McGeouch & Bartley

[TheFamous1875]

How will they fare as out midfield pairing for the foreseeable future? Do their respective games compliment each other or stifle one another? What set-up should they play in? Is there any alternative to this pairing? With McGinn & Fyvie both out, I hope Lennon can come up with a solution.

[woodythehibee]

I like both Dylan and Marv, but McGinn and Fyvie are a better partnership IMO.

Marv can sit and do all the dirty work which will hopefully allow Dylan to drive forward and make things happen. On paper, it should work.

The alternative would be to switch back to 442, but I think Lennon is reluctant to do so as our form and performance has improved since switching to 352.

I am pretty gutted that we will be losing our two best midfielders for both matches against Utd. Marv & Dylan should be able to cope though.

[jacomo]

I think they'll be fine.

Marv is useful and Dylan is a smart footballer. If anything, he is constrained by playing alongside a more creative player (like when Scott Allan would hog the ball!)

[Billychaotic182]

Might be risky but I want to see Scott Martin given a chance

[Andy74]

Don't see much of a problem. Bartley is unlucky not to be playing anyway as he should not have been sent off in those games but it led to others getting chances.

McGeough is only a problem fitness wise, otherwise he is probably our most creative player.

[B.H.F.C]

Biggest problem with Bartley coming in is that we don't really need him in the team when playing 3 at the back IMO.

We are already playing with 5 players who are effectively defenders. Bartley is good at what he does but in that system it's not really needed

[Diclonius]

McGeouch, Martin and Shinnie could work. I agree, Bartley in a 3-5-2 is way too defensive. Either stick him in a 4-4-2 or put Martin in.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Biggest problem with Bartley coming in is that we don't really need him in the team when playing 3 at the back IMO.

We are already playing with 5 players who are effectively defenders. Bartley is good at what he does but in that system it's not really needed

Tell that to Matty Jack!

[B.H.F.C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tell that to Matty Jack!

The Matty Jack that had Sauzee behind him to come out with the ball. Big Lauraen to his left who was a superb player. Latapy in front of him. John O'Neil next to him who regularly chipped in with goals.

Bartley in that system with players around him regularly chipping in and creating is fine. I don't mind Bartley but think with the players he has around him, playing in that system makes us too defensive.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Matty Jack that had Sauzee behind him to come out with the ball. Big Lauraen to his left who was a superb player. Latapy in front of him. John O'Neil next to him who regularly chipped in with goals.

Yes but he was a defensive midfielder playing that role with a back three behind him which is specifically what your saying isn't needed. It's the basis for how that team played in that system.

You could argue that as you only really have 3 proper defenders instead of 4 and your centre backs are split across the park that it is ansoltjeynideal to have a player sitting deeper in midfield to protect and drop in.

[B.H.F.C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes but he was a defensive midfielder playing that role with a back three behind him which is specifically what your saying isn't needed. It's the basis for how that team played in that system.

You could argue that as you only really have 3 proper defenders instead of 4 and your centre backs are split across the park that it is ansoltjeynideal to have a player sitting deeper in midfield to protect and drop in.

Last year, on most occasions we went with the 3 at the back, he was the one that missed out. Same again this year.

To me that is because he is the most limited on the ball. In this league, against the standard of opposition we are playing against, I don't believe we need to play a player, whose strengths lie in the defensive side of the game when playing with the 3 at the back.

The Matty Jack comparison doesn't stack up for me. Surrounded by far better players and playing at a time when the Scotish game had a few decent players in it. I never said that you should never play with a more defensive minded midfielder if playing a back 3. But at this moment in time, I don't think we need to.

[MWHIBBIES]

Bartley cant pass the ball more than 5 yards which is a problem when you play 5 defenders. I'd have Martin before him for United. Bartley is great in games that become a scrappy fight (like Hearts in the cup) but he struggles when we need to play football.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Last year, on most occasions we went with the 3 at the back, he was the one that missed out. Same again this year.

To me that is because he is the most limited on the ball. In this league, against the standard of opposition we are playing against, I don't believe we need to play a player, whose strengths lie in the defensive side of the game when playing with the 3 at the back.

The Matty Jack comparison doesn't stack up for me. Surrounded by far better players and playing at a time when the Scotish game had a few decent players in it. I never said that you should never play with a more defensive minded midfielder if playing a back 3. But at this moment in time, I don't think we need to.

Turning it round to attacking in that system we have two other central midfield players to pass and create, two wide players to attack and two forwards.

