Some lively debate here. But what would we prefer from a midfielder in our team, which one suits. A. A Creative midfielder who scores and creates goals. Left footer to add balance. But the downside is can't get a tackle in and doesn't work as hard on defence as he does attack. i.e. Hourihane, B. A grafter who gets stuck in, runs and works hard start to finish and gets tackles in. Doesn't create much offensively nor scores many goals. i.e Dawson, Perkins types. I know there are other positions in Midfield but if we had to choose from A or B which would we have in the context of L1?
I can be Cookie Monster! <img src ="http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52e2d9a1e4b09261a16ac164/t/548fbadfe4b0fd5d8ea58806/1418705632042/">
Why do people always seem to think it's one or the other? A proper central midfielder should be able to do a bit of everything, not tackle OR pass. Josh Scowen has the work-rate of Dawson, and yesterday was our best attacking threat from the midfield. He ran with ball from the half way line, had nothing in front of him so went it alone and forced a save from the keeper. He's the type of midfielder I like to see.
I'd rather see players like Berry and Scowen yesterday that the Hourihane of yesterday. However a Hourihane who is playing well must be in the team but alongside these other type midfielders not instead of.
Definitely A. We have scowen who gets stuck in and works hard. An Pearson does the same but we probably won't have him next season. We need a midfielder whose Brian Howard (in his prime) who can score from open play and free kicks. Hourihanes has shown potential that he can provide this but his form is off at the moment. He could do with some competition to keep himself motivated.
It could be both. But the context of this question was A versus B. The merits of one over the other. I think the very obvious answer would be someone who can do both, but that wasn't the reason for the question. It was what would we prefer in a centre mid position
hahahah well at least we understand these two, its when we have three letters to worry about we struggle
Hourihane doesn't work hard in attack does he? I mean sure he shoots occasionally but is that really working hard? He doesn't exactly sprint at full pelt to join attacks or run with the ball does he. In fact he often stands in the middle of the pitch, turns towards Davies and passes the ball to Pearson then stands still while the ball goes forwards. If he worked hard in attack like is being claimed then he'd be just outside the d to smash in a loose ball but in reality how often does he put the effort in to get in that position? Once every 3 months?
I think he does and in fact I was watching and commenting through the game how he got up to support play and how he even found himself in the channels once or twice. He lets himself down when we aren't in possession most. Everything he does doesn't come off, but I think people are giving him a hard time when some of it ain't justified. Out of form of late but isn't that something many players go through? So which would you prefer, as the idea of the thread was to discuss the merits and / or downsides of each style.
Mate, you know that some people just see what they want to see and there is noway anyone will change their mind on it,no matter what facts you show them.Take tyrone and Hassell for instance. Houriane is not the finished article, but he is a damn sight better than Perkins and Dawson ever were or will be.
The two styles dont exist. Hourihane isn't an hard working attacker and Perkins didn't put a lot of tackles in. He stood and pointed
Yeah true, plus everyone's opinion is different. We have a lot of young players who need coaching and directing. I put Hourihane in this class and not in the lets get shut and move on class.