David Brooks - what position is his in our current team ?

[Stretch]

He can do either the number 10 or the free attacking midfield role that Duffy occupies. A fantastic prospect who has shown he is more than able to rip teams in this league apart, but I still think he needs to be dipped in and out depending on who we play. Some teams will seriously mark his card and double up. Wilder knows best on this.
And seen as though I have mentioned Duffy, how good has he been so far this season?! If anything he looks better than he did in the league below, seemingly stronger and even more difficult to knock off the ball. How on Earth Carruthers is going to get a look in with Duffy and Brookes fighting it out for the shirt is beyond me, although he can drop deeper to be fair.

 

[Barney]

He can do either the number 10 or the free attacking midfield role that Duffy occupies. A fantastic prospect who has shown he is more than able to rip teams in this league apart, but I still think he needs to be dipped in and out depending on who we play. Some teams will seriously mark his card and double up. Wilder knows best on this.
And seen as though I have mentioned Duffy, how good has he been so far this season?! If anything he looks better than he did in the league below, seemingly stronger and even more difficult to knock off the ball. How on Earth Carruthers is going to get a look in with Duffy and Brookes fighting it out for the short is beyond me, although he can drop deeper to be fair.

Best thing for young players' development is games, games and more games.

See Walker, Harry et al.

 

[Stretch]

Best thing for young players' development is games, games and more games.

See Walker, Harry et al.

I agree and I am not suggesting that he goes in and out of the match day squad but I do think there will be times for him to start and other times for him to be the impact sub. Hopefully more of the former than the latter.

 

[itsinyerblood]

I think that even at this early stage, Brooks' development will be dependent on a consistent run in the first team. Obviously, if he suffers a drop in form then he should drop to the bench, but not until his performances are consistently below the standards he's shown himself capable of.

He's the best home grown prospect I've seen delivered by the academy, and I include Maguire, Walker, and Naughton in that list. Naturally Walker stands head and shoulders above anyone that's come through the academy until now, but for pure talent then Brooks could surpass anyone that has worn a Blade's shirt. I realise that the pace of the professional game may take it's toll on the lad, but that's for Wilder and Knill to decide. What I do know is that until Brooks looks as if he needs a rest then let the boy loose on the opposition!

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

it would completely unbalance the team

I don't think so. Most of the REALLY successful teams in recent history have contained an abundance of attack minded, potentially goal scoring players. A good example of this would be the Man U teams turned out by Sir Alex.

As one example chosen at random, I would cite the team which thrashed Arsenal 3 - 0 in 2005. It lined up 3-5-2 just as we normally do but included no less than 5 natural forward players in Giggs, Sharpe, Kanchelskis, Hughes and Cole and it didn't work out too badly for them on this occasion and on many others, using a similar format, under the most successful manager in modern English football history.

I honestly believe that the Blades are at the point whereby we have the players to take that next bold step forward by going at teams to the extent that they won't know what's hit them, leaving their own game plan in tatters after no time , which was the main reason behind Man U,'s success a both then and this season when you look at some of the line-up's Morinho has started with.

 

[Champagneblade]

Question is also this - is he good enough for us to stop playing 5 at the back?

There are strong cases for Duffy, Sharp, Clarke, Brooks, Fleck and Coutts to all play, when the latter is not suspended.

Perhaps we go 4-4-2 with him and Duffy wide players with a licence to roam. Or do we go 4-3-3, give him the Neymar role, let Clarke, Sharp and Donaldson fight out the other two? Duffy in a midfield three with Coutts and Fleck?

It means one from Stearman, Basham or Wright alongside O’Connell.

Who would make the XI more likely to win? An extra Billy, Brooks or Duffy or an extra Wright, Stearman or Basham?

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Well I called this one wrong.

My fellow Blades really do want to discuss at some length, where our wonder kid is best placed. Apologies for misreading the mood.

BTW, I have a sneaking suspicion that CW will "play' him on the bench. Too much of a good thing and all that.

Yes I agree with that. He will revert to a Clarke/Sharp combo up front with Duffy in behind and Brooks on the bench. I don't think he should necessarily, but I think he will.

