Could Norwood play the Duffy role?

[Sothall_Blade]

I’m not advocating changing a successful team but when Duffy starts to tire around the 60-70 minute mark we don’t currently have a natural replacement.
Now that Coutts is available how about bringing him on to play the “Coutts/Norwood” role and moving Norwood into the “Duffy” role?
It seems to me that Norwood has a lot of the same qualities as Duffy and they play a similar sort of game, albeit 20 yards apart.

I.e. Both have the ability to find space, to receive the ball under pressure and to successfully move it on to a teammate.
Both have the ability to see and accurately play a “killer” through ball.
Norwood potentially offers more than Duffy in terms of long-range shooting and tackling and it’s vital we keep his set-piece deliveries on the pitch.

So when it comes to the crunch and we’re holding on to a lead or even trying to force a winner with 20 minutes on the clock.
What should we do? Persist with a tiring and therefore ineffective Duffy? Take a risk on Woodburn coming good?
Or bring on the known brilliance of Coutts and push Norwood further forward?

Any thoughts?

 

[Ricky]

Maybe Coutts on for Duffy and drop McGoldrick into the 10 role behind a striker. He's a better fit for it than Norwood.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Maybe Coutts on for Duffy and drop McGoldrick into the 10 role behind a striker. He's a better fit for it than Norwood.

Yes, that's a possibility but it does mean more of a formation change to a solo striker with one behind (didn't really work on Saturday).
Personally, if I were doing that I'd rather keep our same shape, bring Clarke on for Duffy and put McGoldrick in the Duffy role.
Especially if we're chasing the game I suppose rather than trying to preserve a lead.

 

[dc_blade]

Woodburn needs to be given a chance in the Duffy role. If that's not going to happen then I hope we're looking at replacements for him in January because Duffy needs cover and a square-peg-in-round-hole approach isn't good enough for a team with aspirations of challenging for the play offs. Duffy's role relies on being able to dribble and I haven't seen Norwood do that so far. I'd rather keep him in a position in which he's one of the best in the division.

I can see Coutts coming on for Duffy and us going to a flatter midfield three when we're trying to hold onto a lead and want to just keep the ball for extended periods.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Woodburn needs to be given a chance in the Duffy role. If that's not going to happen then I hope we're looking at replacements for him in January because Duffy needs cover and a square-peg-in-round-hole approach isn't good enough for a team with aspirations of challenging for the play offs. Duffy's role relies on being able to dribble and I haven't seen Norwood do that so far. I'd rather keep him in a position in which he's one of the best in the division.

I can see Coutts coming on for Duffy and us going to a flatter midfield three when we're trying to hold onto a lead and want to just keep the ball for extended periods.

Yes, ideally Woodburn would just replace Duffy superbly and that would be that.
But he has had a few chances to do so and hasn't taken them yet.
Can a team with play-off aspirations afford to carry a trainee passenger when vital points are at stake?

I'm not sure I've seen Duffy do too much dribbling with the ball really (Fleck tends to do more of that).
A switch to a flat midfield three is obviously another option but again it requires a change of formation.
When we've done this before we lose the "verticality" that Blades Analytics talks about.

Maybe I'm wrong and Norwood would be a bad fit further up the pitch but I would be interested to see us try him there.

 

[dc_blade]

Yes, ideally Woodburn would just replace Duffy superbly and that would be that.
But he has had a few chances to do so and hasn't taken them yet.
Can a team with play-off aspirations afford to carry a trainee passenger when vital points are at stake?

I'm not sure I've seen Duffy do too much dribbling with the ball really (Fleck tends to do more of that).
A switch to a flat midfield three is obviously another option but again it requires a change of formation.
When we've done this before we lose the "verticality" that Blades Analytics talks about.

Maybe I'm wrong and Norwood would be a bad fit further up the pitch but I would be interested to see us try him there.

My view is that we haven’t seen enough of Woodburn to really judge the kid. I’m growing concerned that Wilder doesn’t like the look of him in training. I agree with you that we can’t be spending money on him if he’s not going to play.

