tinman-is-god Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 If the rumour from Barnsley is true, and we offered a 'seven figure bid' for the Silva and must stump up more money to get the Silva on board, I find myself asking why we need another defensive midfielder for a substantial amount of money. Cole Skuse did a great job in that position last season and with a decent pre-season Marvin Elliot could dominate in that role in the way he did in 07/08. With Elliot and Skuse perfectly adequate it that role, why pay a large fee for (according to Barnsley fans) a player who is predominantly defensive minded? What we need is a creative central midfielder and a quality right winger, not another defensive midfielder. That said, it does beg the question of Elliot's future if we do sign the Silva. I know he has been offered a new deal which he has taken but why would we need Skuse, Elliot and the Silva? Seems like an odd purchase to me if it comes through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Although he sits deep, he's aint that defensive. He's a gareth barry type. Very good passer, from what I've seen and read. Ideal player if you have a box to box midfielder - MARVIN ELLIOTT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MATT BCFC Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think GJ is planning to play 4-5-1. The lack of strikers we currently have aswell would support this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 He's nothing like either of them. You won't see him charging from box to box but you will see sweet passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinman-is-god Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 Although he sits deep, he's aint that defensive. He's a gareth barry type. Very good passer, from what I've seen and read. Ideal player if you have a box to box midfielder - MARVIN ELLIOTT Although Elliot can do well in that role I wonder if we need a bit more finesse going forward. I think we need a forward-thinking attacking central midfielder above a deep lying albeit excellent passer and retainer of the ball. I think he would do OK, but for £1m + I'd want someone who has the ability to score. Although Marv got six in his first season, he's not a natural goalscorer and not sure how much of an attacking threat he is if he was playing as the attacking central midfielder of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinman-is-god Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 He's nothing like either of them. You won't see him charging from box to box but you will see sweet passing. True, but above all else we need new midfielders to create and score more than the current crop. Not sure how many goals and assists De Silva would contribute for the £1m + price tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I salute that. To fill that new stadium we need to be playing possitive attacking football. A Potentail of 20 000 new fans. None of them interested in watching someone sitting deep. People wont go and see a side who is attacking. They will wanna watch a team that is sucessful. Attacking football does not mean success. If we can defend and attack and more importantly win games, the crowds will come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 didn't colchester get relegated the other year and end up near the top of charts for goals scored you need a balanced team to be successful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC @ Herts Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I think GJ is planning to play 4-5-1. The lack of strikers we currently have aswell would support this claim. Why, is the season starting next week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 People wont go and see a side who is attacking. They will wanna watch a team that is sucessful. People will not enjoy watching a boring side that plays abject long ball shite even if it wins one nil. And if that's what they are watching as soon as success tails off a bit their tolerance will evaporate. The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly. 10th having played entertaining football would have been a successful season. 10th having played unwatchable crap for most of the season wasn't in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 People will not enjoy watching a boring side that plays abject long ball shite even if it wins one nil. And if that's what they are watching as soon as success tails off a bit their tolerance will evaporate. The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly. 10th having played entertaining football would have been a successful season. 10th having played unwatchable crap for most of the season wasn't in my eyes. Whilst I like to watch good football, I enjoy victories much more. Will our fans be more happy from a side that plays attacking football that comes tenth or a side that finishes in the top 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 If we are playing with two up top and two out and out wide men - two defensive minded players could be what is needed to shore up the middle of the park - allowing the front four to go on and attack... Just an idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 If we are playing with two up top and two out and out wide men - two defensive minded players could be what is needed to shore up the middle of the park - allowing the front four to go on and attack... Just an idea! exactly. balance. Skuse and Elliott would never work though - not enough creativity. Whereas Silva does create. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Whilst I like to watch good football, I enjoy victories much more. Will our fans be more happy from a side that plays attacking football that comes tenth or a side that finishes in the top 2? Like I said, City fans in the main will stomach s**t football only whilst the wins roll in and that will evaporate the very moment they stop doing so. Grudging acceptance not support is what a manager who team play in style that will get on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Whilst I like to watch good football, I enjoy victories much more. Will our fans be more happy from a side that plays attacking football that comes tenth or a side that finishes in the top 2? Well, we played uninspring football for much of last season and finished tenth. We didn't get the victories that you so enjoy last season on anything like a regular enough basis to actually justify the amount of hoofball and defensive tactics adopted. Speaking for myself I would be much happier this season finishing tenth and