What we are missing in midfield?

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Between them Pack, Smith and Brownhill pretty much covered all the bases as far as midfield is concerned.

Their replacements are all inferior imho so it's no wonder we're struggling (with the caveat we're yet to see Joe Williams but the chances of him being a one man cure for all our ills are slim to none).

We are paying more money to our current strikers than any others in our history - without anyone in midfield to adequately supply them.  

Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

Just about to post exactly the same thing.

The side that went toe to toe with the 2 Manchester clubs had a starting midfield 4 of Brownhill, Pack, Smith & Bryan with Paterson in the number 10 role behind Bobby Reid.

You would have to be on some serious drugs to think we are anywhere near that standard now.

[Bernard Lerring]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Sounds like a Tinder announce. 

Well it's certainly led to us getting bent over in the last couple of games 

[Prinny]

39 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Just about to post exactly the same thing.

The side that went toe to toe with the 2 Manchester clubs had a starting midfield 4 of Brownhill, Pack, Smith & Bryan with Paterson in the number 10 role behind Bobby Reid.

You would have to be on some serious drugs to think we are anywhere near that standard now.

Isn't they key there that two of those players made it to the Premier League clubs and two of them didn't?

While we're harping on about Pack and Smith, what we really haven't done is replace two low to mid Premier League players who provided outlets.

I don't think either Pack or Smith move the needle. Brownhill and Bryan are match winners at this level.

And even if we still had Pack and Smith, there'd no Bobby Reid, and even Pato is hurt.

Chris Martin being awful, has coincided with us being awful.

[GrahamC]

2 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Isn't they key there that two of those players made it to the Premier League clubs and two of them didn't?

While we're harping on about Pack and Smith, what we really haven't done is replace two low to mid Premier League players who provided outlets.

I don't think either Pack or Smith move the needle. Brownhill and Bryan are match winners at this level.

And even if we still had Pack and Smith, there'd no Bobby Reid, and even Pato is hurt.

Chris Martin being awful, has coincided with us being awful.

More for me about the whole overall package, in that side Smith & Pack gave us a solid base, Brownhill as well as providing energy & forward runs was probably the only one of that midfield 4 who scored enough goals.

I’m genuinely not sure what the recruitment plan for our midfield even is now, Nagy was totally disregarded by Holden until we had a huge number of injuries & so he had absolutely no choice but to pick him, Massengo seems to be about 6th choice at best. Walsh by virtue of being long term injured & so barely playing at this level is now apparently integral to the way that we want to play, Morrell was also talked up like Walsh pre season, then sold.

Bakinson seemingly emerged from the back of the queue to get a decent run in the side. Brunt’s recruitment (though I do hate the recent scapegoating of him) makes very little sense.

Williams clearly was a long term target so we have to assume is expected to be part of what we are trying to do, but beyond that, your guess is as good as mine.

[RedRock]

Just about every attribute required for a competitive midfield. 

A damming indictment of LJs reign and the MA-led transfer strategy.  Not fit for purpose by a wide margin, even taking into account injuries. 

Ok, we have no idea about Williams as he started by being broken. Does he break quite often? Walsh is out of contract in a few months and one assumes will be gone. So neither can be seen as our saviours. 

Nagy may be an answer but a worrying drop off in form and the last thing we want is another consistently inconsistent, Bakinson demonstrating what a few ‘Muff fans said. Massengo, well, why not try him in his favoured position he can’t be any worse than what we’ve tried previously. 

Our achilles heal and has been for years. 

[eardun]

1 hour ago, Harry said:

Wow. On the subject of Pack. WHAT A BALL for the assist he just put in!!!! Wow. That’s something we miss 

Excellent

 

[Prinny]

6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

But then I bet Nagy (for example) would look amazing in such a team. And I bet Pack would have looked poor last night in that side.

Pack last night would have come got the ball off the central defenders, maybe had a look, then passed it back to the central defenders.

He'd have been slaughtered for it, I'D have slaughtered him for it, but it's not like there was anything on ahead.