That's why Jack was ideal, he won it and moved it on. Bartley does the same. When playing with just 3 at the back you don't need the 7 others to all be creative types.

[JDHibs]

Id play McGeouch and Martin rather than McGeouch and Bartley.

Bartley is wasted when we play 3 at the back because he offers so little going forward. Hes an excellent defensive midfielder, but shouldnt be needed in this league.

Martin is more box to box, brings the same energy if not more than Fyvie or McGinn and it should let McGeouch dictate play which is what he wants to do.

[HibsNutter]

The fact we're still going to be able to put out a midfield three of Bartley, McGeouch, Shinnie if McGinn and Fyvie are out speaks volumes for our squad depth.

[Brightside]

We don't need Bartley in the majority of these games. I'd much rather have the energy of Martin in there with Dylan.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Id play McGeouch and Martin rather than McGeouch and Bartley.

Bartley is wasted when we play 3 at the back because he offers so little going forward. Hes an excellent defensive midfielder, but shouldnt be needed in this league.

Martin is more box to box, brings the same energy if not more than Fyvie or McGinn and it should let McGeouch dictate play which is what he wants to do.

The reality of this league is that there are plenty of midfield battles and Bartley has been pretty important in the games he has played.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How will they fare as out midfield pairing for the foreseeable future? Do their respective games compliment each other or stifle one another? What set-up should they play in? Is there any alternative to this pairing? With McGinn & Fyvie both out, I hope Lennon can come up with a solution.

They won't! McGeouch is far too injury prone for us to count on him in the forseeable future: this "pairing" will hardly play together, if at all IMO. Pity, as McGeouch is a pretty decent footballer ...

[PiemanP]

A vote for Martin here. if Fyvie is out for a while this could be his time to shine.

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They won't! McGeouch is far too injury prone for us to count on him in the forseeable future: this "pairing" will hardly play together, if at all IMO. Pity, as McGeouch is a pretty decent footballer ...

Keeping a positive outlook, I respect that.

[California-Hibs]

How long is Fyvie out? I thought he had an outside chance of making the United game? And If he doesn't, then he'll for sure come firmly into contention the next week? That was my thinking..

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Keeping a positive outlook, I respect that.

Just being realistic - do you seriously think it is going to be any way other than I suggested - based on what, I wonder?

[LaMotta]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Bartley cant pass the ball more than 5 yards which is a problem when you play 5 defenders. I'd have Martin before him for United. Bartley is great in games that become a scrappy fight (like Hearts in the cup) but he struggles when we need to play football.

I've seen this comment a few times but I think that's pretty unfair on Bartley and that he is a better footballer than some make out. Will be watching with interest over the coming weeks to see how valid that criticism is.

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just being realistic - do you seriously think it is going to be any way other than I suggested - based on what, I wonder?

Many examples of players who struggled with injuries getting over it.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Big Marv is great in tough cup ties and the like, but as folk are saying he's not the most creative going forward. Lennon had enough confidence in Scott Martin to play him away to Falkirk and the lad played very well against Birmingham City, I wouldn't be upset to see his name on the team sheet.

My big worry is that McGeouch is now becoming vital to our progress in the next two months and that's not good news considering the guy cant seem to string more than a handful of games together without getting injured or being affected by his ongoing groin problem, which is a pity because when fit he's a top top performer for us.

[J-C]

I like big Marvin as a person but I was hoping Martin would've had a few games by now, even if just as a sub. In the system we play Scott Martin would be a better choice than Bartley but Lennon obviously doesn't think he's ready.

[mjhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The fact we're still going to be able to put out a midfield three of Bartley, McGeouch, Shinnie if McGinn and Fyvie are out speaks volumes for our squad depth.

No issue with Bartley and McGeoch. Last season they dovetailed very well and we missed Marvin when he was sent off in both games. The onus is now on sir David and Lewis to deliver good quality crosses and the goals will come and Marvin will help keep the back door shut. It will be a tight game against united and Marvin will be suited by the game and shinnie and Boyle hopefully will provide the finish.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Many examples of players who struggled with injuries getting over it.

He's a good footballer, must be tough being injured so often - I hope you are right in his case ...

[Big L]

I would consider putting Lewis Stevenson in to McGinn's position. Before the s******ing starts, I think I'm right when I say that the last time he played there he was voted the supporters player of the year. Crane could take the LB position.

[Broken Gnome]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would consider putting Lewis Stevenson in to McGinn's position. Before the s******ing starts, I think I'm right when I say that the last time he played there he was voted the supporters player of the year. Crane could take the LB position.

You didn't say we couldn't s****** though, right??