Midfield

[bigneville]

4-2-1-3, 4-2-3-1... blah, blah, blah...

You need to take your best players and get the best out of them, the numbers are simply a way of describing the resulting set up.

Gallagher is perfectly capable of playing in midfield, as he showed last season against Newcastle and Blackpool. He is never going to be hugely effective defensively which is why you need 2 players to back him up with among other things, decent defensive skills.

So Gallagher as the playmaker, King doing his usual box to box and Oakley as the defensive player, I appreciate that Oakley is 'holding the fort' until Moreno or Abe are ready but unless Sousa has a change of heart Moreno will play at the back and Abe needs to get aclimatised.

Gallagher is not blessed with pace, so he needs wide men who are, Dyer on the right and, if he can pay there, Waghorn on the left. Leading the line is a difficult choice, Crncic is unkown, Fryatt a bit lightweight and more importantly still not in the best form and Howard is just ponderous. Howard remains the best bet at the moment providing we cut out the long balls and play into his feet, Dyer and Waghorn need to be getting beyond him on a regular basis though.

One somewhat 'off the wall thought', I would like to see DN'G tried at center forward, all his best play is in the final third, he is not good recieving the ball deep so play to his strengths and get the ball too him in forward positions and see what he can do. Might even work...

The main problem with playing Gallacher in the middle of the park as I see it, is as you mentioned his lack of defensive abilities. I see no reason why he can't play as secondary striker/very advanced midfielder.

However, my concern is, can we afford such a luxury player in our side, are we good enough defensively to sacrifice another body in the middle of the park.

Because if you start asking PG to track runners or get his body goal-side when the opposition have the ball, you will waste all his potential creative energies, therefore meaning he losing his almost "free role" in the midfield to play the creative game we would all expect.

The whole point of having 3 men in the middle, is that you remain strong defensively through the centre, allowing you to try and dominate a game from the middle of the field.

If you ask Gallacher to perform some of the standard tasks of a central midfield, you will find he will become a waste.

My opinion still remains that Gallacher fits perfectly into a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 as a wide man, or as a secondary striker in a 4-4-2.

[marbelladave]

The main problem with playing Gallacher in the middle of the park as I see it, is as you mentioned his lack of defensive abilities. I see no reason why he can't play as secondary striker/very advanced midfielder.

However, my concern is, can we afford such a luxury player in our side, are we good enough defensively to sacrifice another body in the middle of the park.

Because if you start asking PG to track runners or get his body goal-side when the opposition have the ball, you will waste all his potential creative energies, therefore meaning he losing his almost "free role" in the midfield to play the creative game we would all expect.

The whole point of having 3 men in the middle, is that you remain strong defensively through the centre, allowing you to try and dominate a game from the middle of the field.

If you ask Gallacher to perform some of the standard tasks of a central midfield, you will find he will become a waste.

My opinion still remains that Gallacher fits perfectly into a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 as a wide man, or as a secondary striker in a 4-4-2.

I agree that the balance in midfield is important, hence my point about supporting him with 2 players who are strong defensively, ie King and Oakley/Moreno/Abe. Again I accept that he is never going to be a midfield warrior but, as the game at Blackpool and the half against Newcastle showed, he was a more than adequate deputy for Wellens defensively and far more dangerous going forward. Generally it is easier to get a creative player to do a bit of work defensively than to try and get a non creative player to be creative.

Gallagher needs to balance a degree of defensive work without allowing himself to be drawn too deep, there are 6 outfield players behind him to do the bulk of the defensive work, that should be enough so in that sense he is not a 'standard' midfielder. Whether that is enough in a 3 man midfield remains to be seen but when it was tried, in the games mentioned above and in the recent game at Leeds it worked very well.

I really don't like Gallagher in wide positions, he has no pace and spends far too much of the game uninvolved, perhaps this is why some think him lazy or a 'luxury', this for me is a complete non-starter. Also he played well forward as a second striker against Burnley and this really did not work either, the defender could pick him up early and without pace he was rarely able to get free, again, look at his goals last season, virtually all scored from distance, he does not have the instincts of a 'proper' striker so he will not score regularly from close in.

To some extent this could really be about the semantics, ie. how does a midfield player who plays an advanced role linking up with the main striker differ from a secondary striker dropping off into midfield to link up play?

There is a difference but that is mainly defined by the player involved rather than the role and does it matter?

