Barlaser and O'Brien

Can't really defend either of their performances against Plymouth or Stoke, but we are asking them to play a role which neither of them have in their locker. O'Brien is an 8, you saw him used in that role at Leicester and he was probably our most effective player. Barlaser needs the game in front of him, he's no good trying to pay on the half turn, wants to take too many touches, invites pressure and can't cope with a high press. Defensively both are lacking, Barlaser is just weak as p**s and O'Brien tends to get himself in poor positions. Both would almost certainly do pretty well in a midfield 3 with proper '6' destructive midfielder behind them. Problem is we don't have one. Carricks hands are a bit tied, only other option is to go with a back 3, but we don't really have specialist wing backs, Engel & Djiksteel could do a job but both aren't I don't think either are creative enough.
 
Hammies_Tash said:
Can't really defend either of their performances against Plymouth or Stoke, but we are asking them to play a role which neither of them have in their locker. O'Brien is an 8, you saw him used in that role at Leicester and he was probably our most effective player. Barlaser needs the game in front of him, he's no good trying to pay on the half turn, wants to take too many touches, invites pressure and can't cope with a high press. Defensively both are lacking, Barlaser is just weak as p**s and O'Brien tends to get himself in poor positions. Both would almost certainly do pretty well in a midfield 3 with proper '6' destructive midfielder behind them. Problem is we don't have one. Carricks hands are a bit tied, only other option is to go with a back 3, but we don't really have specialist wing backs, Engel & Djiksteel could do a job but both aren't I don't think either are creative enough.
Click to expand...
Dijksteele doesn't suit a quick passing style, his second touch is either a tackle or fetching the ball for an oppo for their throw in. Engel seems similar to me.

If we played a back three I'd rather have Bangura and Jones, but both injured of course.

We really miss Lenihan too, for organising, plus playing out from the back, and being able to actually defend.
 
B_G said:
I don't know why people now refer to positions or roles as numbers. The roles are different in each formation or set up.

I do it myself with the no10 when referring to a player playing in the hole. But 4, 6s and 8s.... surely the role changes in every team
Click to expand...
It's daft, but can see how it might have made some sense in a 4-4-2, when every team played it. But it certainly doesn't now, as nobody plays it and the numbers go from 1-100. There were different ways of playing 4-4-2 also, so one teams no 8 might be different from another. Depends whether you have Gazza or Andy Peake.

To me it seems like it's just older people using the terms (who got into football in the 70's and 80's), using the numbers to convince themselves that the old time is still as relevant, when it's actually getting less relevant by the day. But young folk do it also to try and kid themselves that they watched loads of 70's and 80's football, which they didn't.

Coaches might use numbers 1-11 when talking through tactics on a board, for fast easy reference to players/ positions, but the 1-11 on their board won't be the same as a 4-4-2 board, which makes it completely different, as if one piece is not the same, then none of it is reliable to use in the traditional sense. Most teams still just use blank red/ blue dots, to avoid the number confusion.

It's funny, as probably the most commonly understood numbered position now is the number 10, but that to me a is a playmaker behind the front two, but it wasn't that position in the old days. In some teams the number 10 is just the best player.
 
if you do any coaching courses, numbers are used describe 'types' of players, it’s supposed to be easier for players understand their roles within the team. Think it’s gradually come in from the U.S as The F.A. really looked at their coaching model when designing their own coaching model, many of the coaches delivering the courses (after level 2) have all at some point coached in the U.S.
When I did my ‘B’ licence in 2012 a sitting holding midfield player was always a ‘4’, did my ‘A’ licence in 2018 and this had transitioned to a ‘6’, got to say confused me for a few hours!
 
I think barlasers best role is as the quarterback, hes the poundshop pirlo, probably again better in a 3 man midfield

O'brien for me is a box to box midfielder also more suited to a 3 man midfield making lateral runs, sitting in a double pivot
in carricks prefered 4-2-3-1 is just not his game, daft as it seems his best games for us have been at left back and away to
norwich were he was a counter attacking half winger
 
Gunslinger said:
O'brien for me is a box to box midfielder also more suited to a 3 man midfield making lateral runs, sitting in a double pivot
in carricks prefered 4-2-3-1 is just not his game, daft as it seems his best games for us have been at left back and away to
norwich were he was a counter attacking half winger
Click to expand...
If Howson is fit next week I'd be tempted to put O'Brien back at left back to be honest.
 
I blame the kids ..
If they haven't got time to reply " ok " .. only " k " ..
Then we can't expect them to have the time to understand the difference in " left back " and " left wing back " ..

I reckon the next A license course will just have emojis on the shirts ..

Keeper =😵‍💫
Full back = 🦌
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top