By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Can someone with more knowledge of Sammy S time at Blackburn, confirm where he did indeed play
i've always thought he was like a shadow striker, but in the below highlights, he's so far advanced in alot of the goals its like he was indeed an actual striker
If it's the later and he was indeed a striker, although he didnt have a great game there v newcastle ( it was newcastle too!) why have we not seen him there for a run of games
He often played as a false 9 at Blackburn. He had a very good season, but they didn't. He doesn't have the attributes to play as a striker in our system.
He often played as a false 9 at Blackburn. He had a very good season, but they didn't. He doesn't have the attributes to play as a striker in our system.
Interesting
When you kinda dive into a false 9 it kinda describes what we get with Hirst, so we're possibly inadvertently playing two false 9s?
He often played as a false 9 at Blackburn. He had a very good season, but they didn't. He doesn't have the attributes to play as a striker in our system.
He’s also not a 10. I would give him a chance to play upfront.
He’s also not a 10. I would give him a chance to play upfront.
Personally, I wouldn't. I don't think he's remotely suited to what we need from a centre forward. Blackburn tailored their game to get the best out of him in 2023/24 but as a collective they had a poor season. I'm not sure I'd want us to be changing how we play to build a team around Szmodics playing up front.
Personally, I wouldn't. I don't think he's remotely suited to what we need from a centre forward. Blackburn tailored their game to get the best out of him in 2023/24 but as a collective they had a poor season. I'm not sure I'd want us to be changing how we play to build a team around Szmodics playing up front.
Could it possibly however be the answer to our away problems?
Would add a third man in midfield. Provide more stability off the ball but maybe more creativity from midfield and having a player uptop who could put the ball away.
I looked this up once and it seems he played as a striker, as false number 9, and a 10. I remember seeing him down here against Swansea playing wider (notionally wide on the right of a 3, but came inside like an old inside forward). I only remember seeing him live a few times and he always looked like a player who liked to run onto a ball, not someone to sit between the opposition midfield and CBs and pull the strings.
I see him as a second striker rather than a slightly deeper, more creative number 10. He has lost a bit of pace now though, so than more advanced role trying to get in behind might not be an option for him any more.
We’re certainly not getting the most out of him, despite him running his bits off every game.
When you kinda dive into a false 9 it kinda describes what we get with Hirst, so we're possibly inadvertently playing two false 9s?
Hirst is a classic 9 surely. Loves a battle with the centrebacks, tall, strong, tries to hold it up, bring people into the game. Szmod is a second striker really, looks to get on the defender's shoulder, but is also happy to track back. Not a true 10 in my book, neither is Akpom . And that is not helping us as Hirst is having to come short for the ball, which brings the defenders forward to form a high line. This in turn compresses the area where in the past Chaplin or random South American 10 would have been operating to bring Leif or wingers into the game. Problem being if Hirst does not win the possession battle, which is mainly the case, the opposition gain the ball back and we are under pressure in our own half. This is definitely a subtle formation change that is not working well.
Could it possibly however be the answer to our away problems?
Would add a third man in midfield. Provide more stability off the ball but maybe more creativity from midfield and having a player uptop who could put the ball away.
It would if that third man was Nunez in a slightly advanced role, in front of a pivot of Mats and Taylor. I think we need a little bit more security away from home as well as giving us more creativity and ability to control.
I'd personally give him a go upfront. I don't agree we wouldn't fit our system up there.
Certainly more of a scorer than Hirst.
What makes you think he would fit our system though? The number 9s we've signed and played under McKenna have been Ladapo, Hirst, Moore to cover when Hirst was injured, then Delap. They are all physical players who can lead the line. Szmodics really is not someone to lead the line at all.
What makes you think he would fit our system though? The number 9s we've signed and played under McKenna have been Ladapo, Hirst, Moore to cover when Hirst was injured, then Delap. They are all physical players who can lead the line. Szmodics really is not someone to lead the line at all.
One of the strange paradoxes of the McKenna era has been that on the one hand he insists that he doesn't really think about a team in terms of a formation, and yet the impression that supporters have (rightly, I think) is that we have a very rigid 'system'. In this system, not only are there very fixed roles, but only very specific types of player can play in each role. This seems to make it really hard to shake things up, or have a plan B, to try to unlock things if we're being frustrated, or to try to chase the game if we've fallen well behind.
Tactical flexibility surely has a place in every era, regardless of how enlightened we might have become about tactics and strategies used in the past.
And yet, I just totally agree, that (a) there's no way McKenna uses SS as a striker, and (b) if he did, it would be within this system that he insists on playing, such that SS's strengths probably would not come to the fore, and the function that he would be told to perform, he wouldn't really be able to.
