Bridcutt and Navarro

[jackanada]

hmmm so sticking with 4-2-3-1 perm front 6 from....

------------------Bridcutt/Navarro
--------------------------Dicker/Sparrow

Buckley/Lua Lua --- Razzak/Vicente/JFC --- Noone/Barnes/Assulin

----------------------------Vokes/CMS


Should beat hull at least...

 

[perseus]

Both holding midfielders, but they take turns in going forward.

Amongst lots of problems, one is the job of midfielders to deal with and that is opposing midfielders running at the Albion defence with the ball, e.g. Mc.Sheffery, MacNuff and Koren. I would suggest Bridcutt is more athletic than Navarro and better at dealing with these sort of players.

Not sure how you can stop them? Subtly tripping up or pushing them is one way.

 

[big nuts]

I don't think they are particularly well suited to playing together although we have had success with them in the team. Both rarely if ever get ahead of the ball which means there is no link to the strikers who become isolated. This was particularly evident yesterday as Vokes had little if any support when the ball was played up to him. Also against better opposition they don't cover enough ground quickly enough to pressure the opposition this is particularly pertinent to Navarro who does lack the pace required to be a really strong Championship player.

A more balanced midfield would contain JFC, Sparrow or even Harley as they would offer more than just a water carrier who plays ten yard sideways passes, there is definitely a need for that but not two in my opinion unless the other one is a real athlete who is capable of disrupting the oppositions rhythm better which is where Razzak could well fit in.

 

[Acker79]

Not sure how much this all means, but...


Bridcutt has played almost every minute of every game bar the first Wrexham game, the second (away) coventry game, and the last 60 minutes of the watford game, and he was substituted with a minute or two remaining recently. So, for Navarro:

Came on to join Bridcutt
Portsmouth - 1-0 up. Did him coming on make us more defensively sound? No worse with them working together
Cardiff - 2-0 up Navarro came on, ended 3-1 to us - No worse with them working together
Peterborough - 2-0 when Navarro came on, ended 2-0 to us - no worse with them working together
Peterborough - 1-1 when he came on, ended 2-1 to us - better with them together
Bristol last - 0-0 when he came on, ended 2-0 to us - better with them together
Blackpool - 2-1 up when he came on, ended 2-2 - worse with them together
Leicester - 1-0 down when he came on, ended 1-0 to them - no worse with them together
Burnley - 0-0 when he came on, ended 1-0 to them* We were down to 9 men and put on one of our best performances of the season. The change in this game with the two of them cannot be attributed to their partnership not working.

Came Off to leave Bridcutt
Forest - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Leicester - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Wrexham - 1-0 down when he went off, ended 1-1 (then won penalty shoot out) - we improved
Newcastle - 0-0 when he went off, ended 1-0 to us - improved without him
Ipswich - 3-1 down when he went off, ended 3-1 - no change
Southampton - 2-0 down when he went off, ended 3-0 - were no better withot him
Liverpool 1-0 down when he went off, ended 2-1 to them - no better without him


Whole Match
Barnsley win
Coventry win
Derby win
Leeds win
Sunderland win
Palace draw
Millwall draw
Liverpool loss


Bridcutt alone: Doncaster win, gillingham (win), Hull (draw), Millwall (draw), Birmingham (draw), Watford first 30 (loss), Middlesborough (loss), Reading (loss), southampton (win),
Navarro alone: Coventry (loss) Wrexham (draw)


Together:
Whole matches
Win 5
Draw 2
Loss 1


For all times they work together for any part of a match
Win 14
Draw 3
Loss 6



Bridcutt Alone
Win 2
Draw 3
Loss 3

Navarro Alone
Win 0
Draw 1
Loss 1



What does all this mean? When we start navarro we improve when he goes off, but when he plays the whole game with bridcutt we have a very good record, too.

Is it simply that playing them together is usually better defensively - coming on when we're in the winning position and and keeping our opponents out, and keeping teams level, then going off to allow a more attacking team for after his absence.

Being undefeated in 2012 (still in the league, all comps until yesterday against a strong top premier league team), would suggest it does (or at least can) work.

That 10 game winless streak we had involved Navarro and Bridcutt playing together only 3 times (one 25min (already losing when he came on), one 75min, and one 80min against a fairly strong liverpool). The turnaround started when Navarro came in and played a full game and then played the full game for 2 of the following 3 (the one he did't, we lost), 2 of the the next 3 games he didn't play in at all, we lost. post hoc ergo procter hoc?

 

[kevtherev]

Not sure how much this all means, but...


Bridcutt has played almost every minute of every game bar the first Wrexham game, the second (away) coventry game, and the last 60 minutes of the watford game, and he was substituted with a minute or two remaining recently. So, for Navarro:

Came on to join Bridcutt
Portsmouth - 1-0 up. Did him coming on make us more defensively sound? No worse with them working together
Cardiff - 2-0 up Navarro came on, ended 3-1 to us - No worse with them working together
Peterborough - 2-0 when Navarro came on, ended 2-0 to us - no worse with them working together
Peterborough - 1-1 when he came on, ended 2-1 to us - better with them together
Bristol last - 0-0 when he came on, ended 2-0 to us - better with them together
Blackpool - 2-1 up when he came on, ended 2-2 - worse with them together
Leicester - 1-0 down when he came on, ended 1-0 to them - no worse with them together
Burnley - 0-0 when he came on, ended 1-0 to them* We were down to 9 men and put on one of our best performances of the season. The change in this game with the two of them cannot be attributed to their partnership not working.

