Same Problems

[Bladesthorpe]

We still have 2 problems that stand out, firstly lack of pace and secondly the inability to win headers at either end of the pitch . It's really sad these problems still exist after all this time and to point out how long it's been a problem I think the last pacy player we had was Campbell- Ryce and the best header was Neil Collins how sad is that.

Come on CW get it sorted it's been going on to long.

 

[Bladesman]

Last season Brooks was the only player who would do run at defenders.

 

[Ricky]

If we were spending £4m on a ball winning centre back you'd assume the winning headers thing might be sorted out...... nope.

And haven't you heard? We don't need pace in our style of play.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

If we were spending £4m on a ball winning centre back you'd assume the winning headers thing might be sorted out...... nope.

And haven't you heard? We don't need pace in our style of play.

Wages

 

[SwitchBLADE Smiles]

The major problem we have is in the centre of the pitch. Prior to November last year, we had 1 holding midfielder (Coutts), one forward playing midfielder (Duffy) and one box to box midfielder (Fleck). This worked well because it was structured and they didn't have to work out what they were supposed to be doing.

We now play 3 in the middle with seemingly no defined role. Were all over the place at the minute in the middle which is destroying us defensively and offensively. We have no cover from midfield for the defenders and the support going forward is far too slow.

3 changes needed IMO. Firstly, define who is the holding midfielder (for argument's sake, let's say thats Lundstram). Define a forward playing midfielder (for argument's sake, let's say that's Duffy). Finally define the box to box midfielder (obviously Fleck). Having the structure in the middle means there are no grey areas. Each player has a defined role & should be a much more cohesive unit when attacking and defending, rather than the mish mash of whatever the fuck is being served at the minute.

 

[Geordie Blade]

And haven't you heard? We don't need pace in our style of play.

When Duffy and Woodburn were on in the second half, we created plenty of chances without needing 'pace'. The key is moving the ball quickly, which Evans and Lundstram don't really do.

 

[Ricky]

When Duffy and Woodburn were on in the second half, we created plenty of chances without needing 'pace'. The key is moving the ball quickly, which Evans and Lundstram don't really do.

We did, but Boro had long since declared by then.

Regardless of style of play, there will be multiple occasions in every game where attacking pace would be hugely beneficial.

 

[BushBlade]

The big picture is that we’ve been trying to outfootball teams that have far better players and failing miserably. Either make it work or change it. Want to play like Leeds? Well start by having four training sessions a day like Bielsa does.

 

[Geordie Blade]

We did, but Boro had long since declared by then.

Regardless of style of play, there will be multiple occasions in every game where attacking pace would be hugely beneficial.

Pace definitely isn't a bad thing, but my point is that our style of play when done properly doesn't necessarily need pace. We didn't really have any pace this time last year, but made it to the top of the league.

Unfortunately, on our budgets (which is another debate, I accept), you can't get a striker who is fast, can link play and can finish. You need to make trade-offs, and we'd have to accept that a pacey striker might have some other limitations*. A sensible compromise would at least be to have someone on the bench that could inject pace, even if they're not the best at other aspects. Which is probably your point!

*Reference list:
- Andy Campbell (1999)
- Luton Shelton (2007)