 

[BushBlade]

I don't think so. Most of the REALLY successful teams in recent history have contained an abundance of attack minded, potentially goal scoring players. A good example of this would be the Man U teams turned out by Sir Alex.

As one example chosen at random, I would cite the team which thrashed Arsenal 3 - 0 in 2005. It lined up 3-5-2 just as we normally do but included no less than 5 natural forward players in Giggs, Sharpe, Kanchelskis, Hughes and Cole and it didn't work out too badly for them on this occasion and on many others, using a similar format, under the most successful manager in modern English football history.

I honestly believe that the Blades are at the point whereby we have the players to take that next bold step forward by going at teams to the extent that they won't know what's hit them, leaving their own game plan in tatters after no time , which was the main reason behind Man U,'s success a both then and this season when you look at some of the line-up's Morinho has started with.

Sorry but could you put the full team up as I don't remember Man U playing three at the back in those days nor do I recall ever seeing Giggs and Kanchelskis playing as wing backs?

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Sorry but could you put the full team up as I don't remember Man U playing three at the back in those days nor do I recall ever seeing Giggs and Kanchelskis playing as wing backs?

Schmeichel

Bruce. Pallister. Irvin

Kanchelskis. Ince. Keane. Giggs. Sharpe

Hughes. Cole

My keyboard keeps printing. V instead of double u in case of doubt about the guy in the back 3.

 

[BushBlade]

Schmeichel

Bruce. Pallister. Irvin

Kanchelskis. Ince. Keane. Giggs. Sharpe

Hughes. Cole

My keyboard keeps printing. V instead of double u in case of doubt about the guy in the back 3.

Lee Sharpe? He'd retired. And Kanchelskis was playing in Moscow. And Bruce was a manager....

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Lee Sharpe? He'd retired. And Kanchelskis was playing in Moscow. And Bruce was a manager....

Sorry, I gave the wrong date. - it was actually 22 March 1995.

Well spotted.

 

[BushBlade]

Sorry, I gave the wrong date. - it was actually 22 March 1995.

Well spotted.

Well, that's the line up given in 11v11 but I'm still sceptical. I just can't see Irwin as a central defender in a three or how he could fit Sharpe, Giggs and Kanchelskis all into any formation unless one was playing as a wing back. At the time, they were out and out wingers.

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Well, that's the line up given in 11v11 but I'm still sceptical. I just can't see Irwin as a central defender in a three or how he could fit Sharpe, Giggs and Kanchelskis all into any formation unless one was playing as a wing back. At the time, they were out and out wingers.

I must say it came as a surprise to me and suspect that the formation was more like 3-2-3-2 with Ince and Keane playing just in front of the back 3.

The overriding point I am trying to make, however , is that we don't necessarily have to play with just 3 natural forward players, as many seem to be suggesting on here. In this case there were 5 and I believe we can easily accommodate 4 which would allow for both Brooks AND Duffy to play and still have 2 main strikers which for me would be Billy and Clarke or Donaldson

 

[BushBlade]

I must say it came as a surprise to me and suspect that the formation was more like 3-2-3-2 with Ince and Keane playing just in front of the back 3.

The overriding point I am trying to make, however , is that we don't necessarily have to play with just 3 natural forward players, as many seem to be suggesting on here. In this case there were 5 and I believe we can easily accommodate 4 which would allow for both Brooks AND Duffy to play and still have 2 main strikers which for me would be Billy and Clarke or Donaldson

I think others have already pointed out that we already have wing backs and central defenders who move into forward positions, which they're only able to do because of our system. You're just trying to shoehorn players into the side without giving any consideration to our movement and the way the players are drilled to cover one another.

You originally suggested Duffy as a wing back, a role he's totally unsuitable for; he's not got a great engine, he's not strong and his best role is playing between the midfield and strikers, linking them. To fit both Duffy and Brooks in the side and keep two strikers would only work if we played 424, with the defenders staying deeper. A system that doesn't get the best out of our mobile centre halves or our two centre midfielders. All so you can fit Brooks into the team.