seeing GJ's side put on some entertainment and attacking football. The risk with your (and perhaps GJ's??) strategy is that if the football is poor, we are playing 4-5-1 at home and away, and not getting results we will be selling about 8K season tickets the season after next if we are lucky. I would suggest that people who are happy to be bored to tears week in, week out as long as the team wins 1-0 are in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 didn't colchester get relegated the other year and end up near the top of charts for goals scored you need a balanced team to be successful And one up top ain't balanced as far as I am concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Like I said, City fans in the main will stomach s**t football only whilst the wins roll in and that will evaporate the very moment they stop doing so. Grudging acceptance not support is what a manager who team play in style that will get on average. Well, we played uninspring football for much of last season and finished tenth. We didn't get the victories that you so enjoy last season on anything like a regular enough basis to actually justify the amount of hoofball and defensive tactics adopted. Speaking for myself I would be much happier this season finishing tenth and seeing GJ's side put on some entertainment and attacking football. The risk with your (and perhaps GJ's??) strategy is that if the football is poor, we are playing 4-5-1 at home and away, and not getting results we will be selling about 8K season tickets the season after next if we are lucky. I would suggest that people who are happy to be bored to tears week in, week out as long as the team wins 1-0 are in the minority. The thing is, when we played well in the season just gone, we played some good stuff. It was when things were'nt going to well that we reverted to the long ball tactic. thats how I saw it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The thing is, when we played well in the season just gone, we played some good stuff. It was when things were'nt going to well that we reverted to the long ball tactic. thats how I saw it anyway. Chicken and egg argument but I think the s**t football caused the poor results not vice versa. With a narrow shape, McIndoe tucked in, Williams often on the right, Adebola up top and LJ taking the ball off defence and slowing down play, I'd argue we set ourselves up to play long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 exactly. balance. Skuse and Elliott would never work though - not enough creativity. Whereas Silva does create. I will just add that DaSilva does not create or score goals but is a solid defensive midfielder. Look up his stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Chicken and egg argument but I think the s**t football caused the poor results not vice versa. With a narrow shape, McIndoe tucked in, Williams often on the right, Adebola up top and LJ taking the ball off defence and slowing down play, I'd argue we set ourselves up to play long. Got to admit I'm not too impressed with the narrow shape. But I think the manager is just trying to make us solid. If de Silva does sign, him and elliott should be enough in midfield defensively and hopefully that will mean this "tucking in" will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tunley Legend Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 The thing is, when we played well in the season just gone, we played some good stuff. It was when things were'nt going to well that we reverted to the long ball tactic. thats how I saw it anyway. Assuming you are correct then it is up to GJ to bring in players who can show the required quality and play decent football that gets results on a more regular basis. Our style of football on many occasions seems to be set up to counteract deficiencies in OUR OWN side. We do not have the personnel at present who can take a game by the scruff of the neck and let the OPPOSITION WORRY ABOUT US and we need to get those players in. Before one or two others jump to conclusions I am not saying that GJ has done a bad job. He has done a great job given the status/size of our club and the personnel available. However, I just feel that he needs to move things on a level having had two good seasons with a squad of limited ability and it is time to start seeing some football at AG that is pleasing on the eye and that gets us the results we want on a reasonably regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 I will just add that DaSilva does not create or score goals but is a solid defensive midfielder. Look up his stats. He does what LJ does, sprays the ball about from deep, but he is also able to defend with strength and win a physical battle. Very skillful player on the ball as well. He doesn't bomb on into the box and play through balls or score much, no. Got to admit I'm not too impressed with the narrow shape. But I think the manager is just trying to make us solid. If de Silva does sign, him and elliott should be enough in midfield defensively and hopefully that will mean this "tucking in" will stop. Hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 People will not enjoy watching a boring side that plays abject long ball shite even if it wins one nil. And if that's what they are watching as soon as success tails off a bit their tolerance will evaporate. The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly. Rubbish, people will watch a side that is winning, and to say "The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly" is the oddest statement I've yet seen you make. We've never been thought of as a attractive side to watch in at least 20 years, aside from the odd period under Wilson and on occasion under Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 And one up top ain't balanced as far as I am concerned. i total agree we need two strikers defiantly plus i don't think having maynard up front on his jack will work even if we went 433 with mcindoe and sproule with him maynard will be to isolated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest That's right Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 He's nothing like either of them. You won't see him charging from box to box but you will see sweet passing. Tinnion esk pin point passing!!! love a bit of that again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Rubbish, people will watch a side that is winning, and to say "The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly" is the oddest statement I've yet seen you make. I acknowledged that people will watch a winning side - didn't you