What to do with Hannibal?

Fortitude

TV/Monitor Expert
Staff
Joined
Jul 10, 2004
Messages
25,867
Location
Inside right
One of the biggest disappointments from the game on Saturday was Hannibal not seeing a single minute of playing time off the back of a cup performance I and many others felt was the catalyst for so much of the football we played in what was our best performance of the season.

Not fielding the player in any shape or form in the following game sends out a rather bleak message I feel, but more than that, without Hannibal's insane workrate and positional understanding, a lot of what knitted us tighter on Tuesday was taken straight back out the team, which bought Palace far more time on the ball and gave us a lot less as we couldn't snuff out fires before they got deep into midfield or even breached it. Amrabat bundling into players and looking more off the pace than he did just a few days earlier, and Casemiro reverting to the player who looks uncomfortable and last ditch weren't coincidences, they were byproducts of said time between thought and action being reduced because there was no Hannibal haranguing and shepherding runners into tactical traps any longer.

There's a fair statement to be made in saying Palace were not giving it 100% on Tuesday beyond the first 20 or so minutes. A counter to that statement can be that we made them not fancy it [the game] and had them decide it wasn't a battle worth contesting anymore. In other words, we forced the narrative that wasn't pre-determined because of the incessant pressure that was leading to turnovers and forced, ill-considered passing.

There can be disputes on how well or poorly Hannibal used the ball once he had it, but there's very little negative discussion to be had in terms of his effectiveness to his team and teammates in winning it back and enabling other players to better focus on what they excel at. He was a massive net positive to the midfield unit, in my opinion.

This can't go in his performance thread because it's about what we do with him rather than taking about past performance - this team needs catalysts, which is why we're always looking for heroes and saviours. The best teams have a number of players who can turn the tide and force the collective to up their game whilst carrying the extra burden in the interim. We're short on this and, I feel, should be latching onto any player who has it about him to aid others in performing their own duties better. This isn't a conundrum - given the data set isn't extensive enough to state that Mejbri is an irrefutable - but it is worth questioning what a flailing team in need of those exact properties the young Tunisian has in abundance should do in terms of extraction for the greater good. In other words, fielding him (or literally anyone who would offer what he does) when bigger names gobble up starting spots by what seems like default.

Like I said in a previous paragraph, Hannibal not starting on Saturday was fair enough, to a degree, but then, not fielding at all, and, in fact, being supplanted by the invisible man himself in Donny van de Beek? It was like throwing away so much of what enabled us to play just a few days earlier for no logical reason.

If Hannibal was interchangeable and we had anyone else in the squad as dogged and on point with their pressing and harassment as him, the question could be expanded to that player too, but we don't. Hannibal is one of one seeing as we got rid of Fred. Mount is a solid presser, but only high up the pitch, not in tracking runners all the way back into midfield or ushering a player on the ball into traps set deeper in midfield. Not a criticism, just not his game. There's not a top end PL team who isn't running opponents off the ball. They don't have Hannibal's record breaking pressuring stats, but nor do they need them, as their midfield collectives are cohesive and all put in the prerequisite work to win the ball back succinctly in a manner ours struggle with. Hannibal has a niche and our slower deeper midfielders need it a lot more than the aforementioned PL sides do - Hannibal has the potential to be our "legs" and compensate for others, or another way to put it would be to say to balance the midfield and give it the urgency and agency all our competitors for CL spots have.

If you've troubled yourself to read the above, and so happen to agree with it, what would you do in terms of integrating Hannibal into the team? If you see the benefits it's stated that he could bring to the team, who wouldn't you remove in lieu of that boost to our engine room? We're losing a lot of games; we look unimpressive and I think the forum mostly agrees our midfield is not up to par in a number of factors that make for a silky smooth, PL ready unit.

Please no tangents: This thread is not calling Hannibal the next Bryan Robson or Roy Keane, nor is it proclaiming him the successor to any of our great midfielders. His performance thread already discusses the need to do better with the ball, but what is being put forth here is getting the best haranguer in the squad (no Fred; is there even another contender?) into the team for the greater good of the collective.
 
Last edited:
If we continue our current form cl will be soon out of reach so might as well experiment with the tactical set up and give some of the younger players a run of games to evaluate their future with obviously includes Hannibal.
 
It was criminal to put Donnie on instead of Hannibal. His contract is coming up (albeit with a year's extension as a possibility) I wonder if it will make him hesitate with this manager and/or drag negotiations out to the extent where we have to sell him -- he's too early in his career to throw silly saka money at him.
 