Bakinson played the ball forwards and gave it away because every pass was into a player surrounded. Pack's more negative/conservative. He'd look awful.

[Robin Wood]

The problem for us is the ball goes sideways and backwards far too often if we played a crab in midfield it would probably be our best player

[Offside]

4 hours ago, Harry said:

Good article on Pack. 
He’ll always split opinion on here, but the comment from Harris is there about his leadership, his bravery and his support for the younger players is apt to our current problems. 
If we’d kept Pack last year, Massengo would’ve had more freedom and success if he learned from Marlon on the pitch. He’d be a much better player now. Same with Nagy I feel.

Pack needed to be kept around last year to nurture his replacements. The fact he wasn’t left us in an untried and inexperienced midfield situation that has carried over to this season. 
 

Worst piece of business we’ve done, getting rid of him when we did. 

I completely agree. Pack was a leader, always wanted the ball, could pass, and protected the back four. Yes he came in for a lot of criticism on here, but we’ve really missed his ability to get his foot on the ball and try to dictate play. A huge loss. 

[Lack of Action Man]

1x Tommy Doherty no nonsense midfielder.

1x Brian Tinnion/Paul Hartley playmaker.

 

[Rob k]

42 minutes ago, Prinny said:

Pack last night would have come got the ball off the central defenders, maybe had a look, then passed it back to the central defenders.

He'd have been slaughtered for it, I'D have slaughtered him for it, but it's not like there was anything on ahead.

Bakinson played the ball forwards and gave it away because every pass was into a player surrounded. Pack's more negative/conservative. He'd look awful.

At the moment you could have played Pack in our back 3 as a ball carrying CB

[BS4 on Tour...]

5 hours ago, Super said:

A ball winner and a creative player. Good ones..

Gerry Gow, Gary Shelton, Korey Smith - loved em all, really miss them all ...

[Prinny]

28 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Yep, I can't see how Pack would have improved us last night.

I have thought for a little while now that Martin is a bit of a problem in this side. Hopefully he can become more effective for us soon.

I think Wells ideally would have liked Weimann to stay fit and play alongside him up top in this system. He spoke positively about Weimann after Wells scored a hat trick when played alongside Weimann against Cheltenham (I think).

Both players being mobile and having great movement and work rate would have given that Millwall defence more to worry about. Creating space for each other as well as team mates in attacking areas. I bet something like that would improve our midfields performance.

Obviously Weimann is injured, but just an example of what we may be missing. Maybe Semenyo up top with Wells is worth looking at.

Or just go Wells up top on his own in a sort of 4231 like he did in his best spells in his career for Huddersfield and QPR.

 But also like I said before, our wing backs/full backs been poor last couple of games and it means we don't have much threat in wide areas.

Rowe got into good positions, got hacked down for the Wells free kick for example. Hunt's crossing was off/lack of targets. Neither is consistent.

The bold bit is my biggest problem with the team, we have no one to stretch the play up front, you can do it with a target man, or a pacey channel runner. We have neither. Wells, Martin, Deidhiou would all benefit from that, and have benefit from that that in their career.

you can build off Martin's platform but if there's no one to run around and off him and ahead of him, he gets pressed into the half and we see what we've been seeing. Which is us giving the ball away whenever we play forwards and never having shots as out possession is nowhere near the box.

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Between them Pack, Smith and Brownhill pretty much covered all the bases as far as midfield is concerned.

Their replacements are all inferior imho so it's no wonder we're struggling (with the caveat we're yet to see Joe Williams but the chances of him being a one man cure for all our ills are slim to none).

We are paying more money to our current strikers than any others in our history - without anyone in midfield to adequately supply them.  

Recruitment, recruitment, recruitment.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Just about to post exactly the same thing.

The side that went toe to toe with the 2 Manchester clubs had a starting midfield 4 of Brownhill, Pack, Smith & Bryan with Paterson in the number 10 role behind Bobby Reid.

You would have to be on some serious drugs to think we are anywhere near that standard now.

