Sean Longstaff

[Lush Vlad]

1 minute ago, Conjo said:

 

Think this is symptomatic for a lot of our players. It annoys me particularly when the defence is passing the ball amongst themselves while being closed down by the opposition. Unless Schar is trying a hollywood pass to one of the wings, he'll rarely pass the ball longer than to the players closest to him i.e Livramento or Burn, even if Hall is open and an early pass to him will give him more time to do something productive with the ball before being closed down. Same with Burn who will pass to Hall or Schar even if Livramento is more open on the right. We all know that the ball is going to the fullbacks eventually. Why give the opposition more time to close us down? 

 

Completely anecdotally and I don't have stats to back it up.  But Schar does try that 'between the lines' pass into feet a fair bit.  Just nowhere near as good or as accurate at doing it as Trippier and it gets us in trouble when he mis-places them.  He found Willock in the centre circle a few times with it on Saturday.

 

Agree on your broader point, though.  Our build up is cumbersome, predictable and usually harmless.  That said, I actually thought at times in the first half against Arsenal.  That we moved it much quicker and the midfield interchanging worked a lot better than it has all season.  Popping up in different areas, 1-2 touch passing and looking to get up the pitch.  If we can build on that, then it's a start.  

[JEToon]

I would rather Longstaff picks the easy pass all day, as to me, that is sense - Longstaff isn’t as good at football as Bruno, I would want Bruno shifting the ball and Longstaff being the legs working the field when Bruno is making a pass all day.

 

I don’t see it as a critique on Longstaff for instance to understand others are better on the ball than him, just sense to me.

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2024 by JEToon

[STM]

19 hours ago, Alberto2005 said:

Love all the positive comments this weekend across all platforms.

 

He deserves praise for his performance Saturday, but it's laughable people now saying he's a good player.

 

I'm fine keeping him as a squad player for now, but if we want to be pushing the top 4 each season I wouldn't want him starting many games.

 

You accept it would be mental for him not to start the next game though right?

 

You also accept that we are clearly a better side when he's involved?

[Tross]

 

Well deserved. Keep it up Longy la 

[Andy]

26 minutes ago, STM said:

You also accept that we are clearly a better side when he's involved?

 

I'm not convinced by this; over the last two seasons we have given some rancid performances with Longstaff in the midfield where his own personal performance was equally bad (including earlier this season, despite the wins). He has his use in the squad, but it's too basic an analysis to only look at win% when he plays vs when he doesn't, as it ignores a load of other variables. 

 

For as much as we improved in the last two games, I think that's more down the overall balance of the team. The tactical switch of moving Joelinton to the left has made the biggest impact IMO.  

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Also not convinced. 

 

It's not worth arguing about like, I accept maybe I don't see his strengths as much as some other people.

 

Ultimately Tonali has to be in our best eleven, he's class where Longstaff is 'decent at times'. In the warmup he always looks very good, wouldn't be surprised if he has another level he could access if his mindset and confidence was more solid. 

 

Like I've said before though, I like Longstaff as a character and try not to moan too much when he loses the ball. And I'm happy to have him in the squad. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2024 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Lush Vlad]

39 minutes ago, STM said:

 

You accept it would be mental for him not to start the next game though right?

 

You also accept that we are clearly a better side when he's involved?

No, not really. I think he will start, but I wouldn’t be against him coming out. We are about to play a team who have the 3rd worst average possession in the league and like to sit in a bit of a low-mid block. Horses for courses and that is not Longstaff’s type of game at all. 
 

Again, no. Not black and white or binary, at all. So many variables to consider. Joelinton going left. Willock coming back in. Isak finding some fitness and form. The teams we have played. Loads more, as well if we wanted to sit and go right through and analyse each game. I don’t want to  
 

FWIW, I thought he was quality the last two games and looks like he has taken on a slightly different role and tactical instructions. But we did play 2 games at home with about 30% of the ball, which certainly helped him. As that is where he excels. 

[80]

44 minutes ago, STM said:

 

You accept it would be mental for him not to start the next game though right?

 

You also accept that we are clearly a better side when he's involved?

I think mental is too strong a word, but I think it's right for him to start the next one.

 

I don't accept we're clearly a better side when he's involved. I think it's possible, but there's nowhere near enough evidence to claim it, and he's also been front and centre of some of our worst performances for the past 12 months.

 

Furthermore, it would be a really bad sign if we were better with him as it would indicate Tonali's been a catastrophic signing. Before anyone says it, there's no way we signed him to be a £60m Longstaff backup.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2024 by 80

[HawK]

1 hour ago, Conjo said:

 

Think this is symptomatic for a lot of our players. It annoys me particularly when the defence is passing the ball amongst themselves while being closed down by the opposition. Unless Schar is trying a hollywood pass to one of the wings, he'll rarely pass the ball longer than to the players closest to him i.e Livramento or Burn, even if Hall is open and an early pass to him will give him more time to do something productive with the ball before being closed down. Same with Burn who will pass to Hall or Schar even if Livramento is more open on the right. We all know that the ball is going to the fullbacks eventually. Why give the opposition more time to close us down? 