 

[I should coco]

You originally suggested Duffy as a wing back, a role he's totally unsuitable for; he's not got a great engine, he's not strong and his best role is playing between the midfield and strikers, linking them. To fit both Duffy and Brooks in the side and keep two strikers would only work if we played 424, with the defenders staying deeper. A system that doesn't get the best out of our mobile centre halves or our two centre midfielders. All so you can fit Brooks into the team.

At the risk of stealing Pinchy's thunder, you could play Brooks and Duffy in a 5-3-2. Loads have done it on Football Manager and you might even win the Champions League too!

You can be just so sensible at times BushBlade!

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

I think others have already pointed out that we already have wing backs and central defenders who move into forward positions, which they're only able to do because of our system. You're just trying to shoehorn players into the side without giving any consideration to our movement and the way the players are drilled to cover one another.

You originally suggested Duffy as a wing back, a role he's totally unsuitable for; he's not got a great engine, he's not strong and his best role is playing between the midfield and strikers, linking them. To fit both Duffy and Brooks in the side and keep two strikers would only work if we played 424, with the defenders staying deeper. A system that doesn't get the best out of our mobile centre halves or our two centre midfielders. All so you can fit Brooks into the team.

We could argue this point for a very long time but I have the feeling it would get us nowhere. You clearly have strong views on the matter and I respect those views.

I happen to have different ones and I am sure you respect mine too - at least, I'd be disappointed if that were not to be the case.

 

[broomhillblade]

Unless we have an injury crisis, Brooks' best position at this time is on the bench. Bring him on after 60 minutes or so to where he can make the most impact.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

He should be 1st name on the teamsheet until his form says otherwise. What we need to stop saying is can't drop Duffy, can't drop Clarke or can't drop Donaldson. These guys are yesterdays new's, Brooks is the future and that's where we should be planning if we want to progress. The three I mentioned still have a role to play but the plan for them has to be short term, sentiment alone is not going to keep them going forever.

It’s not just sentiment though. Duffy, Clarke, Donaldson and Sharp have all made excellent contributions at times this season. Whoever misses out is unfortunate to do so and they all bring something to the table. Clarke and Duffy in particular have been right up there with Brooks in terms of man of the match ratings (Duffy at Forest our stand out player, Clarke v Wolves, both scored against the pigs). It’s a real selection headache but an excellent one to have. So many combinations that I’d be satisfied with.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Schmeichel

Bruce. Pallister. Irvin

Kanchelskis. Ince. Keane. Giggs. Sharpe

Hughes. Cole

My keyboard keeps printing. V instead of double u in case of doubt about the guy in the back 3.

I thought Sharp filled in at LB at times meaning it was more like



-------------------Schmeichel



Irwin---------Pallister----Bruce-------Sharpe



Kanchelskis---Keane-----Ince------Giggs



-------------------Cole----Hughes

 

[Norderner]

I’d start tomorrow with one up front (Leon). Brooks and The Bounce Murderer with free roles just behind. Can always fetch another striker on later if things aren’t going right? Strong grip on midfield when out of position, two magicians causing havoc in positions where defenders don’t want to venture into when in possession.

 

[I should coco]

I’d start tomorrow with one up front (Leon). Brooks and The Bounce Murderer with free roles just behind. Can always fetch another striker on later if things aren’t going right? Strong grip on midfield when out of position, two magicians causing havoc in positions where defenders don’t want to venture into when in possession.

Certainly an interesting idea, but what if we aren't getting the ball? Suppose Ipswich have most of the possession but just aren't adventurous and are happy to pass it around in their half. Neither Brooks nor Duffy are ball winners and without Coutts we already have a slightly odd midfield.

Whilst I love them both to bits, my preference would be to start with one (probably Duffy) and bring the other on later, not necessarily as a swap.
Billy and Leon to start at home for me, with Brooks to come on in the second half and do his stuff. It might seem odd given how well Brooks played at the pig, but that was completely changed by our first minute goal forcing them to come forward.

Having said that, it's all about opinions and WTF do I know?

A good Freedee neet to all.