Beat me to it....it wasn’t a midfield two with the two JB’s either side of them.  Add it Pato and Reid it was a good front 6.

[Spike]

Wasn't Joe Williams supposed to be a "better" Marlon Pack, issue is we signed him and he's yet to play and from what I've read he most likely won't play this season... that's my real concern. Our man who was to sure up the link between the defence and midfield seems to have been a big fee for someone who's sustained such a bad injury and I worry that he may not be the player he was before it. It's almost like we've sold Korey only to replace him and now Korey is actually playing.

I think there is a real issue with training at our club, I've never seen so many injuries all at once at Bristol City in all the years I've supported the club, I honestly think we'd be a different team right now with a fit squad and it seems no matter who we sign they get injured.

[Kibs]

Massengo/Nagy can play the simple stuff (usually), but offer little as a genuine threat or contribution going forward. 

Bakinson is a decent all-rounder but needs time, big ask for him to step up like he has. 

O'Dowda has good energy and drives us forward, but most of the time is found wanting in terms of end product. He might draw a foul or two which is great if we are defending a lead but when we're chasing, it just allows opposition to reset. Pointless.

Aside from just flipping moving with a bit of intent and creating options (its really not rocket science and I can't believe we struggle with this), what they are generally missing is the ability to receive the ball on the half-turn, get past their man and take players out of the game. Massengo actually did this in his first few games but with a combination of lost confidence and coaching, it seems to have vanished from his game.  

I'd also be interested to know the combined stats of all 4 players and the number of combined appearances. Probably haven't got 10 goals between the lot of them for City. The actual output of our available midfielders in terms of Goals/Assists must be pretty poor. Jack Hunt aside, we also don't have many contributing from the back either. All of that is an absolute recipe for disaster. Can't just rely your strikers to score all your goals.  

I really don't think the 5-3-2 system does our midfield any favours either. If your "Wing backs" (and I use the term loosely) aren't regularly joining in as genuine midfielders, you're stuffed.

I've nothing against the system but if the Wing Backs aren't top quality, and you don't have a Centre half who can really play (Mawson?), it's a complete waste of time and you aren't playing to your strengths. 

[Sheltons Army]

18 minutes ago, Kibs said:

I really don't think the 5-3-2 system does our midfield any favours either. If your "Wing backs" (and I use the term loosely) aren't regularly joining in as genuine midfielders, you're stuffed.

I've nothing against the system but if the Wing Backs aren't top quality, and you don't have a Centre half who can really play (Mawson?), it's a complete waste of time and you aren't playing to your strengths. 

Good post - and as for the above I’ve been saying this all season , during our better results

[AG City]

Agree @Sheltons Army, I have never liked 532.  Unless you have almost premiership quality wingbacks who can beat the opposing full backs and get crosses in most of your attacking threat is nullified pretty easily.

There is nothing wrong with 442 provided the two have a balance of:

1.  A creative central midfielder who can break into the box, link with the forwards, and provide that final link in the final 3rd as well as chip in with goals.

2. A midfield enforcer/leader who can shield the back 4, drive the team forward and can be strong in the tackle (e.g. a Kalifa Cisse).

Could 1 be Walsh and 2 be Williams? Who knows.

[Sheltons Army]

11 minutes ago, AG City said:

Agree @Sheltons Army, I have never liked 532.  Unless you have almost premiership quality wingbacks who can beat the opposing full backs and get crosses in most of your attacking threat is nullified pretty easily.

There is nothing wrong with 442 provided the two have a balance of:

1.  A creative central midfielder who can break into the box, link with the forwards, and provide that final link in the final 3rd as well as chip in with goals.

2. A midfield enforcer/leader who can shield the back 4, drive the team forward and can be strong in the tackle (e.g. a Kalifa Cisse).

Could 1 be Walsh and 2 be Williams? Who knows.

Yep

In a 5-3-2 you’re key players and the most influential on team performance are your wing backs.

As you say they need to be top quality and top athletes

[Davefevs]

54 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Yep

In a 5-3-2 you’re key players and the most influential on team performance are your wing backs.