Came Off to leave Bridcutt
Forest - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Leicester - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Wrexham - 1-0 down when he went off, ended 1-1 (then won penalty shoot out) - we improved
Newcastle - 0-0 when he went off, ended 1-0 to us - improved without him
Ipswich - 3-1 down when he went off, ended 3-1 - no change
Southampton - 2-0 down when he went off, ended 3-0 - were no better withot him
Liverpool 1-0 down when he went off, ended 2-1 to them - no better without him


Whole Match
Barnsley win
Coventry win
Derby win
Leeds win
Sunderland win
Palace draw
Millwall draw
Liverpool loss


Bridcutt alone: Doncaster win, gillingham (win), Hull (draw), Millwall (draw), Birmingham (draw), Watford first 30 (loss), Middlesborough (loss), Reading (loss), southampton (win),
Navarro alone: Coventry (loss) Wrexham (draw)


Together:
Whole matches
Win 5
Draw 2
Loss 1


For all times they work together for any part of a match
Win 14
Draw 3
Loss 6



Bridcutt Alone
Win 2
Draw 3
Loss 3

Navarro Alone
Win 0
Draw 1
Loss 1



What does all this mean? When we start navarro we improve when he goes off, but when he plays the whole game with bridcutt we have a very good record, too.

Is it simply that playing them together is usually better defensively - coming on when we're in the winning position and and keeping our opponents out, and keeping teams level, then going off to allow a more attacking team for after his absence.

Being undefeated in 2012 (still in the league, all comps until yesterday against a strong top premier league team), would suggest it does (or at least can) work.

That 10 game winless streak we had involved Navarro and Bridcutt playing together only 3 times (one 25min (already losing when he came on), one 75min, and one 80min against a fairly strong liverpool). The turnaround started when Navarro came in and played a full game and then played the full game for 2 of the following 3 (the one he did't, we lost), 2 of the the next 3 games he didn't play in at all, we lost. post hoc ergo procter hoc?

Blimey, I don't know weather i'm impressed by you, or feel sorry for you.......Only joking!!!!!

 

[Silent Bob]

The problem isn't so much Bridcutt and Navarro, so much as it is Navarro.

He's done ok this season, but he's just about pushing to be an adequate Championship midfielder on a good day.

 

[Surf's Up]

If Dicker or Sparrow were available I'm sure one of them would have played instead of Navarro.

This and I think Spadge is back in contention for Hull? - We've missed him

 

[JCL666]

The problem isn't so much Bridcutt and Navarro, so much as it is Navarro.

He's done ok this season, but he's just about pushing to be an adequate Championship midfielder on a good day.

Yeah "ok" would be my rating too. He does a job and alleviates some of the ball winning/enforcer responsibilities from Bridcutt, but just isn't dynamic enough to do much else.

 

[keaton]

Not sure how much this all means, but...


Bridcutt has played almost every minute of every game bar the first Wrexham game, the second (away) coventry game, and the last 60 minutes of the watford game, and he was substituted with a minute or two remaining recently. So, for Navarro:

Came on to join Bridcutt
Portsmouth - 1-0 up. Did him coming on make us more defensively sound? No worse with them working together
Cardiff - 2-0 up Navarro came on, ended 3-1 to us - No worse with them working together
Peterborough - 2-0 when Navarro came on, ended 2-0 to us - no worse with them working together
Peterborough - 1-1 when he came on, ended 2-1 to us - better with them together
Bristol last - 0-0 when he came on, ended 2-0 to us - better with them together
Blackpool - 2-1 up when he came on, ended 2-2 - worse with them together
Leicester - 1-0 down when he came on, ended 1-0 to them - no worse with them together
Burnley - 0-0 when he came on, ended 1-0 to them* We were down to 9 men and put on one of our best performances of the season. The change in this game with the two of them cannot be attributed to their partnership not working.

Came Off to leave Bridcutt
Forest - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Leicester - 0-0 when Navarro went off, ended 1-0 to us - we improved
Wrexham - 1-0 down when he went off, ended 1-1 (then won penalty shoot out) - we improved
Newcastle - 0-0 when he went off, ended 1-0 to us - improved without him
Ipswich - 3-1 down when he went off, ended 3-1 - no change
Southampton - 2-0 down when he went off, ended 3-0 - were no better withot him
Liverpool 1-0 down when he went off, ended 2-1 to them - no better without him


Whole Match
Barnsley win
Coventry win
Derby win
Leeds win
Sunderland win
Palace draw
Millwall draw
Liverpool loss


Bridcutt alone: Doncaster win, gillingham (win), Hull (draw), Millwall (draw), Birmingham (draw), Watford first 30 (loss), Middlesborough (loss), Reading (loss), southampton (win),
Navarro alone: Coventry (loss) Wrexham (draw)


Together:
Whole matches
Win 5
Draw 2
Loss 1


For all times they work together for any part of a match
Win 14
Draw 3
Loss 6



Bridcutt Alone
Win 2
Draw 3
Loss 3

Navarro Alone
Win 0
Draw 1
Loss 1



What does all this mean? When we start navarro we improve when he goes off, but when he plays the whole game with bridcutt we have a very good record, too.

Is it simply that playing them together is usually better defensively - coming on when we're in the winning position and and keeping our opponents out, and keeping teams level, then going off to allow a more attacking team for after his absence.

Being undefeated in 2012 (still in the league, all comps until yesterday against a strong top premier league team), would suggest it does (or at least can) work.

That 10 game winless streak we had involved Navarro and Bridcutt playing together only 3 times (one 25min (already losing when he came on), one 75min, and one 80min against a fairly strong liverpool). The turnaround started when Navarro came in and played a full game and then played the full game for 2 of the following 3 (the one he did't, we lost), 2 of the the next 3 games he didn't play in at all, we lost. post hoc ergo procter hoc?

Fantastic stattage.

For me. starting with the two of them give us a solid base and make's the opposition work harder to come on to us which can then be changed later if necessary. If we get over-run at the beginning of a game it's very difficult to get back control while chasing the game