Henri Lansbury

[DCJonah]

Huge fan of this guy at the moment. 

[Eastie]

Lansbury is a class act -creative and skilful - long time since we've had that in midfield

[OutByEaster?]

He's made a good start and it doesn't look like an accident - as an aside, I really like him exactly where he is, playing deep, picking the ball up off the back four, hitting sensible long balls and being able to see the pitch in front of him - that doesn't mean I don't want him making the occasional forward run, but I think he can be really influential from the position he's in now.

He's playing that position very, very differently to Jedinak, but there's absolutely no way I'd move him right now to bring Jedinak back in. It'll be interesting to see if Bruce does make any changes when he has all five of the midfielders to chose from - whether Jedinak comes in, whether Grealish comes in - for me, we've got Lansbury in his best position and I'm very happy to see him stay there and see Jedinak on the bench.

 

[Eastie]

5 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's made a good start and it doesn't look like an accident - as an aside, I really like him exactly where he is, playing deep, picking the ball up off the back four, hitting sensible long balls and being able to see the pitch in front of him - that doesn't mean I don't want him making the occasional forward run, but I think he can be really influential from the position he's in now.

He's playing that position very, very differently to Jedinak, but there's absolutely no way I'd move him right now to bring Jedinak back in. It'll be interesting to see if Bruce does make any changes when he has all five of the midfielders to chose from - whether Jedinak comes in, whether Grealish comes in - for me, we've got Lansbury in his best position and I'm very happy to see him stay there and see Jedinak on the bench.

 

Interesting - so would you play grealish or bjarnson if Jedi was benched ? 

[OutByEaster?]

8 minutes ago, Eastie said:

Interesting - so would you play grealish or bjarnson if Jedi was benched ? 

At the moment I like a triangle with Lansbury and Bjarnason as its base with Grealish in front - although I can't see Bruce benching Hourihane.

For me right now Lansbury is the only definite and Jedinak is number five for one of the three spots in my mind - It's good to have options for a change!

 

 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

At the moment I like a triangle with Lansbury and Bjarnason as its base with Grealish in front - although I can't see Bruce benching Hourihane.

For me right now Lansbury is the only definite and Jedinak is number five for one of the three spots in my mind - It's good to have options for a change!

 

 

Jedinak is number 5, lol. 

[Eastie]

11 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

At the moment I like a triangle with Lansbury and Bjarnason as its base with Grealish in front - although I can't see Bruce benching Hourihane.

For me right now Lansbury is the only definite and Jedinak is number five for one of the three spots in my mind - It's good to have options for a change!

 

 

Personally I'd play jedinak , hourihane and Lansbury if all fit and available.

[Stevo985]

I like him and he's playing well, but he or Hourihane need to start filling that midfield gap. 

 

We STILL have that situation we seem to have had for the past 10 years where we work the ball to the wide player, then all they have are the two strikers in the opposition box, or two midfielders on the halfway line and nothing in between. 

 

We need to fix that, we should have the players to fix that now

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I like him and he's playing well, but he or Hourihane need to start filling that midfield gap. 

We STILL have that situation we seem to have had for the past 10 years where we work the ball to the wide player, then all they have are the two strikers in the opposition box, or two midfielders on the halfway line and nothing in between. 

We need to fix that, we should have the players to fix that now

I think Bjarnason did that a couple of times against Ipswich, Grealish can definitely do it - I'd rather keep Lansbury behind that and able to see the game. Hourihane is the mystery at the moment, I don't think he's quite settled yet and when he does he might be the solution. Right now I think a combination of Grealish or Bjarnason can give us that extra forward body. I think by bringing Jedinak back in we'd lose that.

 

[OutByEaster?]

44 minutes ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Jedinak is number 5, lol. 

Yes. Behind Lansbury who is looking a really good player, and is playing very well in the spot that Jedinak would usually occupy, Bjarnason who is a better partner for Lansbury because unlike Jedinak he can run, Grealish who is an attacking player and Hourihane who has a bit of everything. Jedinak is behind those four in my mind. I wouldn't have considered that opinion to be unusual.

 

 

[PompeyVillan]

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I like him and he's playing well, but he or Hourihane need to start filling that midfield gap. 

 

We STILL have that situation we seem to have had for the past 10 years where we work the ball to the wide player, then all they have are the two strikers in the opposition box, or two midfielders on the halfway line and nothing in between. 

 

We need to fix that, we should have the players to fix that now

That's a pattern of play thing in my opinion. Although it doesn't help that Bruce seems to want to 'use' the pace of Hogan and Kodjia and in the process we're turning the ball over frequently and the team don't move forward as a unit. It results in our attacks often becoming isolated and sometimes catching the opposition on the break as intended.

Lansbury has made a decent start and seems to be doing what he did for Forest for us. 

Like OBE I'd keep him where he is, Jedinak gives the ball away far too much and if Bruce continues with this daft 3-5-2 we'd effectively be posting with 4 central defenders with Jedinak in there.

 

 

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

He's made a good start and it doesn't look like an accident - as an aside, I really like him exactly where he is, playing deep, picking the ball up off the back four, hitting sensible long balls and being able to see the pitch in front of him - that doesn't mean I don't want him making the occasional forward run, but I think he can be really influential from the position he's in now.