If we continue our current form cl will be soon out of reach so might as well experiment with the tactical set up and give some of the younger players a run of games to evaluate their future with obviously includes Hannibal.

ETH needs to learn from Aretata and start younger, academy kids who are more flexible in learning newer approaches to the game..
 
Pick one between Bruno and Mount, and play Hannibal as backup.

Having both Bruno, Mount as AM, with Hannibal and VDB as backup is abit of overkill.
 
Hes young. Being selective which games you start him in is sensible and completely reasonable. Garnacho last season would be good.
I think your being pretty hyperbolic as to his impact during the week and to other players lack of impact on the weekend. Dont get me wrong, i like him but im not going to cry about a 20 year old in his first season of premier league football not playing every single match. Thats silly.
 
Great OP @Fortitude

This does feel like it has happened before at this club for some reason, some players come in from the sidelines and you feel like they add something we missed. An older, more experienced and more decorated player is rested. Next game, feels slightly more important, and like clockwork, all the older more experienced and more decorated players are out there jogging around, and it feels like that missing ingredient, whatever it is, (youthful vibrance and arrogance?) is gone. At times (quite often) it feels like the paychecks and former glory are part of the managers selective process, more so than just judging on the current form of the players.
 
Pick one between Bruno and Mount, and play Hannibal as backup.

Having both Bruno, Mount as AM, with Hannibal and VDB as backup is abit of overkill.
Why not just play Bruno on the right? Pellistri isn't quite ready to have the role full-time, plus Diallo and Antony are out. Bruno is better off playing closer to goal anyway. Mount-Casemiro-Hannibal is fine as a midfield with Amrabat propping it up.
 
Why not just play Bruno on the right? Pellistri isn't quite ready to have the role full-time, plus Diallo and Antony are out. Bruno is better off playing closer to goal anyway. Mount-Casemiro-Hannibal is fine as a midfield with Amrabat propping it up.
I think Bruno on the right is just a temporary measure. Eventually we would want someone with pace and giving us width on the right. Antony would be back soon, and Diallo could be back from his injuries later.

Agree Mount-Casemiro-Hannibal midfield might work against weaker opponents at home, with Amrabat propping in midfield from full back if needed. But I think we still need someone who can drop deep and play defensive role abit when we are defending or needing to win midfield battle.

Eventually I'd like to see something like this (on current form and when everyone is back from injuries)

During attack:

Garnacho/Rashford Hojlund Antony/Diallo
Mainoo Mount/Bruno/Hannibal
Amrabat Casemiro
Martinez Varane AWB
When defending:

Hojlund
Garnacho/Rashford Mount/Bruno/Hannibal Antony/Diallo
Mainoo Casemiro
Amrabat Martinez Varane AWB
The thing is, Mount and Bruno from what we've seen is too similar and just simply do not work well together on the pitch. If we want better overall team play, Mount is the way to go. If we want better transition football/attack on the break, Bruno is the way to go. Its better not to play them together as we are looking imbalance.
 
One of the biggest disappointments from the game on Saturday was Hannibal not seeing a single minute of playing time off the back of a cup performance I and many others felt was the catalyst for so much of the football we played in what was our best performance of the season.

Not fielding the player in any shape or form in the following game sends out a rather bleak message I feel, but more than that, without Hannibal's insane workrate and positional understanding, a lot of what knitted us tighter on Tuesday was taken straight back out the team, which bought Palace far more time on the ball and gave us a lot less as we couldn't snuff out fires before they got deep into midfield or even breached it. Amrabat bundling into players and looking more off the pace than he did just a few days earlier, and Casemiro reverting to the player who looks uncomfortable and last ditch weren't coincidences, they were byproducts of said time between thought and action being reduced because there was no Hannibal haranguing and shepherding runners into tactical traps any longer.

There's a fair statement to be made in saying Palace were not giving it 100% on Tuesday beyond the first 20 or so minutes. A counter to that statement can be that we made them not fancy it [the game] and had them decide it wasn't a battle worth contesting anymore. In other words, we forced the narrative that wasn't pre-determined because of the incessant pressure that was leading to turnovers and forced, ill-considered passing.

There can be disputes on how well or poorly Hannibal used the ball once he had it, but there's very little negative discussion to be had in terms of his effectiveness to his team and teammates in winning it back and enabling other players to better focus on what they excel at. He was a massive net positive to the midfield unit, in my opinion.