As you say they need to be top quality and top athletes

We’ve lost any fluidity in the way we play.

Many in here have been crying out for 433 for the best part of 2 years, but we play it, and does it suddenly turn us into world-beaters?  Nope.  In fact you could argue that apart from 22 minutes versus Huddersfield it’s done the exact opposite, and lost us any confidence we had.  Ok, exaggerating slightly, but you get my point.

At the end of the day you’ve got two main choices:

• play a single system
• play different systems 

I would prefer we played one system, drill it, and accept that it’ll come unstuck against certain opponents  or when we have an off-day.

At least if you do that you understand cause and effect.  By that I mean that you could take Millwall on Tuesday, analyse what went wrong and the next time you play them, tweak things accordingly.  The beauty of that is that when you come up against a team that are similar to Millwall (Preston, cough, cough), you can use that learning.

If you change your system, how do you evaluate whether the system is the reason for winning / losing?

Of course if you go with a system, you have to recruit to it.  I don’t really care what that one system is, but I said at the start of the season, versatile players are gonna be worth their weight in gold.

If we take the 352 for example, you are right, WBs are important.

RWB: Hunt and Sessegnon - that’s fine, but if one gets injured where’s your back-up to rest the fit one who now has to play every week.

Is that Opi Edwards? If so, fine.

Is that Zak Vyner? If so, fine, but remember he might be needed at CB too, so how do you cover.

LWB: Dasilva and Rowe - that’s fine, but same questions / logic.

Is that Cam Pring? No, we loaned him out.

Is that Vince Harper or Barney Soady? No idea

Thats how I go about looking at it.

I do think we were a bit hasty with the loan of Pring especially, and more so this season.  This was the season to keep a big squad, everyone has got their chance, even 8th choice Massengo to quote one poster.

You know I like Holden, but I do think he’s broken some of his principles that stood him in good stead as caretaker and then into this season.  I see why, but I don’t necessarily agree with what he’s done.  I think he’s made a rod for his own back and it’s biting him on the arse.  He needs to go back to basics.

Tough few games coming up.  I think a lot of fans will give him a pass tomorrow night (not me, I think he can put out a team capable of winning), but a lot will expect 6 points from Wycombe and Luton.

 

[Prinny]

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

do think we were a bit hasty with the loan of Pring especially, and more so this season.  This was the season to keep a big squad, everyone has got their chance, even 8th choice Massengo to quote one poster.

He's 9th choice really but Weimann doesn't count because of the injury duration.

You know I like Holden, but I do think he’s broken some of his principles that stood him in good stead as caretaker and then into this season.  I see why, but I don’t necessarily agree with what he’s done.  I think he’s made a rod for his own back and it’s biting him on the arse.  He needs to go back to basics.

Has he broken them or stuck to them, and that's what is getting him in trouble?

I ask that, because what were his principles last season?

Pick the 3-5-2. Keep the same team. Was there anything more to it?

Exceptions were Afobe for Diedhiou once, and Nagy for Smith once as non injury changes.

So what have we seen this season. Well he's got his formation, and he crams people into it. Well he's got a second one, but he crams people into that too. Did we misread him changing the formation, as a sign of him being able to identify the best fit for the players and really it's a inflexibility?

And he doesn't change the team, even when it's pretty obvious that a player needs a rest (Pato) to the point of injury/exhaustion. So did we lurch from "Tombola" to flogging the players hence the injuries?

I think he's maybe not so hot at identifying what players can do, and that the players are straight up worse for what he wants to do, but that he's doing the exact same thing he was before.

So I guess I'm asking what you think he's doing differently now to then?

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

I ask that, because what were his principles last season?

Pick the 3-5-2. Keep the same team. Was there anything more to it?

last season even when making subs he kept the same 352, apart from Swansea where we were 1-0 down going into final 20.  perhaps principles is not the word, but changes (shape, personnel, approach) were less of a whim than LJ until more recently.

Exceptions were Afobe for Diedhiou once, and Nagy for Smith once as non injury changes.

