Jump to content
IGNORED

Bakinson at CB?


formerly known as ivan

Recommended Posts

Given the injuries and lack of defensive options, could Bakinson slot into a back 3?

If you look at the likes of Fabinho and Fernandinho, albeit it at a much superior level, there seems little between the defensive midfield role and a centre back role. Add to this the amount of midfielders we have at the club once everyone is fit, could this be an option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

When did Holden go 4231?  Which game(s) was that?

Last game after conceding I think, for a patch at least we were. Whether it was consistent or not just noticed at least a patch where we were set like this. 

                         Bentley

hunt.       Moore.          Kalas.       Rowe 

               Vyner.         Bakinson 

weimann.          Pato.                Semenyo

                       Famara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he could. But why you would want to put additional undue pressure on the lad in his debut season would be beyond me. 
 

He needs at least a season navigating/transitioning through a championship season in a settled position I believe. 
 

That said, if he drops back in there and ends up like Lothar Matthuas then I take it back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way things are going, by the time all of our midfielders are fit Bakinson will probably have retired.

As others have said, this is a huge ask for someone playing his first games at this level in his natural position.

Always looked a gamble with Baker out long term to go with just 4 centre backs for 3 spots, particularly with Mawson’s injury history & Kalas not exactly an ever present.

Unless we look at the free agent market, the 2 likely choices are either to change formation (seems unlikely) or ask either Rowe or Brunt to fill in temporarily, not ideal at all, but no available solution is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why put our best player in an unfamiliar position? Won't do anything to improve his game - in fact it may set him back. He must stay where he is and he will get even better.

I would try Fammy at CB - he comes back for set pieces and wins lots of balls and looks quite comfortable back there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's definitely an option. Holden has said he's considered this as a role for Bakinson in the past too. 

I do wonder though whether it's a good idea to meddle with his position when he's in good form and has built up momentum. Ok, he's had a couple of trickier games - but giving him a totally new role during his first taste of extended first team football might not be the best idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mozo said:

I'm totally against the idea.

1. We need him in midfield.

2. I prefer players in their strongest positions.

Agree.

If we get to a point where we are unable to field Vyner / Kalas / Moore then I’d go Rowe.  After that I’m gonna go against all my principles and go Brunt.

I just want Bakinson to improve in CM.  He’s done well, but teams are beginning to work him out - although he’s still coming through that test.  To me, he’s had a similar starting 5/6 games as Massengo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Agree.

If we get to a point where we are unable to field Vyner / Kalas / Moore then I’d go Rowe.  After that I’m gonna go against all my principles and go Brunt.

I just want Bakinson to improve in CM.  He’s done well, but teams are beginning to work him out - although he’s still coming through that test.  To me, he’s had a similar starting 5/6 games as Massengo.

Where we diverge is that when get to a point where we are unable to field Vyner / Kalas / Moore I want a back 4!

4 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If that is something Holden may go with then I hope Weimann is not wide right. Would actually rather he was central behind the striker or not in at all.

I think out of all back 4 options the diamond is probably the most suited to the players we have. 

I like 4231. 2 holders allowing our full backs to push on.

 It would mean only one of Wells and Martin starting though. Probably gets the best out of Wells on the shoulder. Might get the best out of Fam if he was ever to be the lone striker.

I'd stick with this current system though, but I don't believe Holden will stick with 352 if we play like midweek a lot more from now on.

I'd like to see Weimann played up top today, but dropping deep to collect the ball and drive us forward. Out of possession he can drop and harry the defenders to stop them playing out from the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If that is something Holden may go with then I hope Weimann is not wide right. Would actually rather he was central behind the striker or not in at all.

I think out of all back 4 options the diamond is probably the most suited to the players we have. 

I like 4231. 2 holders allowing our full backs to push on.

 It would mean only one of Wells and Martin starting though. Probably gets the best out of Wells on the shoulder. Might get the best out of Fam if he was ever to be the lone striker.

I'd stick with this current system though, but I don't believe Holden will stick with 352 if we play like midweek a lot more from now on.

I hate 4231 when City played it with wingers.  It’s supposed to get that extra man helping defensively and attacking wise....yet the way we played it just left the 2 CMs as exposed as they were in a 442.

We did however play it well when Brownhill played as a narrow RM/RW v Huddersfield and Fulham, possibly proving that it’s the players that make a system rather than the system itself.  It was a lopsided 4231 with Brownhill narrow (Eliasson conventional LW), with Nagy, Massengo and Weimann as the 10 (as you say he’s better there).  So in effect we had CM4 albeit lopsided.  It gave Hunt loads of room to get forward too, almost making it a 3241.

E9837395-9DED-4799-A251-30701D3FEBB2.jpeg.ddf13c4dddce48c384308fad5b7ef822.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mozo said:

Where we diverge is that when get to a point where we are unable to field Vyner / Kalas / Moore I want a back 4!

I'd like to see Weimann played up top today, but dropping deep to collect the ball and drive us forward. Out of possession he can drop and harry the defenders to stop them playing out from the back.

Yes, no probs with that if that’s what Dean goes for.  The above pic shows how Rowe at LB in a 4 is almost a LCB - replace Eliasson with Dasilva for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, no probs with that if that’s what Dean goes for.  The above pic shows how Rowe at LB in a 4 is almost a LCB - replace Eliasson with Dasilva for example.

Yeah agree with your comments above re the wide men. It would mean we could use Paterson either in a more advanced position on the left side or in a 2 alongside Bakinson depending on Holden's preference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

If that is something Holden may go with then I hope Weimann is not wide right. Would actually rather he was central behind the striker or not in at all.

I think out of all back 4 options the diamond is probably the most suited to the players we have. 

I like 4231. 2 holders allowing our full backs to push on.

 It would mean only one of Wells and Martin starting though. Probably gets the best out of Wells on the shoulder. Might get the best out of Fam if he was ever to be the lone striker.

I'd stick with this current system though, but I don't believe Holden will stick with 352 if we play like midweek a lot more from now on.

We’d used all subs so limited options for who went where and I’d rather Pato centrally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Thanks, hadn’t spotted that.  Not sure how long it lasted. ??

I only noticed because I was watching Vyner closely. Thought he had a really good game defensively. Also he was very fluent bringing the ball out and and linking with midfield - thats probably why the switch was less noticeable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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