read that? They will just run out of patience with s**t football far faster then good football when results go bad. And it's not in the least an odd statement, ex managers like Osman and Pulis are remembered with dread whilst most people think well of someone like Wilson and he got much more patience. We've never been thought of as a attractive side to watch in at least 20 years, aside from the odd period under Wilson and on occasion under Johnson. Most fans I speak to around the country think the club has a reputation as one that plays attractive football more often than not. I think you're well wide of the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bounce Around the Ground Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 How good is De Silva at passing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red_Chelt Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 How good is De Silva at passing? Out of this world...apparently. Just a thought - but a lot of people seem to think we're lacking creativity in the middle of the park. It may be controversial to suggest that a deep-lying midfielder, a good passer of the ball may be a replacement for Lee Johnson who seems to be the current 'route out' from defence when it's not being lumped forward. If de Silva is good enough positionally and defensively it would allow more attacking intent from the other CM - I know we moan about our strikers not scoring enough but we rarely flood the box when the ball comes in from wide. Perhaps, and this is wishful thinking, this might be a possible reason for looking at this type of player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Out of this world...apparently. Just a thought - but a lot of people seem to think we're lacking creativity in the middle of the park. It may be controversial to suggest that a deep-lying midfielder, a good passer of the ball may be a replacement for Lee Johnson who seems to be the current 'route out' from defence when it's not being lumped forward. If de Silva is good enough positionally and defensively it would allow more attacking intent from the other CM - I know we moan about our strikers not scoring enough but we rarely flood the box when the ball comes in from wide. Perhaps, and this is wishful thinking, this might be a possible reason for looking at this type of player... I think that would be exactly the intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frome Valley Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Rubbish, people will watch a side that is winning, and to say "The Ashton Gate crowd has always valued the quality of football highly" is the oddest statement I've yet seen you make. We've never been thought of as a attractive side to watch in at least 20 years, aside from the odd period under Wilson and on occasion under Johnson. The Ashton Gate crowd really did value attacking attactive football. I have always though of City as being a passing team to feet while Rovers employed long ball tactics of the very worst kind e.g Cooper and Jordans teams v Francis's. True long ball football of the Gas/Palace/Wimbledon kind was NEVER acceptable here when it was starting to dominate elsewhere. Despite fans now talking about long ball football ... well they haven't really seen it if they think City are a really direct side. I also don't think gates in would have taken such a nosedive if Osman had employed more attractive football as City fans could only stomach the overtly defensive nonsense for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The way I see it is if we are playing 4-5-1 then we are going to struggle a lot next season. Whilst 4-5-1 prevents goals being conceeded as much it also leaves the opposition with a simple job of marking just one striker. In a 4-5-1 you need someone who will always be able to threaten from midfield and De Silva isn't that man as no matter what anyone says he isn't a goalscorer. To play 4-5-1 you need an attacking midfielder, a creative midfielder and a defensive midfielder and if we were to buy De Silva and play 4-5-1 we'd be very easy to defend against as Elliot isn't going to threaten, Skuse isnot going to threaten and from what I'm reading and seeing De Silva is a creative player at best which means we'd be playing a defensive midfielder instead of an attacking midfielder. Maynard is not a solo striker in any way shape or form, the guy has loads of potential but I think he needs a player that will drag defenders away from him giving him the space to get his shots off. If we don't have an attacking midfielder Maynard will be marked out of the game and we'll have no real threat coming from anywhere else. You also need decent wingers if you want to play 4-5-1 so that when you attack the 3 central midfielders cancover any counter attacks and the wingers can get crosses in, I can't see McIndoe playing as a winger and I also think Sproule won't do much other than sprint untill he gets into a poor position. What we need is the same thing we've needed for a long time, a midfielder who can score goals and threaten the opposition, I don't think De Silva is that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red_Chelt Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 The way I see it is if we are playing 4-5-1 then we are going to struggle a lot next season. Whilst 4-5-1 prevents goals being conceeded as much it also leaves the opposition with a simple job of marking just one striker. In a 4-5-1 you need someone who will always be able to threaten from midfield and De Silva isn't that man as no matter what anyone says he isn't a goalscorer. To play 4-5-1 you need an attacking midfielder, a creative midfielder and a defensive midfielder and if we were to buy De Silva and play 4-5-1 we'd be very easy to defend against as Elliot isn't going to threaten, Skuse isnot going to threaten and from what I'm reading and seeing De Silva is a creative player at best which means we'd be playing a defensive midfielder instead of an attacking midfielder. Maynard is not a solo striker in any way shape or form, the guy has loads of potential but I think he needs a player that will drag defenders away from him giving him the space to get his shots off. If we don't have an attacking midfielder Maynard will be marked out of the game and we'll have no real threat coming from anywhere else. You also need decent wingers if you want to play 4-5-1 so that when you attack the 3 central midfielders cancover any counter attacks and the wingers can get crosses in, I can't see McIndoe playing as a winger and I also think Sproule won't do much other