 

I think this is very intentional.

 

We don't have the players to play through the lines and play around a press in the middle of the park, Bruno aside. Allowing teams to come on to our back line actually plays into our hands, as it brings the opponent's defence line further up the pitch, and gives our pacier players more room to run into and behind for the longer ball. I believe the ideal scenario for us to start attack whilst in posession is with the opponents team well inside our half, other than quick turnovers in the opponent's penalty area.

 

But the problem is when opponents don't close us down and sit back, we move up the pitch and we camp in their half and we just don't have the tactics or the players to break down a low block. We'd be better in transition playing much more direct football with a very low defensive line, forcing teams onto us and making space.

[Conjo]

2 minutes ago, HawK said:

 

I think this is very intentional.

 

We don't have the players to play through the lines and play around a press in the middle of the park, Bruno aside. Allowing teams to come on to our back line actually plays into our hands, as it brings the opponent's defence line further up the pitch, and gives our pacier players more room to run into and behind for the longer ball. I believe the ideal scenario for us to start attack whilst in posession is with the opponents team well inside our half, other than quick turnovers in the opponent's penalty area.

 

But the problem is when opponents don't close us down and sit back, we move up the pitch and we camp in their half and we just don't have the tactics or the players to break down a low block. We'd be better in transition playing much more direct football with a very low defensive line, forcing teams onto us and making space.

 

Too often we end up being closed down too quickly, so we have to play the ball back to Pope, who diligently hoofs the ball directly to the opposition or out for a throw in

 

I agree it's a good idea to invite a press to create space up the field for ourselves, but I don't think its too much to ask Burn to be able to hit a pass to Livramento and Schar to hit a pass to Hall so that we have a bit more time with the ball in order to find an opening that isn't a pass back to Pope.

[Andy]

11 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

Again, no. Not black and white or binary, at all. So many variables to consider. Joelinton going left. Willock coming back in. Isak finding some fitness and form. The teams we have played. Loads more, as well if we wanted to sit and go right through and analyse each game. I don’t want to  

 

The only strong argument I've seen for Longstaff improving us is the win% argument, but that's really only valid if you choose to ignore every single other variable that could possibly determine the outcome of a football match. It's the whole correlation/causation thing. 

[HawK]

4 minutes ago, Conjo said:

 

Too often we end up being closed down too quickly, so we have to play the ball back to Pope, who diligently hoofs the ball directly to the opposition or out for a throw in

 

I agree it's a good idea to invite a press to create space up the field for ourselves, but I don't think its too much to ask Burn to be able to hit a pass to Livramento and Schar to hit a pass to Hall so that we have a bit more time with the ball in order to find an opening that isn't a pass back to Pope.

 

Agreed - I wasn't saying your points didn't have merit, I was just commenting on the overall sentiment of inviting pressure onto the backline.

[Gallowgate Toon]

I'd personally not start him against Forest because I think Tonali-Bruno gives us a lot more flexibility to change shape/approach in games as well as more options on the ball. Longstaff does have a decent weapon against lower teams which is his timing for runs into the box, but without Trippier commanding that side in possession I'm not sure he'd even be picked out that often.

 

Plus, Tonali's set pieces look really good. An unfashionable but very important tool against deep sides.

[Smal]

there are things that stand out in Longstaff's game imo. His running power is much better than the average PL player, and his ability to make recovery runs and get back behind the ball is very good and is missed when he's not in the team. He is also really good at making runs beyond the opposition defence at the right time. Basically his understanding of what Howe wants him to do is as good as any player in our squad if not better.

 

Tonali clearly has the attributes to at least match these parts of Sean's game imo but it's possibly going to take time to coach it into his game.

[80]

3 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

The only strong argument I've seen for Longstaff improving us is the win% argument, but that's really only valid if you choose to ignore every single other variable that could possibly determine the outcome of a football match. It's the whole correlation/causation thing. 

...And as I found after Heron helpfully did the work showing the games and minutes Longstaff and Tonali had played in, 7 of the points in that unbeaten period came from us turning around losses and draws after Longstaff had been subbed off the pitch.

[Lush Vlad]

15 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

The only strong argument I've seen for Longstaff improving us is the win% argument, but that's really only valid if you choose to ignore every single other variable that could possibly determine the outcome of a football match. It's the whole correlation/causation thing. 

Kind of agree. I think his off the ball work at both ends of the pitch and his engine do get overlooked. But that is why I think he is great for games like the last two at home. Not so much as against, say an Everton or a Forest (I know they’re doing well. More their style). 

