Jump to content
IGNORED

Time to rest Pack & Weimann?

The Exiled Robin

By The Exiled Robin
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted

With Wednesday (on Sunday) playing 352 lately, maybe tomorrow is the opportunity to match up (like v Utd). But instead of playing a winger in the midfield 3 in the Freeman role, a chance to give Pack and Brownhill some support in Walsh, Hegeler or Morrell...in a flat 3.

LJ has said the widemen aren’t doing it from the start, so don’t start them.

Taylor can resurrect Weimann’s form and Dasilva can either come into replace Kelly at LWB, or Kelly can play LCB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

With Wednesday (on Sunday) playing 352 lately, maybe tomorrow is the opportunity to match up (like v Utd). But instead of playing a winger in the midfield 3 in the Freeman role, a chance to give Pack and Brownhill some support in Walsh, Hegeler or Morrell...in a flat 3.

LJ has said the widemen aren’t doing it from the start, so don’t start them.

Taylor can resurrect Weimann’s form and Dasilva can either come into replace Kelly at LWB, or Kelly can play LCB.

This could be a good shout Dave. 

As has been mentioned in the other Pack thread, he’s had a couple of poor games on the spin. There’s clearly something amiss with him as he’s been so consistent over such a long period that to suddenly drop his level of so much is strange. 

I don’t think Pack is someone we can drop/rest though, as our CM options are incredibly limited. For me the Pack/Brownhill partnership has serious flaws. Perhaps a 3rd man in there may be the answer at the moment. 

Pack needs someone who does what Smith does - an engine, a fiend, a denier of space, closing down attacks, putting out fires. Brownhill doesn’t do that. And I can’t see either Walsh or Hegeler doing that either. Perhaps Morrell might be able to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Harry said:

This could be a good shout Dave. 

As has been mentioned in the other Pack thread, he’s had a couple of poor games on the spin. There’s clearly something amiss with him as he’s been so consistent over such a long period that to suddenly drop his level of so much is strange. 

I don’t think Pack is someone we can drop/rest though, as our CM options are incredibly limited. For me the Pack/Brownhill partnership has serious flaws. Perhaps a 3rd man in there may be the answer at the moment. 

Pack needs someone who does what Smith does - an engine, a fiend, a denier of space, closing down attacks, putting out fires. Brownhill doesn’t do that. And I can’t see either Walsh or Hegeler doing that either. Perhaps Morrell might be able to? 

Just replied on the other thread.

I like the MP/JB partnership, but there are several of us who’ve pointed out that you only see what KS does when he’s not there.  @BobBobSuperBob has said, if you could combine the best attributes of the 3 of them, then you’d have 2 cracking CMs!!

I think Wednesday’s 352 gives LJ a free ticket to try a midfield three again.  

If like Sheffield Utd, playing a 352 in response, negates Wednesday for 60-70 minutes, and we then win 1-0 with an attritional performance then I'm more than happy...and if people want to them label LJ as the tactical mastermind, then fine too.

Looking back a few games, post-WBA, LJ spoke about Pack needing to play in “the cage”, I.e. not get exposed by roaming away from a portion of the pitch, Harvey Barnes did exploit that in fairness.  We all know Pack is not quick when caught wrong side.  However I’ve been thinking about this following Wigan and Rotherham, and perhaps restricting Pack to the cage, has in fact made it easier for opponents to nail him and as he’s our playmaker it’s restricted the other players too (see Bagpuss ref on other thread). @Lee0 you say Pack always sits in...that’s not true.  He does less than Brownhill, accepted.  There has been times this season when JB and MP have rotated, Pack breaking the lines, whilst Brownhill sits.  Has LJ’s recent instruction for Pack to stay in the cage, stopped Pack’s intelligence of knowing when to roam (a bit) and move the opposition around?  Did LJ overthink Harvey Barnes destruction of our midfield at the Hawthorns, when no other team had done that to us.  Was it a bit of an over-reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr Balls

Dr Balls

Posted
Posted

The options of who can play in that CM role to make a 3 are:

Walsh -not going to add much bulk or bite. Some creativity but prone to Paterson-like defensive lapses.

Watkins - has the physicality but not particularly creative.

O'Dowda - not the best defensively and prone to giving away free kicks when attempting tackles (see Villa game).

Morrell - hardly played at all in first team, let alone at Chanpionship level. May also lack physicality.

Given the options available, it would seem to be O'Dowda or Watkins. Take your pick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fiale

Fiale

Posted
Posted

Games have not been coming hard and fast, we not long came from a international break with another coming up soon. So the players should be pretty fresh. If we mean drop him due to form, I don't think it will help his confidence, and in all honesty, who do we have to replace him ? Our midfield options are incredibly shallow really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

With Wednesday (on Sunday) playing 352 lately, maybe tomorrow is the opportunity to match up (like v Utd). But instead of playing a winger in the midfield 3 in the Freeman role, a chance to give Pack and Brownhill some support in Walsh, Hegeler or Morrell...in a flat 3.

