Another interesting article on Craven Cottage Newsround which backed up my feelings on the who-plays-alongside-Hangeland debate. http://cravencottagenewsround.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/on-senderos-hughes-and-baird/#comments Having often advocated Baird/Senderos over Hughes, it was great to hear that AH had such a good game on Monday.
I agree with the comments about Hughes's distribution - he is prone to just lumping it upfield. Senderos takes a bit more time and brings it forward if there is no pressure on him.
Despite my consistently arguing for Senderos or Baird over Hughes, it would be harsh to drop Aaron after Monday night. He should keep his place while he keeps playing so well. Long term, I think Senderos is a better bet - and not just because he's several years younger.
I'd have Hangeland and Hughes in Central Defense and have Baird and Senderos as Defensive Midfield Leaving the rest to play attacking midfield/forwards. an away line up with Baird and Senderos (to be more defensive) a home line up with Murphy and Diarra or Sidwell. (to be more attacking) GK -Schwarzer RB - Kelly/Davies CD - Hughes CD - Hangeland LB - Riise DM - Baird/Murphy DM - Senderos/Diarra AM - Dembele AM - Dempsey AM - Ruiz/Duff ST - Pogrebnyak
I admit to being in the H&H camp - my primary reason being that Senderos and Hangeland are similar in style so don't compliment each other as effectively. Interesting to note that Hangeland's top performances were alongside Chris Baird.
Hughes had a good game again on Monday night. Yes, he is not so great at coming forward, but we have Hangeland doing that role. It's still H&H for me as the most stable defence. C O Y W
Yeah at the moment I think H&H is our best partnership. I think had it been Senderos in beside Hangeland on Monday night we would have lost by 3 or 4. Granted it was one of Hughes' better performances but I feel a lot more comfortable with him instead of Senderos or Baird.
But Fulhamireland, that sense of discomfort is precisely what the article is shooting down. Many Fulham fans 'feel' that Hangeland is better when he plays with Hughes, but the evidence doesn't suggest he's any better with Hughes/worse with Senderos. And (on an admittedly small sample) is arguably at his best when paired with Bairdinho. The point is that we've created a stereotype where Senderos is dodgy and Hughes is the tried and trusted dependable one. The result is that when Senderos makes a mistake, we all roll our eyes and say 'typical!', and when Hughes does so we gloss over it. This isn't a call for Senderos to start against Norwich. Hughes deserves to keep his place after a good performance at Old Trafford. All I'm saying is that our preconceptions are wrong and Senderos has been unfairly criticised in comparison to Hughes all season.
I wasn't trying to suggest that Senderos would have made Hangeland play any worse, just that as an individual I would prefer to see Hughes start, I think he is the better defender but that's just my preference.
I think Hughes and Hangeland compliment each other the best. On the other hand Senderos does have better ball skills than Hughes. Hughes passing ability has always been suspect. Playing Senderos as a defensive midfielder gives the option of him dropping back when Riise goes off on his (uneventful) forward runs and doesn't get back. Coming from Arsenal Senderos is more comfortable on the ball and has the passing skills. His down side is that he makes rash tackles and falls down a lot (he needs to find a boot manufacturer who put studs in their boots and not play in carpet slippers). I like Baird at Center back along side Hangeland or better still for me defensive midfield but not as a Full back. I'd like to see Dan Burn given an opportunity to play along side Hangeland at some point to see what he's like and give him Premier experience. Think in the summer Jol needs to sort out the full back positions (both of them).
Fair enough, Fulhamireland. If not from you I've certainly seen others on this site arguing that Hangeland looks happier and plays better with Hughes, and I think that's just based on preconceptions. I'm not sure about Senderos in centre midfield though. I can see the logic, but he's a defender (and a good one at that, in my view). Anyway, it's good that we've got (at least) three strong options to partner Hangeland, even before we get into blooding youngsters like Burn.
I've gone back and forth on this Hughes v Senderos thing. Early in the season I would have taken Hughes of Senderos any day of the week, but Senderos has played very well for us most of the year. And while I agree that Hangeland somehow appears more comfortable partnering with Hughes. But other than that preception of confortability, I think Senderos is better than Hughes - his distribution from the back is at least as good as Hangeland's. He's taller, too. The only advantage I'd give to Hughes is pace. But yes, given the good performance he put in against ManU, Hughes should probably retain his position.
Senderos clearly has good ball skills and is comfortable coming forward. He always leaves Hangeland in the lurch though. I'm always praying that something won't happen when he gets the ball. Other than that I like him.
Morning all, this is a curious situation for Jol to ponder. Both Hughes and Senderos are good defenders but both offer different qualities. As has been said Senderos has a better distribution of the ball but has an element of the ' Zat Knight ' about him. He is very strong in the challenge which can be a good thing but also, depending on the ref, can work against him. Hughes on the other hand is a slightly more cultured defender, he is a centre back and that is it. He does not try to be anything else, and as a result is very good at what he does. Hangeland and Hughes work well together but let's not forget they have been a partnership for some 3 seasons now. I think that Jol likes Senderos becuse not only does he defend well but he also slows the game down. Many times he has moved into midfield and chased down a striker who is playing deep, allowing the rest of the team to get back in position. Jol has used these 2 well this season, both have attributes that could be beneficial against different teams. A nice situation for him to be in. Let's not also forget how impressive Grygera was before he got injured.
Grygera yes looked good. But a mention for Kelly...I thought he was excellent against United and their threat. Yesterday again very good, does work the flank and has great energy - could have scored too.
Totally agreed cottage about Kelly, he has quietly got on with his job so well this season. I was referring to Grygera in the centreback role, if I am not mistaken he played there when we palyed Chelsea in the cup and totally bossed the back line.
Yes, Gryggers was immense in that game! Also agreed about Kelly. He's come in for some criticism of late but fair pay to him, he's done well in the past couple of games. Let's hope he can continue it.