 

[Blade for Sale]

We need to be more flexible than that for me. When Duffy plays, he should be playing in a formation that suits Mark Duffy. When he doesn't play, the formation needs to be adjusted for whoever does. No side should be so rigid that when an integral player drops out, another needs to take his place and play his exact role.

 

[Ricky]

One thing I would say is that Norwood shouldn't be given too much defensive responsibility when we're hanging on. He's not the most athletic or fittest (that's why he's not in PL), so should have more than just Fleck alongside him. But I don't think he should be moved as far as the 10 position, it wouldn't suit him.

McGoldrick would still be more of a second striker than a Duffy type in the 10 role. He would have to be behind just one striker, we couldn't be effectively carrying 3 strikers which we would be if he was playing behind 2.

Coutts Norwood Fleck
- - - - -McGoldrick
- - - - - - Clarke

That's our best option in the current system. Maybe Basham in midfield instead of Coutts, or alongside him in place of Norwood.

 

[Rodley]

I’m not advocating changing a successful team but when Duffy starts to tire around the 60-70 minute mark we don’t currently have a natural replacement.
Now that Coutts is available how about bringing him on to play the “Coutts/Norwood” role and moving Norwood into the “Duffy” role?
It seems to me that Norwood has a lot of the same qualities as Duffy and they play a similar sort of game, albeit 20 yards apart.

I.e. Both have the ability to find space, to receive the ball under pressure and to successfully move it on to a teammate.
Both have the ability to see and accurately play a “killer” through ball.
Norwood potentially offers more than Duffy in terms of long-range shooting and tackling and it’s vital we keep his set-piece deliveries on the pitch.

So when it comes to the crunch and we’re holding on to a lead or even trying to force a winner with 20 minutes on the clock.
What should we do? Persist with a tiring and therefore ineffective Duffy? Take a risk on Woodburn coming good?
Or bring on the known brilliance of Coutts and push Norwood further forward?

Any thoughts?

No Norwood can’t beat a man. Need more tricks in that position to make space for yourself and then slip a pass through. Fleck far more suitable, but choice #1 is Luke Freeman (if he’ll move up north).

 

[Addison]

Maybe Coutts on for Duffy and drop McGoldrick into the 10 role behind a striker. He's a better fit for it than Norwood.

This. Its the only current option to maintain 3-4-1-2 and our attacking intent. Woodburn needs to show more when given the opportunity he hasn't so far. Any other permutation including Coutts, Fleck and Norwood means its 3-5-1-1 and we drop deeper inviting the opposition onto us. When Duffy went off in the friendly against Donny pre season having set up the first goal McGoldrick dropped into the number 10 role and set up Sharp for the second. Suprised we haven't used this option more often during games.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Don’t think Norwood can play the Duffy role.
Duffy can dribble with the ball and take on players....not seen Norwood go past players so easily.
Potentially Woodburn is better suited to the Duffy role.
Agree with the other post, Luke Freeman would suit the Duffy role.

Playing the quarter back role, taking the ball off the defenders needs composure with consistent long and short passing.
Norwood has the best range of passing at the club, that role is perfect for him.

 

[GroovyBrad]

Don’t think Norwood can play the Duffy role.
Duffy can dribble with the ball and take on players....not seen Norwood go past players so easily.
Potentially Woodburn is better suited to the Duffy role.
Agree with the other post, Luke Freeman would suit the Duffy role.

Playing the quarter back role, taking the ball off the defenders needs composure with consistent long and short passing.
Norwood has the best range of passing at the club, that role is perfect for him.

Good shouts with Luke Freeman, if were in the top 10 come January with a good shot at playoffs, I think we will go in form him again!

 

[RedandWhite]

Not a chance, hasn't got the technique of Duffy would lose the ball 8/10 times

 

[Sheffsteel]

Not a chance, hasn't got the technique of Duffy would lose the ball 8/10 times

I’ve seen a few of their fans on the QPR recommending that Freeman is sold to raise funds to buy other players.

They all seem to agree that’s he’s hugely talented but often flatters to deceive and lacks consistency.
They say he’s a luxury player and more of an individual player than a team player.
Would expect Wilder to knock him into to shape though.