LJ has said the widemen aren’t doing it from the start, so don’t start them.

Taylor can resurrect Weimann’s form and Dasilva can either come into replace Kelly at LWB, or Kelly can play LCB.

Interesting- think 4-4-2 can be poorly matched v 3-5-2 personally. Will be honest and say I don't know- but I do know Sheffield United have a very particular setup- would you say Sheffield Wednesday's 3-5-2 more orthodox?

I'd be surprised for example if Sheffield Wednesday's centre backs were as adventurous as Sheffield United's seem to be.

Attritional a bit harsh IMO regards win v Sheffield United- would call it tactical necessity personally, because we are the only side to beat them in the last 10- their record has been superb with 25 points in that run. If we started our usual 4-4-2 we'd have probably have been overrun I suspect and may well have lost.

I agree a switch to a 3-5-2 could be ideal today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

The options of who can play in that CM role to make a 3 are:

Walsh -not going to add much bulk or bite. Some creativity but prone to Paterson-like defensive lapses.

Watkins - has the physicality but not particularly creative.

O'Dowda - not the best defensively and prone to giving away free kicks when attempting tackles (see Villa game).

Morrell - hardly played at all in first team, let alone at Chanpionship level. May also lack physicality.

Given the options available, it would seem to be O'Dowda or Watkins. Take your pick!

Partnerships are key to a successful team. Putting O’Dowda or Watkins into midfield will not make for a successful partnership with Pack & Brownhill. We can suggest that O’Dowda might get on the ball and do a few tricky turns but his lack of midfield game awareness will be a downfall to the others around him. Midfield and CB in particular need key partnerships and players who compliment each other. 

If anything, someone like Morrell would better compliment Pack & Brownhill in a 3. Allowing Brownhill to play slightly further forward and look to create in the final third. Maybe even Hegeler could sit in the deeper 2 with Pack and free up Brownhill. But Heg wouldn’t have the energy that Morrell would so it wouldn’t really compliment the others. 

We desperately lack midfield options. But I don’t think that putting wingers in there who have no awareness of the role and how they should fit in with others, is the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Harry said:

Partnerships are key to a successful team. Putting O’Dowda or Watkins into midfield will not make for a successful partnership with Pack & Brownhill. We can suggest that O’Dowda might get on the ball and do a few tricky turns but his lack of midfield game awareness will be a downfall to the others around him. Midfield and CB in particular need key partnerships and players who compliment each other. 

If anything, someone like Morrell would better compliment Pack & Brownhill in a 3. Allowing Brownhill to play slightly further forward and look to create in the final third. Maybe even Hegeler could sit in the deeper 2 with Pack and free up Brownhill. But Heg wouldn’t have the energy that Morrell would so it wouldn’t really compliment the others. 

We desperately lack midfield options. But I don’t think that putting wingers in there who have no awareness of the role and how they should fit in with others, is the answer. 

Hegeler could just sit, intercept- screen surely. More like a traditional holding midfielder, which could perhaps free up both Pack and especially as you say, Brownhill.

Undoubtedly agree that O'Dowda  couldn't be the answer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hegeler could just sit, intercept- screen surely. More like a traditional holding midfielder, which could perhaps free up both Pack and especially as you say, Brownhill.

Undoubtedly agree that O'Dowda  couldn't be the answer!

Could easily fit Hegeler into be a more 3-1-4-2, along the lines of:

Maenpaa

Webster | Baker | Kelly

Hegeler

Hunt | Brownhill | Pack | Dasilva

Taylor | Weimann

Sould give licence to for front 6 to attack, but also have two CBs alongside Baker who are comfy on ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hegeler could just sit, intercept- screen surely. More like a traditional holding midfielder, which could perhaps free up both Pack and especially as you say, Brownhill.

Undoubtedly agree that O'Dowda  couldn't be the answer!

He could but as I say it doesn’t create a fulfilling partnership. 

Pack cant do what Smith does. Hegeler can’t do what Pack does. Asking Heg to play the Pack role and Pack to play a more traditional CM role weakens the unit. 

I’d rather Pack continue to play the role he’s fulfilled successfully for years and if Heg has to come in then he needs to play the box-to-box, all energy role. I just don’t think he can do that. And neither can Pack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Robbored

Robbored

Posted
Posted

LJ comes up with a strategy to nullify the opposition strengths in most games. The win against the Blades is a good example.

We know and therefore LJ will know that Wednesday have a strong midfield with Bannon and Reach so I dare say he’ll set up to restrict them as much as possible. They also have Sam Winnall who LJ will know all about from his Barnsley days and has scored against us in the past.

As fans we can speculate all we want but LJ is a manager who regularly thinks outside the box and personally I have no idea how he’ll set up today. He could well surprise us all and play five across the middle............:dunno:

If he does then we could see Walsh or Hegeler in the starting 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...