Hegeler

[WRERE]

18 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Excuses and more excuses, 2 or 3 more games playing with a back 4 will have made little or no difference to the shit that we find ourselves in, but bolstering an absolutely shitty midfield might have.

He signed Patterson and every week plays players out of their natural positions and virtually every week he tinkers with the team, the buck stops with him and whether we like it or not a manager needs to have hindsight it's part of the job description, we as fans do not need that hindsight.

He has lost the plot is probably out of his depth and that is showing in his post match interviews, he is now doing his impression of any of our last 10 managers in their death throes.

One last thought to ponder, you mentioned our great start and points wise it truly was a great start, but I see now that many people are actually saying, "do you know what?, we didn't actually play that well", maybe the signs were there and we and LJ were carried away with the euphoria, take Fulham away out of the equation and who else have we beaten comfortably?

That's an overstatement. What would you like him to say in interviews? You wan't him to call out players like Mark Little who made a challenge when there was no need to and slept for the 2nd? I'm sure this forum would love that so we can have more posts about how he's lost the dressing room and is fighting with players and that the players have lost their confidence. You don't comfortably beat many teams in this division. There are a games that we were the better team in and deserved to win. 

 

1 minute ago, CotswoldRed said:

When you play players out of position on their league debuts you're kind of telling the others who might normally play there that you've utterly lost faith in their ability. 

Again , Hegeler isn't out of position.

[Johnr1986]

Johnson formation, starting 11 and tactics are always wrong it's so frustrating, when the obvious is staring him right in the face for me he should revert back to the team and tactics at the start of the season with the fielding, Bryant hordour ,Flint and anyone but little at right back a trier yes but a liability every time he steps foot on the pitch I agree player should always play in there natural position but I would try (wright smith, vyner or even brownhill there , exception of hegeler instead of pack in cdm partnered with GON , Paterson, Ried and Tomlin supporting Tammy, with djuric or engval in be brought on if we are chasing a game, players would know there roles when to track back etc taking in back to basics like pemberton did when cotterill left .

[CotswoldRed]

19 minutes ago, WRERE said:

That's an overstatement. What would you like him to say in interviews? You wan't him to call out players like Mark Little who made a challenge when there was no need to and slept for the 2nd? I'm sure this forum would love that so we can have more posts about how he's lost the dressing room and is fighting with players and that the players have lost their confidence. You don't comfortably beat many teams in this division. There are a games that we were the better team in and deserved to win. 

 

Again , Hegeler isn't out of position.

Everywhere I read anything it says he is a midfielder. 

[GrahamC]

37 minutes ago, Jack Dawe said:

I'm sure he was, old chap. Who wouldn't be (other than GrahamC)?

If you read my post history then you would know I'm impressed, too.

However he wasn't as effective yesterday as on debut for me and as most of our supporters know, this business of playing him on the right side of a 3 rather than in centre mid is symptomatic of our "head coach" being absolutely clueless...

[WRERE]

3 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Everywhere I read anything it says he is a midfielder. 

He can play CB , CM (infront of defence or behind striker) and he's been played out on the right. The only times he started for Hertha this season he's played CB.

[JoeAman08]

38 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

Really? Not very likely tbh. Damaged goods that we could no longer afford, who want away anyway. If I was an opposition manager I would be looking to strike a hard bargain knowing in that situation the buyer is in top position.

No, coming from League 2, Sweden and Ligue 2 respectively players like O'Dowda, Engvall and Moore aren't likely to be on huge wages. Tomlin, O'Neil, and Magnusson we'd lose but O'Neil was free and Magnusson we could probably make money on. 

I don't want to go down but if we did we'd be in a good spot to go right back up. Plus the players would get the experience they needed. Not ideal and I don't want it to happen but buying young protects our investments a bit more. 

[Sleepy1968]

5 minutes ago, WRERE said:

He can play CB , CM (infront of defence or behind striker) and he's been played out on the right. The only times he started for Hertha this season he's played CB.