Having said all that, he is pretty good at some of the off the ball stuff, and he did score hatfuls for Blackburn, so I suppose we could do worse than try. Certainly he and Akpom have disappointed in the "number 10" role.
I think Azon deserves a chance in the Hirst role, personally.
That video tells the story really. Look at how much space in behind teams are leaving Blackburn. Teams just don't defend like that against us in this league. That's why he had some relatively decent success in the PL.
One of the strange paradoxes of the McKenna era has been that on the one hand he insists that he doesn't really think about a team in terms of a formation, and yet the impression that supporters have (rightly, I think) is that we have a very rigid 'system'. In this system, not only are there very fixed roles, but only very specific types of player can play in each role. This seems to make it really hard to shake things up, or have a plan B, to try to unlock things if we're being frustrated, or to try to chase the game if we've fallen well behind.
Tactical flexibility surely has a place in every era, regardless of how enlightened we might have become about tactics and strategies used in the past.
And yet, I just totally agree, that (a) there's no way McKenna uses SS as a striker, and (b) if he did, it would be within this system that he insists on playing, such that SS's strengths probably would not come to the fore, and the function that he would be told to perform, he wouldn't really be able to.
Having said all that, he is pretty good at some of the off the ball stuff, and he did score hatfuls for Blackburn, so I suppose we could do worse than try. Certainly he and Akpom have disappointed in the "number 10" role.
I think Azon deserves a chance in the Hirst role, personally.
I think what McKenna has said is he's more interested in attributes than in positions when signings players. We need some physicality in that front four and we've usually got that from our number 9. Stick Szmodics up top and where does that physicality come from? We're largely facing teams playing a low block, there's not much value in having a little man running the channels when there's no space in behind.
That video tells the story really. Look at how much space in behind teams are leaving Blackburn. Teams just don't defend like that against us in this league. That's why he had some relatively decent success in the PL.
A bit of that but also a bit of him playing a role off the left that he looked more suited to where he was tasked primarily with getting close to and beyond Hirst. The role that Broadhead played so well for us in L1/Champ.
I have to say, I think our 3 behind the striker and our attacking play generally is a bit of a mess at the moment. We have a plethora of quality players but we just don't look very functional/free flowing for me. How many McKenna classic 'patterns of play' goals have we scored this season? Hopefully it comes quickly, for us, it needs to. It's been set pieces, penalties and Philogene thunderbastards so far.
We've got two of the last 3 golden boot winners playing as 10s and not getting in anywhere enough goal scoring positions. Both trying to link play which isn't really either of their games.
Whatever position he was meant to be playing, he was clearly playing further forward for them with less emphasis on linking play.
I suppose with his running and occasional goal threat he made sense as an option last year, but he didn't really have a position then either. He doesn't really fit in the team sadly. I'm not sure Akpom does either.
I think what McKenna has said is he's more interested in attributes than in positions when signings players. We need some physicality in that front four and we've usually got that from our number 9. Stick Szmodics up top and where does that physicality come from? We're largely facing teams playing a low block, there's not much value in having a little man running the channels when there's no space in behind.
He's kinda moved away from that but i guess it depends how you view it.
When signing akpom he said playing players to their strengths rather than pigeon holeling them into the team.
In my view he does what you say rather than what he says above. I.e for me samm s for example isn't being played to his strengths.
Whatever position he was meant to be playing, he was clearly playing further forward for them with less emphasis on linking play.
I suppose with his running and occasional goal threat he made sense as an option last year, but he didn't really have a position then either. He doesn't really fit in the team sadly. I'm not sure Akpom does either.
I'd heard in the summer we wanted to effectively play with two strikers this season with a 10 that played closer to and more directly with Hirst. Recruitment of Akpom seemed to back that up - he played that role with Archer at Boro. Szmodics played it with Gallagher at Blackburn too.
But if that was the intention, it is certainly not what we've seen so far. There still seems to be an onus on the 10 to link play and I can't help but feel we would be a better team with Chaplin playing in the 10 even if he (on paper) isn't as good as either player. Omari of course linked play in a different way in the 10 as he was an elite ball carrier that could get us up the pitch.
I'd heard in the summer we wanted to effectively play with two strikers this season with a 10 that played closer to and more directly with Hirst. Recruitment of Akpom seemed to back that up - he played that role with Archer at Boro. Szmodics played it with Gallagher at Blackburn too.
But if that was the intention, it is certainly not what we've seen so far. There still seems to be an onus on the 10 to link play and I can't help but feel we would be a better team with Chaplin playing in the 10 even if he (on paper) isn't as good as either player. Omari of course linked play in a different way in the 10 as he was an elite ball carrier that could get us up the pitch.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