than sprint untill he gets into a poor position. What we need is the same thing we've needed for a long time, a midfielder who can score goals and threaten the opposition, I don't think De Silva is that. I think you're pretty much right but don't forget Williams - a central 3 of de Silva shielding Williams and Elliot could be fairly combative and attacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 With Elliot and Skuse perfectly adequate it that role, I think the idea is to strengthen what we have and get some better quality in , and the general consensus seems to be that De Silva would be just that. We are "adequate" all over the pitch! why pay a large fee for (according to Barnsley fans) a player who is predominantly defensive minded? What we need is a creative central midfielder and a quality right winger, not another defensive midfielder. All we heard was " six figures" , could have been a cheeky 150,000. I agree that we need what you say but i would argue that Marvin is better suited getting beyond the play ...or not as he can do a job as cover ( or right back), same point as above really , its not that we specifically need him but he would be of better quality, in most peoples opinion ,than what we have now and therefore a good addition. That said, it does beg the question of Elliot's future if we do sign the Silva. I know he has been offered a new deal which he has taken but why would we need Skuse, Elliot and the Silva? Seems like an odd purchase to me if it comes through. Well i'm not sure, from what i have seen of him a De Silva/ Elliot partnership would be championship standard. Big strong and mobile. I say get him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think you're pretty much right but don't forget Williams - a central 3 of de Silva shielding Williams and Elliot could be fairly combative and attacking. I agree but I can't see LJ being left out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 If Da Silva comes he sounds like the perfect partner for Marvin Elliott, who for some unknown reason (to me at least) has suddenly been labelled as a 'defensive midfielder'? When we finished 4th Lee Johnson was consistently the deep-lying midfielder with Marvin bombing up and down and getting box to box. Lee has always been the link between defence and midfield in this team and has done a very good job in that role overall. Da Silva, who has been described as a player with good feet and decent passing ability, sounds to me to be a very similar player. And I thought people were crying out for such a replacement? There appears to be this stereotype that you need one defensive sitting midfielder and one attacking midfielder to be successful. With the way we're set up a midfield partnership of Elliott and Da Silva (and even Skuse and Da Silva) sounds pretty promising to me, and if you are to believe the rumours that we're intent on spending big money on the likes of Da Silva and Lee Martin who can question our ambition and desire to move forward now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 In a two man central midfield ideally one of them's main responsibilty is defending and the others being the offensive playmaker dictating the game. Perhaps even making his man (scary, scary), opening up the defence for the forwards. Elliott is a good backtracker and a ball winner above all. Therefore his correct label if any is defensive midfielder. I don't wan't to replace LJ with another LJ. I don't believe a offensive central midfielders roal is to be defensive in the offensive. elliott can finish quite clinically his goal against the florists was class and he showed great composure in front of goal against ipswich so i have no worries he can do a job being pushed more forward you forget gj likes his players to track back when we loose the ball even the strikers for set plays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 I agree but I can't see LJ being left out apparently there's a vacancy on the tea stand at the east end but they will need to lower the counter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 In a two man central midfield ideally one of them's main responsibilty is defending and the others being the offensive playmaker dictating the game. No, that's just one way of organising a side. It's not ideal. An ideal two man midfield has two Steven Gerrards in it. Perhaps even making his man (scary, scary), opening up the defence for the forwards. Elliott is a good backtracker and a ball winner above all. Therefore his correct label if any is defensive midfielder. Not really true at all. Elliott usually plays further up the pitch than LJ, he attacks as much as he defends. He's a real box to box player with lots of energy and he gets his fair share of goals by getting ahead of the ball a lot. The top flight player I'd describe him as "being in the mould of" most would be someone like Viera who in his prime did the same. LJ is a deep lying playmaker who does not get ahead of the ball but instead takes it off the defence and pings it around. He doesn't defend well nor mark. He covers ground but mostly behind play looking to be the easy option not the attacking one. I don't wan't to replace LJ with another LJ. I don't believe a offensive central midfielders roal is to be defensive in the offensive. From what I've seen of him, Da Silva plays a game similar to LJs except his passing is better, his skill on the ball is better, and he is strong in the air and in the tackle and can defend. He's a big improvement IMO and would free Elliott to be even more effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 In a two man central midfield ideally one of them's main responsibilty is defending and the others being the offensive playmaker dictating the game. Perhaps even making his man (scary, scary), opening up the defence for the forwards. Elliott is a good backtracker and a ball winner above all. Therefore his correct label if any is defensive midfielder. I don't wan't to replace LJ with another LJ. I don't believe a offensive central midfielders roal is to be defensive in the offensive. A view that likes to put every player in a strictly limited box. In this case, "he can tackle so he is a defensive midfield player". How about Bryan Robson, Paul Ince and Roy Keane? All great tacklers but all got forward too. There doesn't seem to be a better term than box to box player for them. Marvin is of the same kind, though not quality (yet ). Unless he has a twin brother who keeps turning up in and around the opposition penalty area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.