You should know by now that facts are only required when they suit the agenda.

[JoeAman08]

6 minutes ago, WRERE said:

He can play CB , CM (infront of defence or behind striker) and he's been played out on the right. The only times he started for Hertha this season he's played CB.

Yup this but I'd say he was trained as a CM and if he was 5'11" he would never have played CB. Pointless though because he is 6'4" and can play there. Think the point is that he's clearly too talented to play there for us. He'd be a luxury CB for top teams in the league but we need his talents further up the pitch. Our CBs have never been the biggest problem this year. So many goals from crosses where our fullbacks and wingers are nowhere to be seen. If we want width from full backs and wingers have Hegeler sit in front of the defense to cover the full backs with his pace and good defensive instincts. 

[Jack Dawe]

13 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

If you read my post history then you would know I'm impressed, too.

However he wasn't as effective yesterday as on debut for me and as most of our supporters know, this business of playing him on the right side of a 3 rather than in centre mid is symptomatic of our "head coach" being absolutely clueless...

Crossed wires, GC. Read it again, Robbo's post, then mine. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

39 minutes ago, WRERE said:

That's an overstatement. What would you like him to say in interviews? You wan't him to call out players like Mark Little who made a challenge when there was no need to and slept for the 2nd? I'm sure this forum would love that so we can have more posts about how he's lost the dressing room and is fighting with players and that the players have lost their confidence. You don't comfortably beat many teams in this division. There are a games that we were the better team in and deserved to win. 

No I expect him to lose his job because of being far too loyal to poorly performing players, that is the norm with managers.

I wouldn't know about the dressing room but that rumour was actually started by an LJ supporter on here, but what I do know is that week by week, game by game he is losing the fans.

Again , Hegeler isn't out of position.

Again he is out of the position we signed him for and need him in, our midfield is woeful, he could and should have stuck with a back 4 imo and sorted out the midfield as a priority, but not LJ more square pegs in round holes. 

 

 

[CotswoldRed]

13 minutes ago, WRERE said:

He can play CB , CM (infront of defence or behind striker) and he's been played out on the right. The only times he started for Hertha this season he's played CB.

Maybe he left them because they played him out of position. Very few players who consider themselves as midfielders are happy playing CB. He did a very good job there but my point still stands. We are playing players in positions where we don't get the  best from them. 

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, WRERE said:

The systems we've been using haven't been working , so what's wrong with changing it and trying something else?

Nothing at all. However, sending a CB out on loan when you only have 1 fit CB and then switching to a 3 with 2 fit and one filling in ???? Timing  and decisions are ludicrous.

 

19 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Again , Hegeler isn't out of position.

No, and I love how he brings the ball out and adds to MF. But , he is not in the position that would impact the game most for us. He looks like he could set the tempo for us, sure up the centre and he looks like he could add goals from MF.

It's all opinions as we've not seen him there but certainly looks the real deal .

[steviestevieneville]

2 hours ago, tts_city said:

He hasnt been forced to put him there. he could have kept a 442 or 4131 or any of the other formations we have played with a back four this season (all of them i think ?) but no we have to go with a new formation of three at the back (which we dont have the wingbacks of decent quality for) just to confuse the players even more.

He's done it to get two strikers on the pitch imo 

[robin_unreliant]

1 hour ago, samo II said:

All this talk about not having the players for 442 - of course we have.

Below is a list of players who could play each 442 position without being miles out of their comfort zone;

Maybe we're thin in some positions, and we'd field a side with areas that would be weak for this level, but I refuse to accept you couldn't field a 442, with cover for most roles involved in it on the bench.

Think you answered your own question there!

For me our weaknesses are on the flanks. Golbourne is consistent defensively but doesn't offer much going forward. Other FB options are below the standard.

No-one has convinced playing a wide midfield role. But there again our coach doesn't really set up to attack the wide areas. We seem to give them up to the opposition every week. 

