Bruno Backup

[Chief123]

On every post I have made on this subject I have stated that I think Lingard is the best option in the squad not the solution and maybe you have some footage of VDB in that position where he has been good for us that I have not seen that you can share?
Sancho has been signed to play on the wings and we are not going to see him play anywhere else anytime soon.

Ive got plenty of footage of Lingard not playing well in that position.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Lots of talk here about punting Lingard and yet I think he would be our most suited player to fill in for Bruno if he picked up an injury.
We saw what he was like at the Hammers with a consistent run at the end of the season and he was arguably the best in the division in that period.
We have to realise he is already at the club and he is not going to throw tantrums if he is not selected every week but if Bruno did pick up a substantial injury then he would be handy to have.

I 100% agree

 

[arthurka]

Lingard really come on. We should give DVB a chance or move Sancho there. My biggest fear is what the feck are we going to do in the center of the park.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Lingard really come on. We should give DVB a chance or move Sancho there. My biggest fear is what the feck are we going to do in the center of the park.

who on earth would we move a Sancho to 10 when he bough him specifically to solve our right sided problem?

 

[deleon]

The reason why Fernandes played so much last season was because we were over-reliant on him. It sounds like circuitous logic, but the truth is we couldn't afford to rest him. Now that we have another game-changing attacker, we don't have to place as much creative burdens on Fernandes' backup. Of course none of the candidates are good enough to play there if Bruno is out with a long-term injury, but any player who would be good enough to do that won't want to come and be a bit-part player on our bench.

I actually think that Lingard would be a better backup than some in this thread think, but we still have two players who are natural in Fernandes' position. What works in his favour is that he can also cover either wing as well as one of the no. 8 positions if we switch to a 433.

Plus, I have a mild suspicion that he is someone you can throw on at right-back with 15 minutes to go when you are chasing a goal. His best attacking qualities are his teamwork and industry, skillsets which can be more profitably executed from fullback.

 

[arthurka]

who on earth would we move a Sancho to 10 when he bough him specifically to solve our right sided problem?

Because he is a pretty decent footballer who could do that part pretty well. We look to have more options out wide than in Bruno's position.

 

[Kung Fu Cantona7]

The reason why Fernandes played so much last season was because we were over-reliant on him. It sounds like circuitous logic, but the truth is we couldn't afford to rest him. Now that we have another game-changing attacker, we don't have to place as much creative burdens on Fernandes' backup. Of course none of the candidates are good enough to play there if Bruno is out with a long-term injury, but any player who would be good enough to do that won't want to come and be a bit-part player on our bench.

I actually think that Lingard would be a better backup than some in this thread think, but we still have two players who are natural in Fernandes' position. What works in his favour is that he can also cover either wing as well as one of the no. 8 positions if we switch to a 433.

Plus, I have a mild suspicion that he is someone you can throw on at right-back with 15 minutes to go when you are chasing a goal. His best attacking qualities are his teamwork and industry, skillsets which can be more profitably executed from fullback.

Did I read that correctly? You think it would be a good idea to throw Lingard on at right back when we need a goal?

If anything, that just sums up that he's not good enough for our team or else you would be subbing him on as a no10 to create chances centrally. Sell him for £20-30 million and never think about him ever again.

I'm hoping Wan Bissaka will attack more with Varane covering and Sancho in front. Dalot would be a better attacking option at full back than Lingard. Can't believe I actually just had to emphasise that point!

I do get what you're saying about the teamwork and work rate but this isn't Football Manager.

Lingard. Right back. The answer is no.

 

[deleon]

Did I read that correctly? You think it would be a good idea to throw Lingard on at right back when we need a goal?

If anything, that just sums up that he's not good enough for our team or else you would be subbing him on as a no10 to create chances centrally. Sell him for £20-30 million and never think about him ever again.

I'm hoping Wan Bissaka will attack more with Varane covering and Sancho in front. Dalot would be a better attacking option at full back than Lingard. Can't believe I actually just had to emphasise that point!