This can't go in his performance thread because it's about what we do with him rather than taking about past performance - this team needs catalysts, which is why we're always looking for heroes and saviours. The best teams have a number of players who can turn the tide and force the collective to up their game whilst carrying the extra burden in the interim. We're short on this and, I feel, should be latching onto any player who has it about him to aid others in performing their own duties better. This isn't a conundrum - given the data set isn't extensive enough to state that Mejbri is an irrefutable - but it is worth questioning what a flailing team in need of those exact properties the young Moroccan has in abundance should do in terms of extraction for the greater good. In other words, fielding him (or literally anyone who would offer what he does) when bigger names gobble up starting spots by what seems like default.

Like I said in a previous paragraph, Hannibal not starting on Saturday was fair enough, to a degree, but then, not fielding at all, and, in fact, being supplanted by the invisible man himself in Donny van de Beek? It was like throwing away so much of what enabled us to play just a few days earlier for no logical reason.

If Hannibal was interchangeable and we had anyone else in the squad as dogged and on point with their pressing and harassment as him, the question could be expanded to that player too, but we don't. Hannibal is one of one seeing as we got rid of Fred. Mount is a solid presser, but only high up the pitch, not in tracking runners all the way back into midfield or ushering a player on the ball into traps set deeper in midfield. Not a criticism, just not his game. There's not a top end PL team who isn't running opponents off the ball. They don't have Hannibal's record breaking pressuring stats, but nor do they need them, as their midfield collectives are cohesive and all put in the prerequisite work to win the ball back succinctly in a manner ours struggle with. Hannibal has a niche and our slower deeper midfielders need it a lot more than the aforementioned PL sides do - Hannibal has the potential to be our "legs" and compensate for others, or another way to put it would be to say to balance the midfield and give it the urgency and agency all our competitors for CL spots have.

If you've troubled yourself to read the above, and so happen to agree with it, what would you do in terms of integrating Hannibal into the team? If you see the benefits it's stated that he could bring to the team, who wouldn't you remove in lieu of that boost to our engine room? We're losing a lot of games; we look unimpressive and I think the forum mostly agrees our midfield is not up to par in a number of factors that make for a silky smooth, PL ready unit.

Please no tangents: This thread is not calling Hannibal the next Bryan Robson or Roy Keane, nor is it proclaiming him the successor to any of our great midfielders. His performance thread already discusses the need to do better with the ball, but what is being put forth here is getting the best haranguer in the squad (no Fred; is there even another contender?) into the team for the greater good of the collective.
Crystal Palace offensive play was not a problem, they had 23% possession. If Hannibal played instead of one of Mount/Bruno, we would've had what, 85% maybe?
Playing Hannibal does not solve our main issue which is creating chances/scroring goals in general. He moves the ball slowly and doesn't create.
I also think people read way too much into the 2 games before CP loss. Against Burnley we were shite and against CP in the cup we were a bit lucky to score two goals from first two attempts, and then we were cruising what made Hannibal look good - without doing that much with the ball.

Fred was a better player than Hannibal, still ETH didn't like him, and I wouldn't be surprised Hannibal isn't in Eric's plans either.
 
He’ll get minutes. Looks like he’s going to start in cups and then get minutes from the bench. He’s 20. How many 20 year olds are nailed on starters in CM at top teams? You just need to look at Chelsea (whose midfielders are all a bit older than him anyway) to see how important experience is.
 
I feel ETH wants to stick with and play that Casemiro Mount Bruno midfield into form as it would be the midfield for the long run of the entire season.That means Bruno as no 10, Mount in central and a RW awaiting Antony to be back soon. Even when Mount had the more decent performance individual, unfortunately this midfield feel quite off. Perhaps, Antony upgrade on Pellistri may help, but it's to be seen. Rashford being in awful form doesn't help.

I think we still need to get result and I would play something like this

Onana
Amrabat Varane Lindelof Dalot
Casemiro Hannibal
Antony Bruno Mount
Hojlund
 
I thought he’d lost his marbles when he brought on Van de Beek ahead of Hannibal.
 
I thought he’d lost his marbles when he brought on Van de Beek ahead of Hannibal.
Van de Beek movement is very decent in opposition box for a midfielder. I think he's meant to offset for Martial lack of that attribute. The issue is ETH usual weird CB sub. Could have kept Varane on and use that sub gamble on Hannibal for Bruno who was not in good form.
 
I think you make too much of Hannibal's "haranguing", our problems has nothing to do with the team not having a Fred like player in midfield, from what I see, it is more execution and creating opportunities which seems very difficult for us at the moment, Hannibal wouldn't have made a difference if the front line is shit and the main creator is messing about.
 