 

[Addison]

I’ve seen a few of their fans on the QPR recommending that Freeman is sold to raise funds to buy other players.

They all seem to agree that’s he’s hugely talented but often flatters to deceive and lacks consistency.
They say he’s a luxury player and more of an individual player than a team player.
Would expect Wilder to knock him into to shape though.

He is the ideal player to challenge Duffy as Daniel Johnson is for Fleck.

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

Norwood has done excellent where he is playing, so I'd be leaving him there.

 

[RedandWhite]

I’ve seen a few of their fans on the QPR recommending that Freeman is sold to raise funds to buy other players.

They all seem to agree that’s he’s hugely talented but often flatters to deceive and lacks consistency.
They say he’s a luxury player and more of an individual player than a team player.
Would expect Wilder to knock him into to shape though.

I'm talking about Norwood

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Whilst both being midfield players they are poles apart in what they can do.

One of Duffy's main attributes is the drop of a shoulder and he's gone and is a lot quicker over 5/10 yards than some give him credit for.

Norwood, simply strolls about pinging passes at leisure - and nearly always picks the correct option.

If the OP is asking the question of how to fit Norwood into the team, then for me it would be Coutts deep with Norwood and Fleck more advanced - it's where Norwood played last season for Fulham.

Perhaps Duffy will actually miss out in some games and be an impact, 20/30 minute impact sub. It's also a good way of managing Duffy's fitness over the season.

Getting Coutts/Norwood and Fleck all operating in midfield will kill a load of teams, especially if we play McGoldrick in the same team. We'll just pass teams to death.

As one or two have said - the more footballers you have the better the team.

Coutts being fit and available is going to give CW many more options.

UTB

 

[sufcboy95]

Not for me. Fleck Would be my pick for the Duffy role, IF Coutts can get back to his best

 

[I'll tell me dad.]

It must be hard for anyone else to play the Duffy role. Even Duffy can't play it sometimes.

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

We should sign Bannon - kills two birds with one stone................

 

[Speedracer]

I think Duffy is perfect for the Duffy role, I don't really agree that he fades badly after 60 minutes & I bet it winds him up as well.

 

[SteveBlade]

We should sign Bannon - kills two birds with one stone................

Bannan is obviously a good player, but I think he's basically a slightly worse Oliver Norwood.

Luke Freeman is the one we could do with.

 

[8lade]

I'm with the Fleckites, as long as he makes the switch and doesn't keep drifting back.
And given his play isn't the same as Duffy's imagine the shock to the defenders, equally talented players but different, I'd quite like to see this soon.

 

[Bladesman]

I think Duffy is perfect for the Duffy role, I don't really agree that he fades badly after 60 minutes & I bet it winds him up as well.

He does fade or the other team starts marking him better.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

It must be hard for anyone else to play the Duffy role. Even Duffy can't play it sometimes.

That's a fair comment, but when Duffy doesn't play the role, it's because the opposition don't allow him to play in between the lines.

Teams like Villa believe they can out football us, like they tried a few weeks ago - I am not convinced there are ANY teams that can out football us in midfield when we play our A team. There are teams that try and stop us playing (perfectly acceptable by the opposition) - but teams that want to take us on will find they are generally on the wrong end of a beating or are lucky - ie : Bristol City a few weeks ago.

The PIGS played 5-4-1 at Villa and it was very effective - I expect it to be just the same down at BDTBL in a few weeks. They will attempt to stop us playing.

UTB

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Even if we wanted to, we probably need to speak to Chris Hughton to make sure he’s happy for us to try him in a new position, as apparently he’s not really our player till January. No doubt because it’s a loan (and we definitely shouldn’t treat it as a permanent deal) Wilder will be able to have a chat with him with their regular calls on how the loan’s going...

 

[Deadly_D'Jaffo]

The replacement for Duffy will not be cheap. On his day he's a £10m player. When he doesn't play his influence on a game is painfully missed.

The best thing Nigel Clough ever did for Sheff Utd was being incompetent enough to refuse the option to sign him permenantly to Burton Albion.