Rather than address this we seem to be going for height and physicality in the middle of the park. I despair at LJ's tactics and priorities.

[WRERE]

46 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Again he is out of the position we signed him for and need him in, our midfield is woeful, he could and should have stuck with a back 4 imo and sorted out the midfield as a priority, but not LJ more square pegs in round holes. 

Like a lot of players that Johnson's signed , he can play in a few positions. LJ likes versatile players and I agree he's mainly been signed as a midfielder but he's also a centre half so why not use him there if the system suits? It's easy to say we should've used different tactics or personnel when we've not got a result. 

43 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Maybe he left them because they played him out of position. Very few players who consider themselves as midfielders are happy playing CB. He did a very good job there but my point still stands. We are playing players in positions where we don't get the  best from them. 

Well he's hardly played this season so maybe Hertha didn't want to renew his contract. 

23 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Nothing at all. However, sending a CB out on loan when you only have 1 fit CB and then switching to a 3 with 2 fit and one filling in ???? Timing  and decisions are ludicrous.

 

No, and I love how he brings the ball out and adds to MF. But , he is not in the position that would impact the game most for us. He looks like he could set the tempo for us, sure up the centre and he looks like he could add goals from MF.

It's all opinions as we've not seen him there but certainly looks the real deal .

I'd rather have Hegeler 'fill' in at CB than use Moore so I don't see a problem with that loan. Moore hasn't shown anything at this level and the loan move is right for him. I agree that Hegeler is going to be a huge asset at centre mid. 

[cidered abroad]

I saw the reference to Hegeler as having played at centre back in Germany.

But at present I feel we need to play a side with a strong spine and as much experience as possible.

So My back four would Wright Flint Magnusson Golbourne

Midfield Brownhill O'Neil Hegeler Bryan

Striking Abraham and Djuric

But I also want Tomlin in there somewhere so perhaps a diamond midfield of Hegeler as defensive, Brownhill right, Bryan left and Tomlin in a roving role behind strikers.

That would use all our "elder statesmen" except Wilbs but with some legs in the wider midfield.

[1960maaan]

6 minutes ago, WRERE said:

I'd rather have Hegeler 'fill' in at CB than use Moore so I don't see a problem with that loan. Moore hasn't shown anything at this level and the loan move is right for him. I agree that Hegeler is going to be a huge asset at centre mid. 

My point about TM going on loan was more about letting him go when we had only Flint fit and Mathews had to step in. Moore has had one run out at CB (reviews were good I didn't see it) and a few runs at RB where my criticism would be he looked over enthusiastic and got conned into making challenges . He maybe a little raw and inexperienced but he's a CB and LJ played a semi fit RB instead, bizarre in the extreme.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

5 minutes ago, WRERE said:

Like a lot of players that Johnson's signed , he can play in a few positions. LJ likes versatile players and I agree he's mainly been signed as a midfielder but he's also a centre half so why not use him there if the system suits? It's easy to say we should've used different tactics or personnel when we've not got a result. 

 

Yep made easy by such a wide choice since October 1st.

[samo II]

6 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said:

Think you answered your own question there!

For me our weaknesses are on the flanks. Golbourne is consistent defensively but doesn't offer much going forward. Other FB options are below the standard.

No-one has convinced playing a wide midfield role. But there again our coach doesn't really set up to attack the wide areas. We seem to give them up to the opposition every week. 

Rather than address this we seem to be going for height and physicality in the middle of the park. I despair at LJ's tactics and priorities.

I guess I have, but what I was aiming at was that while Little may not be an ideal right back at this level for example, and we may have only one natural right midfielder, it would still be a more sensible solution to try to play that formation than squeeze players into some complex other system that they cannot get their head around.

