Virgo in MIDFIELD....riiiiiiiighhht

[pasty]

Yeah, no difference at all between 0-0 and 4-0.

OK, I admit, 0-0 is better than 0-4, but a half decent team would have mullered us again tonight.

 

[Easy 10]

Did you see that bit where Virgs had our best chance with a glorious volley? That's not the work of someone who can be pigeonholed just as a defender, don't talk down this excellent player.

No-ones saying Virgo isn't a good player - he is. But using one example of a speculative shot from the edge of the area to justify playing him in midfield, on the offchance of him pinging one in at some point, is madness (he'd gone up-front again by the time he'd had that shot anyway).

He's done pretty well for us up front. So if you're going to persist with that (which McGhee has rightly done this season), then fine. But lobbing him into the middle of the park was never going to work. And whatever way you slice it, it clearly didn't.

 

[London Irish]

No-ones saying Virgo isn't a good player - he is. But using one example of a speculative shot from the edge of the area to justify playing him in midfield, on the offchance of him pinging one in at some point, is madness (he'd gone up-front again by the time he'd had that shot anyway).

He's done pretty well for us up front. So if you're going to persist with that (which McGhee has rightly done this season), then fine. But lobbing him into the middle of the park was never going to work. And whatever way you slice it, it clearly didn't.

In this case, I wasn't replying to you but to DO who was doubting his abilities as a forward.

But I will reply to you if you like, because I think your points banging on about Virgs being a huge failure in midfield don't stack up. That midfield was put together with the primary aim of keeping things tight and protecting the back four. It did that successfully. But as with all things, there is a cost, the defensive nature of the midfield meant our link with the front 2 was not good.

We have to make hard choices. McGhee was criticised for being too offensive against Wigan by playing an attacking 4-4-2, now he gets criticised for playing a defensive version of that formation tonight.

Here's the thing. Unfortunately we don't have the calibre of player to magically sort out the balance of our midfield in the absence of Chippy. We can keep things very tight and hope the front pair nick a goal, or we can bring creative but defensively weaker players like Leon back into the midfield to make it more creative. That's our basic choice. For anyone criticising the sound defensive performance tonight, I'd like to hear some realisation that the attacking option didn't go that swimmingly in the previous couple of games.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

I don't think you can accomodate both Oatway and Virgo in central midfield (at least not in a four) ~ granted, both have their talents, but neither are related to quick control and quality passing. Part of the reason Hart never got the ball was down to the complete absence of passing ability in the centre.

They did a job and battled well, but I can't believe Hammond wasn't a better option. I think McGhee did the right thing playing a defensive midfielder on the left against Little, but it then felt like he was desperately trying to get Virgs in somewhere. Rather odd.

 

[Kneon Light]

But I will reply to you if you like, because I think your points banging on about Virgs being a huge failure in midfield don't stack up. That midfield was put together with the primary aim of keeping things tight and protecting the back four. It did that successfully.

Disagree with this. I thought we looked anything but tight at the start of the game. We were lucky not to give away a penalty in the first few minutes and Reading were opening us up at will early on. It wasn't until Virgo went back into defence that we started to look solid.

 

[goldstone]

I actually thought Virgo was one of the very few bright spots in last night's apology for a game of football ... yes, even when he was playing in midfield. Having said that I personally would have started Hammond .... but having said THAT he had a very quiet game.

Only other bright spot was Leon.

Otherwise a bunch of rubbish. If we continue in this vein we're going down.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Oatway at times was having to do the work of two players when Virgo was out of postion

 

[Curious Orange]

Of course, had we not had two crap decisions at Stoke and the one last night we'd be sat on 46 points and nobody would be complaining.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Of course, had we not had two crap decisions at Stoke and the one last night we'd be sat on 46 points and nobody would be complaining.

Sorry that doesnt hold up

IF west Ham had a striker Brighton would have 3 less points
IF Millwalls defender hadnt sliced the ball in the last min to Hart would have 2 less points

It works both ways

 

[Curious Orange]

Sorry that doesnt hold up

IF west Ham had a striker Brighton would have 3 less points
IF Millwalls defender hadnt sliced the ball in the last min to Hart would have 2 less points

It works both ways

No shit Sherlock.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Well you seem to think everything has gone to the other side according to your last post, just saying it hasnt

If is a big word

 

[Curious Orange]

No, I was merely saying that poor officiating has directly cost us two points from the last possible twelve. There was also some piss-poor officiating in the Plymouth game but I'm not suggesting we would have got anything from that had the lino actually been up to the job!

 

[bhaexpress]

Oops ! Wrong thread, sorry !