[80]

8 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

I'd personally not start him against Forest because I think Tonali-Bruno gives us a lot more flexibility to change shape/approach in games as well as more options on the ball. Longstaff does have a decent weapon against lower teams which is his timing for runs into the box, but without Trippier commanding that side in possession I'm not sure he'd even be picked out that often.

 

Plus, Tonali's set pieces look really good. An unfashionable but very important tool against deep sides.

I'm inclined to agree, and if it was a cup final I'd say to do it, but I can see the sense in rewarding Longstaff for squad morale reasons plus not wanting to interfere with the chemistry of something that's only just started working well. A bit like us not immediately dropping Bruno in when we first signed him. 

 

Also, Longstaff just genuinely looked like his old self for the first time in ages. If we can somehow get him back to being a competent, contributive footballer on regular basis then that's going to be helpful to us, either as a squad member or a transfer fee.

[Alberto2005]

1 hour ago, STM said:

 

You accept it would be mental for him not to start the next game though right?

 

You also accept that we are clearly a better side when he's involved?

I'd like to see Tonali given a run in the center first before deciding that.

 

I don't believe our last two results are purely down to Sean Longstaff playing no, but the balance does seem better when he plays.

 

You could also argue Joelinton from the LW gives us better balance aswell.

[TRon]

44 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

The only strong argument I've seen for Longstaff improving us is the win% argument, but that's really only valid if you choose to ignore every single other variable that could possibly determine the outcome of a football match. It's the whole correlation/causation thing. 

 

Agree. Tonali played against Chelsea when we won 2-0 alongside Longstaff. Does that mean Bruno is the problem?

 

I think Joelinton and Willock were equally important on the left so selective stats don't really tell the story.

[STM]

2 hours ago, Alberto2005 said:

I'd like to see Tonali given a run in the center first before deciding that.

 

I don't believe our last two results are purely down to Sean Longstaff playing no, but the balance does seem better when he plays.

 

You could also argue Joelinton from the LW gives us better balance aswell.

 

Joelinton going left is massive but I feel there is a lot of mental gymnastics going with regards to refusing to admit that Longstaff, while not as talented, actually plays for the team and that the team benefits when he's in the side.

 

However, I would 100% like to see Tonali in Brunos position and Bruno where Longstaff is. If that worked, we could go to another level.

[STM]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

Agree. Tonali played against Chelsea when we won 2-0 alongside Longstaff. Does that mean Bruno is the problem?

 

I think Joelinton and Willock were equally important on the left so selective stats don't really tell the story.

 

Of course Bruno isn't the problem but it's extra proof that Longstaff isn't the problem either.

 

Nobody suggests Bruno is shite, Longstaff gets called shite all of the time though.

[TRon]

1 minute ago, STM said:

 

Of course Bruno isn't the problem but it's extra proof that Longstaff isn't the problem either.

 

Nobody suggests Bruno is shite, Longstaff gets called shite all of the time though.

 

Shite was always hyperbole for Longstaff though, unfortunately you are always going to get that on social media. I was specifically addressing this idea that we can't win without Longstaff. I think a lot of the more sensible commentators have said that the midfield mix didn't look right this season, especially given the lack of pace at CB. I don't think it's that individuals are bad players, we just need to get the balance right so they compliment each other.

[STM]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Shite was always hyperbole for Longstaff though, unfortunately you are always going to get that on social media. I was specifically addressing this idea that we can't win without Longstaff. I think a lot of the more sensible commentators have said that the midfield mix didn't look right this season, especially given the lack of pace at CB. I don't think it's that individuals are bad players, we just need to get the balance right so they compliment each other.

 

I agree with that.

 

I suppose my point is that our balance always looks better with Longstaff (and I don't rate him as a great player with the ball).

 

I think we've also seen the importance of Willock too.

 

I don't think we could swap Tonali and Longstaff in Saturdays set up, unless we moved Bruno into Longstaffs position.

 

For whatever reason, Tonali 8 and Bruno as a 6 hasn't worked.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Not to push the negative angle but he’s below average among PL midfielders in almost everything and he’s dire on anything related to passing. 
 

His movement is decent as you can see by those runs he makes into the channels, even if it rarely results in anything. 
 

He’s decent at blocks and OK at tackles. I can’t find stats on running but I don’t see him as particularly fast or athletic, so I doubt his ground coverage is better than Tonali. He does pop up to recover the ball from time to time, but mostly when somebody else has made the meaningful challenge or recovery.
 

He is just a CM though, so not everything can be captured with stats. 

 

FWIW I think his ability is probably decent and his intelligence is good. I just don’t see any convincing argument that he’s key to us having a better team.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2024 by AyeDubbleYoo

[PopeandGlory]

Personally think it’s absolutely bonkers that people are seriously suggesting Longstaff should start ahead of Tonali, in any match, because he’s perceived to have an “engine”.

 

Makes as much sense as selling Isak and buying Delap because he would “put himself about”.

 

Might as well sell Bruno and get Oliver Skipp in too.