 

[snootyfenooty]

It’s not just sentiment though. Duffy, Clarke, Donaldson and Sharp have all made excellent contributions at times this season. Whoever misses out is unfortunate to do so and they all bring something to the table. Clarke and Duffy in particular have been right up there with Brooks in terms of man of the match ratings (Duffy at Forest our stand out player, Clarke v Wolves, both scored against the pigs). It’s a real selection headache but an excellent one to have. So many combinations that I’d be satisfied with.

I don't think you either read or if you did, understood my post. I only said the plan for the players you mention has to be short term, whereas we can build long term around Brooks. I stated pretty clearly that at present there was still a role to play for them. As we progress through this division and hopefully further, then younger players will be brought in to replace them and they will be released somewhere down the line. Unfortunately for the sentimentalists, that's the way it works.

*Edit: I never mentioned Sharp btw, he'll be here for a while yet.

 

[I should coco]

whereas we can build long term around Brooks.

On what planet does a wonderfully gifted 20 year old wanted by most of the top 6 Premier League clubs, stay at the Championship club that gave him his chance, so that they can 'build a team' around him'?

£20m this summer and GLTTL is the best we can hope for.

 

[snootyfenooty]

On what planet does a wonderfully gifted 20 year old wanted by most of the top 6 Premier League clubs, stay at the Championship club that gave him his chance, so that they can 'build a team' around him'?

£20m this summer and GLTTL is the best we can hope for.

Plan B is to spend the £20m!

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I don't think you either read or if you did, understood my post. I only said the plan for the players you mention has to be short term, whereas we can build long term around Brooks. I stated pretty clearly that at present there was still a role to play for them. As we progress through this division and hopefully further, then younger players will be brought in to replace them and they will be released somewhere down the line. Unfortunately for the sentimentalists, that's the way it works.

*Edit: I never mentioned Sharp btw, he'll be here for a while yet.

Yeah I agree with the overall gist of your point. Just thought the term "sentiment alone" slightly diminished their contribution or at least that was the impression I got. If that wasn't the intention fair enough. I don't think anyone can dispute that they'll need replacing before too long given their age. However, the nature of the football business means that Brooks will also be gone within the next 12 months so not sure I agree we can build long term around him either

 

[Norderner]

Certainly an interesting idea, but what if we aren't getting the ball? Suppose Ipswich have most of the possession but just aren't adventurous and are happy to pass it around in their half. Neither Brooks nor Duffy are ball winners and without Coutts we already have a slightly odd midfield.

Whilst I love them both to bits, my preference would be to start with one (probably Duffy) and bring the other on later, not necessarily as a swap.
Billy and Leon to start at home for me, with Brooks to come on in the second half and do his stuff. It might seem odd given how well Brooks played at the pig, but that was completely changed by our first minute goal forcing them to come forward.

Having said that, it's all about opinions and WTF do I know?

A good Freedee neet to all.

When we are out of possession, the midfield with Brooks and The Bounce Murderer dropping back in there makes even stronger, not weaker? Ipshit have a midfield full of scufflers, so Lundstrum in for Coutts might not be the biggest disaster most are imagining today? Don’t understand the hate for Lundstrum on here anyway.

 

[Maidenhead]

He's a floater.

 

[I should coco]

Don’t understand the hate for Lundstrum on here anyway

No hate from me. I think there is the making of a very good player there but maybe he is trying too hard to impress.
When we signed Coutts in 2015, the quality was there to see but he was miles off being match fit. I think Lundstram may be similar and could greatly benefit from a run.

 

[Grappler]

When we are out of possession, the midfield with Brooks and The Bounce Murderer dropping back in there makes even stronger, not weaker? Ipshit have a midfield full of scufflers, so Lundstrum in for Coutts might not be the biggest disaster most are imagining today? Don’t understand the hate for Lundstrum on here anyway.

I like Lundstram, he is by no means the finished article, but he is a solid footballer, to me anyway, puts in the tackles needed and built like a boxer, so hard to knock off the ball. A few of his passes go short and people start to moan, but that is because we are used to Coutts and Fleck in the middle of the park, very few players in this league can match those two. We need to get behind the lad, he will come good, I thought he looked good against Forest.

 

[sufcboy95]

Behind a front two or if we were playing away at someone decent, behind a lone striker