There were also changes in game where for example a striker came off for a midfielder, but Weimann moved to striker to keep the 352.

Smith out of interest was because he didn’t want to play because of his contract situation.

So what have we seen this season. Well he's got his formation, and he crams people into it. Well he's got a second one, but he crams people into that too. Did we misread him changing the formation, as a sign of him being able to identify the best fit for the players and really it's a inflexibility?

I think that’s the trigger to him breaking his “principles”.  Maybe he never had any (), but it’s a reasonable way to describe the “principled” approach of:

• sticking with a system 
• Players in possession of shirt keeping their place (except for rotation)

what we appear to have seen is a breakaway from that following Huddersfield.

And he doesn't change the team, even when it's pretty obvious that a player needs a rest (Pato) to the point of injury/exhaustion. So did we lurch from "Tombola" to flogging the players hence the injuries?

we don’t know if flogging players has resulted in injuries do we?

• Paterson we don’t really know what the root cause is or whether had he rested it a couple of weeks back, he’d have then been fine.  Did Pato need a rest based on minutes played or because he picked up a knock?  Did he pick up a knock because he’d played too many minutes?  That’s one for the sports science and physio guys.
• was Pato looking in need of a rest (to us fans) because we were no longer getting the best out of him.  In some games us fans thought he was anonymous / quiet he was actually on the ball more than any of the other front 5, but sometimes our eyes don’t help, especially when watching on tv, rather than being there.

I totally agree though that he should’ve learned from Boro, when he admitted that he thought 2 games back to back woukd be ok after a break.

I think he's maybe not so hot at identifying what players can do, and that the players are straight up worse for what he wants to do, but that he's doing the exact same thing he was before.

So I guess I'm asking what you think he's doing differently now to then?

I honestly think he got suckered into thinking that 22 minutes at Huddersfield gave him a different option, 433.  I’d argue that the 9 minutes before that when he first switched to 433 and nothing changed should’ve been taken into account and part of his own questioning when he reviewed that game.

I don’t think he “crammed” players into a formation, maybe he got lucky with the initial partnering of Pato, Weimann and Smith, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that formed the basis of his “6 and two 8s” which crystallised over the close and pre-season.  At the start of the season we had a group of players competing with each other who you could perm into that fairly well.  Some players the potential to play either role, some less so, but we could all see where they might fit in, even if they wouldn’t be our own first choices there.

He told us he wanted to play with two forwards.

In an ideal world we need to see everyone fit and see what he does then.

My view of Holden has changed over this recent period.  I get your argument.  But I think that’s because we now have more evidence.  Isn’t that what we are meant to do.  You start with a viewpoint based on limited evidence with a lower degree of confidence and you build that evidence and your viewpoint is either confirmed or changed with a greater degree of confidence.

Some of the data behind that early view was compelling.

Injuries are undoubtedly a factor, but we are into the realms of guesswork because the sand has shifted.

I’m comfortable saying he’s shown naivety and inexperience in some things.  Maybe he still has his principles but he’s setting them to one side at the mo.  He’s certainly said that.  Proof of the pudding will be what he does when he gets some players back, albeit some of those will be players he’s never had before (Willians / Walsh or very little in some cases, Baker).

I’m also fine if you don’t think he had any “principles” in the first place.  It doesn’t matter whether  he did or didn’t, changed them or not.  It’s a good discussion point at the end of the day.

Comments above.

[DaveInSA]

The way I look at this is we need a midfield or a combination of players that works CONSISTENTLY.

We haven't had one for years.

And as for the players...

Pack - not good enough. Smith - not good enough. Pato - not good enough. Weimann - not good enough. O'Dowda - not good enough. Nagy - not good enough. Massengo - not good enough. Bakinson - suddenly not good enough. Walsh - unproven at this level. Williams - sick note. 

This is harsh but true. And for different reasons are they not good enough. Consistent 7/10 performers - none of them. Absolutely none. Bone crunching hard men - none - powder puff bloody awful. Players capable of a killer pass EVERY GAME, none of them...they're way too fragile (esp Pato).

