession statistics for each match would, I am sure, confirm as much. It's just that they don't go diving into tackles, and getting injured or booked, like some before them.

How well King/Oakley would have played together in the Championship is impossible to guess but, considering the stats relating to goals/assists from central midfield, I'd think it remarkable if their presence wouldn't have at least secured our survival in that division.

But King wasn't used despite all my urging and we did o down. Now he is being used and werre a game in hand from being top, people still doubt him when, by definition, no so-called ball winner in the present Divison One is showing a better set of results for their efforts.

We need cover and alternatives, I've never disputed that. But I'm far more concerned about our wingers getting proper help from behind and getting a forward who makes good runs to give them options.

I don't doubt King at all mate, I just believe we need more steel in midfield which at this point IMO he does not have.

Another example of 'modern football management'! If the team are not playing the 'right' way, dump someone and get someone new! Why not change the way we play? Maybe even play to the strengths of the players we do have?

Our wingers are not having much joy out wide, so why not get them to play narrower, cutting in on goal and supporting the front man (men)? Also this will help cut down the space King and Oakley have to cover so should help them be more effective.

If we play without out and out wingers, we can drop Howard to the bench and let Fryatt lead the attack with another quicker player supporting down the middle. Something like this;

King Oakley

Adams Gradel Dyer

Fryatt

Porter can cover any of the 3 attacking positions, Hayles and Dickov can cover Fryatt or play Dickov in the hole. There are plenty of options, the key is to be flexible and to keep the ball on the ground!

We don't agree, I can live with not agreeing with everyone