He's playing that position very, very differently to Jedinak, but there's absolutely no way I'd move him right now to bring Jedinak back in. It'll be interesting to see if Bruce does make any changes when he has all five of the midfielders to chose from - whether Jedinak comes in, whether Grealish comes in - for me, we've got Lansbury in his best position and I'm very happy to see him stay there and see Jedinak on the bench.

 

I think that would be a terrible decision. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't get 6 goals and 3 assists from playing in that position so far this season. 

Why would we restrict a midfield player who can create and assist by asking him to play a more defensive role?

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, DCJonah said:

Why would we restrict a midfield player who can create and assist by asking him to play a more defensive role?

I'm not - I think he's better able to see the field and play the passes he's good at from a little further back - more of a quarterback role. By nature he'll get forward a lot more than Jedinak anyway.

 

 

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'm not - I think he's better able to see the field and play the passes he's good at from a little further back - more of a quarterback role. By nature he'll get forward a lot more than Jedinak anyway.

 

 

He might get forward more but he won't offer the same threat he has done further forward. Also I don't think he'd protect the back 4 as well as Jedinak. 

[OutByEaster?]

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

He might get forward more but he won't offer the same threat he has done further forward. Also I don't think he'd protect the back 4 as well as Jedinak. 

He won't protect the back four as much as Jedinak does, but I don't think it needs it, we're amongst the lowest scorers in the league.  I like the idea of our deepest midfielder being a forward thinking rather than defensive force. 

I think we're both agreed at least that Lansbury should be starting. He's made a fine start to his Villa career. If you'd like him further forward, would it definitely be with Jedinak behind and who would you have partnering him?

 

[DCJonah]

1 minute ago, OutByEaster? said:

He won't protect the back four as much as Jedinak does, but I don't think it needs it, we're amongst the lowest scorers in the league.  I like the idea of our deepest midfielder being a forward thinking rather than defensive force. 

I think we're both agreed at least that Lansbury should be starting. He's made a fine start to his Villa career. If you'd like him further forward, would it definitely be with Jedinak behind and who would you have partnering him?

 

I'd like to see Jedinak holding and lanbury and hourihane getting forward.

Or Lansbury and Hourihane as box to box cms with Grealish/Bjarnason (when ready) off a central striker. 

Or even Jedinak and Hourihane with Lansbury the furthest point of a 3

I think Lansbury looks absolute quality and I'd like to see his attacking qualities given more freedom further up the pitch. 

[OutByEaster?]

I think those three midfields could all work - it'd be interesting to see Hourihane deeper in the third one, I think he might benefit from that extra bit of space. I should point out that it's not that I don't think Lansbury is capable of playing further forward, just that I like him where he is. Jedinak hasn't impressed and I'd rather get two of the other three on the field and keeping Lansbury there helps us do that. 

Hourihane remains the mystery for me, I'm not sure if he should be the forward point of a triangle or further back - right now, I can see what everyone else does and how they fit in, he's more difficult to place.

 

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

 

5 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Yes. Behind Lansbury who is looking a really good player, and is playing very well in the spot that Jedinak would usually occupy, Bjarnason who is a better partner for Lansbury because unlike Jedinak he can run, Grealish who is an attacking player and Hourihane who has a bit of everything. Jedinak is behind those four in my mind. I wouldn't have considered that opinion to be unusual.

 

 

Unless you mean behind, 'as in playing behind', I think many would. We only have one defensive player and it's Jedinak. 
Hour makes a lot of tackles but we didn't buy him for his defensive work, we bought him for him attacking play and defensive contribution. We bought Lansbury because he's a class passer who also contributes defensively, though not as well as Hour.

After 5 years of mismatching styles in midfield (and everywhere else on the pitch) we should have learnt that at times we need to play a less able ball player with better positional attributes. For me that means Jedinak has to be in contention for every game, even if there are two better 'footballers' in Hour and Lans. Bjarn might make it but for now he looks very off the pace and Grealish isn't a central midfielder. However if you are playing Grealish in a 3 you definitely need some proper defensive cover....which imo brings us back to Jedinak.

Edit - Jedinak is out for 3 more games so we need a new solution anyway.

Edited February 12, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[OutByEaster?]

I'd disagree on two counts, one of which probably weakens my argument on the other.

Firstly, I think we're solid enough, we don't need the additional defensive support that Jedinak might offer, I think especially if we're playing three centre halves, we don't need another player who does essentially what is the same job. I'm much happier with us having three players who are all capable of adding something to our play - we've plenty of defensive cover, it's goals and control of the ball that we're missing.

Secondly, I don't think Jedinak is all that good.

All of which is very off topic in the Lansbury thread, I'll see you in the Jedinak one.

 

[KHV]

19 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I'd disagree on two counts, one of which probably weakens my argument on the other.

Firstly, I think we're solid enough, we don't need the additional defensive support that Jedinak might offer, I think especially if we're playing three centre halves, we don't need another player who does essentially what is the same job. I'm much happier with us having three players who are all capable of adding something to our play - we've plenty of defensive cover, it's goals and control of the ball that we're missing.

Secondly, I don't think Jedinak is all that good.

All of which is very off topic in the Lansbury thread, I'll see you in the Jedinak one.

 

I think we are a total shambles at the back