We need some midfield generals. Players that don't disappear for games on end, play a fantastic pass, get three assists and 3 goals in 6 games and disappear again. We need 3 players at 7/10 for ten game stretches. 

To be frank it's pathetic that we literally have 243,549 midfielders on the books, and not one of them is good enough to get into a top 2 Championship team. Not one.

Rant over.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Beat me to it....it wasn’t a midfield two with the two JB’s either side of them.  Add it Pato and Reid it was a good front 6.

Bit of a 4-6-0 in some ways I thought. At times anyway, but it could also pull into a 4-4-1-1, a relatively lopsided 4-3-3 and even a 4-4-2-0.

[Maltshoveller]

10 hours ago, AG City said:

Agree @Sheltons Army, I have never liked 532.  Unless you have almost premiership quality wingbacks who can beat the opposing full backs and get crosses in most of your attacking threat is nullified pretty easily.

There is nothing wrong with 442 provided the two have a balance of:

1.  A creative central midfielder who can break into the box, link with the forwards, and provide that final link in the final 3rd as well as chip in with goals.

2. A midfield enforcer/leader who can shield the back 4, drive the team forward and can be strong in the tackle (e.g. a Kalifa Cisse).

Could 1 be Walsh and 2 be Williams? Who knows.

Call me very old fashioned but shouldnt a midfielder be able to do both 1 and 2

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 hours ago, AG City said:

Agree @Sheltons Army, I have never liked 532.  Unless you have almost premiership quality wingbacks who can beat the opposing full backs and get crosses in most of your attacking threat is nullified pretty easily.

There is nothing wrong with 442 provided the two have a balance of:

1.  A creative central midfielder who can break into the box, link with the forwards, and provide that final link in the final 3rd as well as chip in with goals.

2. A midfield enforcer/leader who can shield the back 4, drive the team forward and can be strong in the tackle (e.g. a Kalifa Cisse).

Could 1 be Walsh and 2 be Williams? Who knows.

I'm Brentford.

Uo against that my spare man can combine with two other CMs and advantage to me.

2 strikers vs 2 CB.

My wide forwards and full backs vs your wingers and full backs. Duel but numerically matched. As with the 2 v 2 above.

That can do into 2 v 2 in CM, but my CM joins the forward, matching up in all zones but we're forced deeper.

41 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

Call me very old fashioned but shouldnt a midfielder be able to do both 1 and 2

Modern game, traditional 4-4-2 can easily fall into quite a reactive shape, initiative lost initiative seized by opposition.

Lose the central midfield, control can be lost.

[MATT BCFC]

The team is missing width and movement in general which I think makes our central midfielders look worse than they are. 

The way we play we rely heavily on our full backs to give us width and I would say they are all pretty average going forward. 

When we play 4-3-3 putting O'Dowda and Semenyo alongside a striker would help both I think. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

8 hours ago, MATT BCFC said:

The team is missing width and movement in general which I think makes our central midfielders look worse than they are. 

The way we play we rely heavily on our full backs to give us width and I would say they are all pretty average going forward. 

When we play 4-3-3 putting O'Dowda and Semenyo alongside a striker would help both I think. 

Semenyo wide right, O'Dowda wide left and because he's knackered, Wells central- could be interesting!

[MATT BCFC]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Semenyo wide right, O'Dowda wide left and because he's knackered, Wells central- could be interesting!

It's what I would play with the option of the wingers swapping at times to cut in. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, MATT BCFC said:

It's what I would play with the option of the wingers swapping at times to cut in. 

Agreed- Wells in his favoured position, with 2 wide forwards cutting in- that also when they go out wide again, can help to guard against 2 v 1 in wide areas.

See also 3-4-2-1 as a potential variant if we stick with 3-5-2 that could see this happen. I like Martin but think he's just flagging atm, we must where possible- though it's increasingly difficult with injuries- but we must not run players into the ground, especially those who are slightly older. They have to be managed correctly, they and their workload.