The below for me would be something I'd try, and while it's not perfect, feel it would provide us a more logical and easy to 'process' set-up for the players;

Fielding

Little, Flint, Wright, Golbourne

Paterson, Browhill, Hegeler, Bryan

Abraham, Djuric

Bench; O'Donnell, Magnusson, Pack, O'Neil, Tomlin, Wilbraham

That's even leaving out some players who could rotate in, such as Reid (what happened to have him vanish; felt he was doing okay) and Engvall (who might as well be invisible for all the game time he's seen).

We might not have the ideal players for 442 but, genuine question; what formation DO we have the players for?  

I haven't a clue.

[WRERE]

4 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

I saw the reference to Hegeler as having played at centre back in Germany.

But at present I feel we need to play a side with a strong spine and as much experience as possible.

So My back four would Wright Flint Magnusson Golbourne

Midfield Brownhill O'Neil Hegeler Bryan

Striking Abraham and Djuric

But I also want Tomlin in there somewhere so perhaps a diamond midfield of Hegeler as defensive, Brownhill right, Bryan left and Tomlin in a roving role behind strikers.

That would use all our "elder statesmen" except Wilbs but with some legs in the wider midfield.

If LJ ran with that team this forum would go into even more meltdown. Wright at RB? He's played there twice in 4 seasons, square peg in a round hole and all that No width on either side as Golborne doesn't push forward and prefers passing backwards. 

[eardun]

8 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

I saw the reference to Hegeler as having played at centre back in Germany.

But at present I feel we need to play a side with a strong spine and as much experience as possible.

So My back four would Wright Flint Magnusson Golbourne

Midfield Brownhill O'Neil Hegeler Bryan

Striking Abraham and Djuric

But I also want Tomlin in there somewhere so perhaps a diamond midfield of Hegeler as defensive, Brownhill right, Bryan left and Tomlin in a roving role behind strikers.

That would use all our "elder statesmen" except Wilbs but with some legs in the wider midfield.

I said similar on a thread yesterday, although I squeezed Tomlin in as follows: (I assumed Wright can only play CB; if he can play right back as you suggest then yes I would play him there with Magnusson at left CB)

           Fielding 

Little  Flint Wright Golbourne

 Brownhill Hegeler Bryan

              Tomlin 

        Djuric   Abraham

 

[Charlie BCFC]

3 minutes ago, eardun said:

I said similar on a thread yesterday, although I squeezed Tomlin in as follows: (I assumed Wright can only play CB; if he can play right back as you suggest then yes I would play him there with Magnusson at left CB)

           Fielding 

Little  Flint Wright Golbourne

 Brownhill Hegeler Bryan

              Tomlin 

        Djuric   Abraham

 

Agreed but Mags in for Golbourne

[JasonM88]

16 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

I saw the reference to Hegeler as having played at centre back in Germany.

But at present I feel we need to play a side with a strong spine and as much experience as possible.

So My back four would Wright Flint Magnusson Golbourne

Midfield Brownhill O'Neil Hegeler Bryan

Striking Abraham and Djuric

But I also want Tomlin in there somewhere so perhaps a diamond midfield of Hegeler as defensive, Brownhill right, Bryan left and Tomlin in a roving role behind strikers.

That would use all our "elder statesmen" except Wilbs but with some legs in the wider midfield.

Why the hell would you play Wright at RB

[samo II]

1 minute ago, WRERE said:

If LJ ran with that team this forum would go into even more meltdown. Wright at RB? He's played there twice in 4 seasons, square peg in a round hole and all that No width on either side as Golborne doesn't push forward and prefers passing backwards. 

I'm sorry, but that is utter rubbish.

He put a half-fit right back in at centre back (yes, he played there for Celtic, but how many times and how long ago?) against a team in the top three, while an England under-19 international sat in the commentary box, and has repeatedly played players in unusually positions, such as O'Dowda in the hole yesterday.

