Sean Longstaff

[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 43 minutes ago 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.

[Elbel1]

On 03/11/2024 at 09:48, Guybrush said:

 

This is atrocious. At the risk of sounding like a bullying advert, people need to realise they're directing criticism at a real person.

 

Hate owt like this, me.

Fully agree unless the criticism is directed at Steve Bruce.

Starting to think I'm still not fully over his reign of terror.