I do get what you're saying about the teamwork and work rate but this isn't Football Manager.

Lingard. Right back. The answer is no.

We're not going to take off Fernandes when we are chasing a goal, so not bringing on Lingard (or anyone else) there is hardly scandalous. Similarly, I see his primary role as backup for Sancho, but I wouldn't make that replacement either when losing, unless he's individually having an off day. In fact, most substitutions we do make are like-for-like and too tactically neutral. Playing an attacking midfielder/winger at fullback would be a qualitative change (i.e. not better, but different) in an area that is afforded a lot of time and space in the late game, often deliberately. The area's defensive responsibility is also placed on an opposing attacker whose willingness to track back may have diminished by this point (moot if also a substitute of course).

I think that lack of cover was not that much of an attenuating factor last season, but I do agree that Wan-Bissaka will be more productive this season with Sancho in front of him. That's a different debate to whether we could bring on someone more attack-minded than him as a gamble. Despite being a former winger himself, Wan-Bissaka is quite risk-averse when assessing his options, and can be slightly ossifying when on the ball. And that's fine in general play when we are more concerned about defensive structure than applying maximum pressure.

Dalot is actually one of the reasons why I started to think about Lingard as a makeshift right-back. While he (Dalot) is better on the ball than Wan-Bissaka, the difference isn't enough to make it worth a substitution. I don't consider crossing ability as a significant advantage at that stage. When you say that he is a better attacking option at fullback than Lingard, I'm not sure if you mean because he is a better fullback (with which I would agree) or because he is better at attacking (with which I would disagree).

Now, I want to be conservative regarding Lingard's attacking prowess here, because we all know that he's (edit) not that special.

He does have excellent movement off-the-ball. Whether consciously or not, his runs are often designed to open up teammates in a better position than to place himself on the receiving end. This is something he has done well even at United, but arguably at the cost of direct involvement. We have since brought in players who can shoulder creative responsibilities, so someone who can disrupt the compactness of defences is now an affordable luxury. As an auxiliary winger who tends to cut inside, he can create space for, and/or link up with, Sancho and Fernandes more usefully than just running outside to pose crossing dangers. It won't draw as many defenders as a false 9 would, but we also won't lose the presence of a key attacker in the box. (And no, even I know that "false 2" would be a laughably bad name.)

He's also comfortable maintaining the tempo. We are often shown the ball to fullback by oppositions because that's where momentum goes to die, and when defenders can regroup. This isn't Wan-Bissaka's fault, but at the same time Shaw on the other side is definitely better at generating impetus. Lingard, I would argue, is a more reliable passer than people give him credit for. More importantly, he relishes quick transitions and is technically sufficient for it. From wide, he is less likely to be simply an option to recycle possession.

He'd be less risk-averse than Wan-Bissaka or Dalot. He is no libertine for sure, but he doesn't play with a safety first mentality either. This goes with the "not better, but different" thing earlier, in that it's only suitable for dire situations. Nevertheless, he is a goal threat. I recognise the irony of this statement given his last dry spell. But West Ham have shown that he is productive when allowed time and space. This argument is somewhat weakened the fact that as right-back, he'd be drifting in from the right and that the spatial freedom would be personal rather than structural, but still something that can make a difference.

Of course, all this talk is predicated on the player's own willingness to stay despite no obvious path to the starting eleven. But I wouldn't sell him just to generate money, though I would if it's absolutely necessary to bring in the right midfielder (of which I'm doubtful). He can cover both wings, which are where I consider him to be most useful to us given the injuries situation, and would allow Diallo to go out on loan. He can do a job at no. 10 (in a 4231) or no. 8 (in a 433) in a pinch, although he's no first choice backup. This means that he plus a striker can cover the entire frontline, with any additional attackers on the bench being selectable for purely tactical or developmental reasons. I think being a potential "kitchen sink" right-back helps his case too, but I concede that is a bit of armchair speculation and not something that's actually being factored into by people deciding his future.