The idea that suggesting an proven Championship defender with previous experience filling in at right back (albeit rarely) is in ANY WAY as stupid a decision as either of the above choices, when other option existed (such as Moore or Tomlin) is nonesense, and indicative of someone trying to ignore the inconsistent and bizarre choices made by LJ.

And before people try to talk down Moore; yesterday Wigan debuted a England under-19 centre back with less first team experience than Moore in their crunch match with Burton - not only did he help them keep a clean sheet, but he scored twice, winning them the game.  No idea why our better thought of and relatively more experienced equivalent has been sent on loan, and wasn't good enough to unseat an injured right back.  Crazy.

[WesM]

I'd like to see this

[RT's Vaseline Tub]

It's better to play Hegeler in a more forward central mid position where his quality/ class can dictate the game rather than from the back.

[eardun]

4 minutes ago, WesM said:

I'd like to see this

If we are going with 3 CBs then yes I could see this working, although I would start with Brownhill instead of O'Neil (for his mobility behind Tomlin). It does have the added advantage of playing Wright on the right hand side which is his preference according to Preston fans on here.

[WRERE]

6 minutes ago, samo II said:

I'm sorry, but that is utter rubbish.

He put a half-fit right back in at centre back (yes, he played there for Celtic, but how many times and how long ago?) against a team in the top three, while an England under-19 international sat in the commentary box, and has repeatedly played players in unusually positions, such as O'Dowda in the hole yesterday.

The idea that suggesting an proven Championship defender with previous experience filling in at right back (albeit rarely) is in ANY WAY as stupid a decision as either of the above choices, when other option existed (such as Moore or Tomlin) is nonesense, and indicative of someone trying to ignore the inconsistent and bizarre choices made by LJ.

And before people try to talk down Moore; yesterday Wigan debuted a England under-19 centre back with less first team experience than Moore in their crunch match with Burton - not only did he help them keep a clean sheet, but he scored twice, winning them the game.  No idea why our better thought of and relatively more experienced equivalent has been sent on loan, and wasn't good enough to unseat an injured right back.  Crazy.

If we won he'd be a commended , if we lost he'd be crucified like every game recently. I was more impressed with what I've seen of Matthews at CB than Moore. Wright isn't 'filling in' when we have fit options available. Wright wouldn't give us anything going forward , he's not someone that will make runs down the line or beat his man to whip in a ball. I'm not trying to ignore the choices , I wasn't behind him putting in O'Dowda over Tomlin and then leaving it till the 85th minute to bring him on , but I have an understanding of the reasoning behind it. 

[samo II]

8 minutes ago, WRERE said:

If we won he'd be a commended , if we lost he'd be crucified like every game recently. I was more impressed with what I've seen of Matthews at CB than Moore. Wright isn't 'filling in' when we have fit options available. Wright wouldn't give us anything going forward , he's not someone that will make runs down the line or beat his man to whip in a ball. I'm not trying to ignore the choices , I wasn't behind him putting in O'Dowda over Tomlin and then leaving it till the 85th minute to bring him on , but I have an understanding of the reasoning behind it. 

What an odd statement.

We are on our equally worst run of league defeats in history, and LJ played a full back with what are clearly persistent and serious injury issues in an unfamiliar position, while a 'specialist' for that role is in the stands, and what lost us that game was a complete lack of defensive solidity and leadership.  How is that laudable?  

"Yes, but if we won..." is a valueless argument.  We didn't, mainly because our defence fell apart in the last 20 mins - and in a run like we are on, you get no points for innovation or ideas.

And you might have liked what you saw of Matthews at centre back, but what does that even mean?  We conceded three and lost; it didn't work.

Plus: you ignore my point.  You dismiss the suggestions of others about playing players out of position as folly, but there is nothing different in what LJ is doing.  O'Dowda in the hole with Tomlin on the bench and Reid out of the squad is anything but logical, and didn't work.  He's lost it.

[Rob k]

41 minutes ago, JasonM88 said:

Why the hell would you play Wright at RB

And Brownhill at right wing?