Different players will do the job in different ways but if the player gets the balance right, then it gives you options that you simply do not get playing 4-4-2.

[evs_the_fox]

alternatively against weaker teams at home i'd like to see us occasionally go all out attack...something like this -

Morrison--Hobbs--Bruno

--Abe------Wellens--

Dyer-------King---------Gallagher

--Fryatt--------Waghorn--

On an offensive front, this excites me

[bigneville]

I agree that the balance in midfield is important, hence my point about supporting him with 2 players who are strong defensively, ie King and Oakley/Moreno/Abe. Again I accept that he is never going to be a midfield warrior but, as the game at Blackpool and the half against Newcastle showed, he was a more than adequate deputy for Wellens defensively and far more dangerous going forward. Generally it is easier to get a creative player to do a bit of work defensively than to try and get a non creative player to be creative.

Gallagher needs to balance a degree of defensive work without allowing himself to be drawn too deep, there are 6 outfield players behind him to do the bulk of the defensive work, that should be enough so in that sense he is not a 'standard' midfielder. Whether that is enough in a 3 man midfield remains to be seen but when it was tried, in the games mentioned above and in the recent game at Leeds it worked very well.

I really don't like Gallagher in wide positions, he has no pace and spends far too much of the game uninvolved, perhaps this is why some think him lazy or a 'luxury', this for me is a complete non-starter. Also he played well forward as a second striker against Burnley and this really did not work either, the defender could pick him up early and without pace he was rarely able to get free, again, look at his goals last season, virtually all scored from distance, he does not have the instincts of a 'proper' striker so he will not score regularly from close in.

To some extent this could really be about the semantics, ie. how does a midfield player who plays an advanced role linking up with the main striker differ from a secondary striker dropping off into midfield to link up play?

There is a difference but that is mainly defined by the player involved rather than the role and does it matter?

Different players will do the job in different ways but if the player gets the balance right, then it gives you options that you simply do not get playing 4-4-2.

I guess to a lot of people this won't really differ, and to some aspects I agree.

However for me, if you giving some the position of an attacking midfielder, then your still going to be expected to put in a shift defensively, but you will have a complete license to get forward. As you've mentioned this position is completely reliant on the other midfielders covering often. You will be allowed some grace in delaying your return to your defensive position.

Where as a second striker will rely purely on the support of the main striker to form a partnership. The second striker will I guess "drop a little deeper", but his main partnership will be with the centre forward. I also guess no-one expects a second striker to track back either.

Although the above is where the fine difference seems to lie, there's not a lot in it. I still believe that over a full season, that Gallacher isn't the player who you could rely on to perform the uglier side of the game for an attacking midfielder. Occasionally as you've pointed out, he may be able to drop in there to cover somebody else.

But I believe that Gallacher only put in these shifts as he knew he wasn't the long term solution. He has not hidden the fact that he wants to play further up the field and be relieved of any defensive responsibility. Any player who makes these kind of statements isn't going to be tracking runners consistently, and this will put a lot more pressure onto your other centre midfielders.

Is this something we can really afford?

If we played him a second striker, this will take away all this responsibility for him and allow him to enjoy his football much more, and hence you should see a lot more rewards.

In terms of a wide player, I somewhat agree that his lack of pace is a big negative to him playing wide, but he has so much quality, that I think this out-weighs his lack of pace. I believe if you play Gallacher wide and give him the ball on a regular basis, over a 46 game season, he will get you 10-15 assists at least.

[marbelladave]

I guess to a lot of people this won't really differ, and to some aspects I agree.

However for me, if you giving some the position of an attacking midfielder, then your still going to be expected to put in a shift defensively, but you will have a complete license to get forward. As you've mentioned this position is completely reliant on the other midfielders covering often. You will be allowed some grace in delaying your return to your defensive position.

Where as a second striker will rely purely on the support of the main striker to form a partnership. The second striker will I guess "drop a little deeper", but his main partnership will be with the centre forward. I also guess no-one expects a second striker to track back either.

Although the above is where the fine difference seems to lie, there's not a lot in it. I still believe that over a full season, that Gallacher isn't the player who you could rely on to perform the uglier side of the game for an attacking midfielder. Occasionally as you've pointed out, he may be able to drop in there to cover somebody else.