 

[beorhthelm]

But I will reply to you if you like, because I think your points banging on about Virgs being a huge failure in midfield don't stack up. That midfield was put together with the primary aim of keeping things tight and protecting the back four. It did that successfully. But as with all things, there is a cost, the defensive nature of the midfield meant our link with the front 2 was not good.

did you think the midfield was tight? I thought it resembled a large and loose holey thing much of the time and it was a combination of decent defence and Reading's shite front line that saved us embarressment. Having Virgo in Midfield basically meant we had an extra CB when in trouble and Forward when hoofing up field. We'd have been better off with 5 in defence.

 

[caz99]

did you think the midfield was tight? I thought it resembled a large and loose holey thing much of the time and it was a combination of decent defence and Reading's shite front line that saved us embarressment. Having Virgo in Midfield basically meant we had an extra CB when in trouble and Forward when hoofing up field. We'd have been better off with 5 in defence.

have to agree with that. there was no midfield last night. when balls where played forward there was no one there. a couple of times mcgammon was up on his own with no one to assist.

also easy raised this question earlier, where is el-abd? why is he not playing. came on a few games ago and got man of the match he is a solid good defender i dont understand why he is not even on the bench at times.

 

[Easy 10]

Here's the thing. Unfortunately we don't have the calibre of player to magically sort out the balance of our midfield in the absence of Chippy. We can keep things very tight and hope the front pair nick a goal, or we can bring creative but defensively weaker players like Leon back into the midfield to make it more creative. That's our basic choice.

That is NOT our basic choice. Bring Leon back into midfield ?? Virgo ?? Come on.
We had a central midfielder playing at right-back, and we had a central midfielder on the bench. Whatever way you cut it, it made no sense whatsoever to play Virgo there. And this isn't just speaking purely from hindsight - when I heard via someone in the pub that Virgo was playing in midfield, I didn't believe it. When I saw it with my own eyes as they lined up for kickoff, I just couldn't see it working. And if anyone thought Virgs had an effective game in that position, or that the team benefitted in any way from it, then I must have had my head up my arse all night.

We always seem to suffer when either Chippy or Alexis are missing from the team. Take them both out, and we've got problems. But surely the SIMPLEST solution has to be the best solution - logic has to come into the equation at some point. Virgo is adaptable, sure. But there ARE limits to what the fella can do, as we saw last night.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Virgo played centre midfield away to Grimsby last year on Valentines Day and we were awful that day...though before London Irish jumps on that comment I am not suggesting it was all Virgo's fault.

I think our problems are stemming from Carpenter's stupid red card.

Our central midfield is weak which is exposing Butters and Hinsh to players running at them which is not their strongest part.

To play Virgo in midfield has been proved to be a bad choice but it might have worked and to be fair McGhee has done some spot on tinkering in the past.

He needs to learn from this though and not play him their again because it wastes a very talented and influential player.

If he wanted McCammon and Knight upfront then Virgo should have been in defence and either Reid of Hammond in midfield.

 

[silky1]

Switched on Sky last night and saw the formation that they expected us to play, and thought they had it completely wrong. Agree Virgo was completely lost in midfield, but he had 3 teammates equally lost.

 

[Turkey]

I think maybe we were trying to make one step back to make two forward.. in a way.

At the start of the season (after our poor start) McGhee made us a very physical side who were hard to beat. I recall Hammond and Hinshelwood both in midfield to give us some physical presence. We started to pick up points and the squad has developed since into a better side who can play decent football - Carpenter plays a big role in that. In recent games though we've been spanked. The way teams walked through us was reminicent of Hinshelwoods games in charge two years ago. So I think McGhee may have felt we needed to resort back to basics to find or feet again - and to an extent it worked - although we did lose. What does this have to do with Virgo? Nicolas hasn't found his form from early on in the season when he was magnificent. He's also not the most physical in terms of size. Hammond? Decent bet to play and was probably going to come on at some point despite being on the bench. Why didn't he start? Virgo's possibly got more match fitness? He's got more energy? He covers so much ground. Defencive and attacking qualities. If it wasn't working who's to say McGhee wouldn't have changed it anyway? Hammond played well when he came on and I really rate him as a player. I don't buy into this favourites nonsense. I recall a thread last week where someone pointed out one of his strong points as not having favourites. He's made changes when needed. He obviously though Virgo was the best bet in midfield and it could have worked, we didn't really get that much tiem to judge. No one expected him to be a decent striker, or Reid a right back. Carpenter was my player of the season but his stupidity has left us with quite a few problems.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Im sure McGhee wont do it again. But it was worth a try.

At least McGhee has the balls to try something different and he's the first to admit if he has made a mistake. Read his programme notes about the Wigan game.

However Virgs did play better at the back. And I thought Harding had a storming game.