But I believe that Gallacher only put in these shifts as he knew he wasn't the long term solution. He has not hidden the fact that he wants to play further up the field and be relieved of any defensive responsibility. Any player who makes these kind of statements isn't going to be tracking runners consistently, and this will put a lot more pressure onto your other centre midfielders.

Is this something we can really afford?

If we played him a second striker, this will take away all this responsibility for him and allow him to enjoy his football much more, and hence you should see a lot more rewards.

In terms of a wide player, I somewhat agree that his lack of pace is a big negative to him playing wide, but he has so much quality, that I think this out-weighs his lack of pace. I believe if you play Gallacher wide and give him the ball on a regular basis, over a 46 game season, he will get you 10-15 assists at least.

All fair enough, I guess it comes down to whether or not Gallagher can 'put in a shift' as a midfielder or not, without giving him a run we will probably never know.

I understand the logic of playing him as a second striker, the advantages are as you say but there are disadvantages too. Gallagher is not a 'natural' striker, he does not have instincts of a 'poacher', he is not quick and not much good in the air either. Playing well forward means he will be more tightly marked and lack the space he needs to make things happen.

Be interesting finding out how it all plays out...

[bigneville]

All fair enough, I guess it comes down to whether or not Gallagher can 'put in a shift' as a midfielder or not, without giving him a run we will probably never know.

I understand the logic of playing him as a second striker, the advantages are as you say but there are disadvantages too. Gallagher is not a 'natural' striker, he does not have instincts of a 'poacher', he is not quick and not much good in the air either. Playing well forward means he will be more tightly marked and lack the space he needs to make things happen.

Be interesting finding out how it all plays out...

100% agree. Perfect time for this is the cup game against Portsmouth.

I'd like to see him in there, and see what he can do, and hopefully prove me wrong!

[marbelladave]

100% agree. Perfect time for this is the cup game against Portsmouth.

I'd like to see him in there, and see what he can do, and hopefully prove me wrong!

I am old fashioned enough to believe that developing and getting the best out of the players you do have is the primary function of the manager, rather than wishing for (and sometimes buying) players you do not have.

Getting the best out of Gallagher may be pivotal to our season and I think there may well be issues with other players as well...

Sousa seems to be messing with Andy King, giving him specific roles rather than just letting him get on with it, King is such an instinctively correct player that he is best playing his 'normal' box to box game, I wonder how much of his game has been lost by trying to carry out Sousa's instructions to play further forward? Rather a lot I think if the 'boro and Burnley games are anything to go by.

If we are going to try a few things out against Portsmouth, I would love to see DN'G given the target man role in place of Howard. He has a great first touch and is often quite capable of clearing his marker, just think how much more efective that would be on the edge of the box rather than 40 yds out where he usually ends up running into the covering defender, definitely worth a try, I think...

[ajthefox]

PS definitely needs to do some more experimenting and obviously, the prime time to do this is the cup match. Early as it is, I don't fancy too much change from what we've already seen in the league, more a mix of the better aspects we have seen.

I think Gallagher really could make a difference were PS to find a position he could call his own, most likely at the sacrifice of someone else. If he doesn't, then we really are wasting a talent, and imo it might be worth loaning him out. Maybe someone else might do what none of us have and figure out where he is best. For what it's worth, him and Waggy bagged over 50 goals between them in a season for me on football manager as part of a 4-2-2-2

[ThorpeAstleyFox]

Weale

Lamey --- Hobbs --- Morrison --- Berner

Abe --- Wellens

King

Dyer ---------------------------------- Waghorn

Fryatt

Moreno, Oakley, Moussa and Gallagher all on the bench

[marbelladave]

Weale

Lamey --- Hobbs --- Morrison --- Berner

Abe --- Wellens

King

Dyer ---------------------------------- Waghorn

Fryatt

Moreno, Oakley, Moussa and Gallagher all on the bench

Very nice... assuming Abe is ready to play, if not Moreno should start in midfield.

My choice would be to replace Wellens with King and bring Gallagher in to play in the 'hole'.

I appreciate that my changes pander to my own prejudices in respect of Wellens and how our midfield should operate, the reasons for this are explained in this and the King thread at (great...) length if you want to read them.

[Corky]

I would like to see a Wellens, Abe and King combination for Coventry, as I posted in the team thread. Abe can sit to protect the defence, leaving Wellens to try and create (I know he's inconsistent and does play "Hollywood" balls but with more options up front they might come off) and then King to get forward and hopefully score a goal that counts this time.