Hes young. Being selective which games you start him in is sensible and completely reasonable. Garnacho last season would be good.
I think your being pretty hyperbolic as to his impact during the week and to other players lack of impact on the weekend. Dont get me wrong, i like him but im not going to cry about a 20 year old in his first season of premier league football not playing every single match. Thats silly.
Pretty much what i was thinking too, not going to play every match
 
If our midfield was functional then fine pick and choose his games. The fact is our midfield doesn't work and the only times it has he's been in the midfield. It's not the first not would it be the last time we've turned to a youngster because of functional issues in the team.

If the seniors aren't performing and we're losing too many games the talented youth have to be shown some trust.
 
If you've troubled yourself to read the above, and so happen to agree with it, what would you do in terms of integrating Hannibal into the team?

I have, for quite awhile, thought that Bruno is a really good wide option. Not on the right, but on the left. I think Rashford and a few others have prevented that from happening. But considering his form this year, I think it could be an option. In other words, use Bruno as a left AM with Hannibal as a 10 (or whatever).

EtH has benched Maguire. He benched Ronaldo. And he dropped Sancho. I think he will soon bench Rashford if his form dont improve.
 
It's just the process in bedding him into the first team and managing his temperament. I think Hannibal time will come this year, but first like Hag with with Garnacho last year, is waiting the time until mature enough. I think by October we will see him a lot more and less of van de beek and Mctominay. I'd expect casemiro, mount, amrabat, mainoo and hannibal to be rotating 2 positions with Bruno playing most games and erikson having a smaller role.
 
I think it's as simple as this, really. What he make lack in goals/assists and/or general ability on the ball (at least at the top level), he compensates in providing squad balance.

With the team how it is right now, he kind of has to play.
 
Crystal Palace offensive play was not a problem, they had 23% possession. If Hannibal played instead of one of Mount/Bruno, we would've had what, 85% maybe?
Playing Hannibal does not solve our main issue which is creating chances/scroring goals in general. He moves the ball slowly and doesn't create.
I also think people read way too much into the 2 games before CP loss. Against Burnley we were shite and against CP in the cup we were a bit lucky to score two goals from first two attempts, and then we were cruising what made Hannibal look good - without doing that much with the ball.

Fred was a better player than Hannibal, still ETH didn't like him, and I wouldn't be surprised Hannibal isn't in Eric's plans either.
There were reasons why Amrabat was bumbling into players and looking a lot less composed than he did just four days prior, same with Casemiro being forced to make last ditch tackles because his feathers were ruffled. It's not about Palace's offensive play but about concerted pressure and having the ball in key areas of the pitch for as long as possible, that's why teams seek to win it back ASAP so that they can turn the screw as much as possible.

Possession stats can be misleading if you don't have the ball where you want to have the ball for long enough. What you want is to constrict the times that Palace have the ball to shortest, least effective amount of time possible. They had a plan and executed it, breaking at key times and doing their work in those pockets, which is what you want to disrupt.

I'd say a main issue in games is that we don't control the midfield enough. The attack is then most often hurried and disorganised because the midfield doesn't give them enough time to settle and make more considered and clever actions as a unit. Of course, all blame cannot be apportioned to the midfield, as our CF isn't comfortable in holding the ball up and bringing others into play and our flanks aren't working well at bringing others into the play, but I believe you sort and settle your midfield first and foremost and bring control to your team before you deal with the disfunction elsewhere.

I think your paragraph about reading too much into what pressure does to teams is taking its effectiveness too lightly. Every team attempts to win the ball back as early as possible now. You give your team so much more time this way. You can make defenders and the defensive end of your midfield look better than they are if they are performing sweeping, clean up actions rather than being involved in battles in areas of the pitch that enable the opposition to set their stall up where they'd like.

Fred and Hannibal are only being mentioned together because of the attribute they share in pressuring the ball and being extremely proactive in winning it back. Even if not Fred or Hannibal, we need players who can do this with a degree of certainty. Our midfield is the most imbalanced of the CL-chasing teams, would you agree with that? If you do then we have to examine why that is and what is going wrong, and more particularly how to address that instead of blundering from one terrible performance to the next.
 
I don't think you should automatically be playing a 20 year old twice a week, especially in an underperforming team.

If he plays on Tuesday* then I agree with the manager...Let Hannibal develop with 1 game a week, same as Garnacho.

It's also shields them a little from the burden and pressure the team is currently under.

*If he doesn't start on Tuesday then I'll be slightly annoyed.
 
Not starting him on the weekend was fine as long as he starts against Galatasaray. He started the two previous games, and four games in two weeks when he's only 20 and just breaking into the team is going a bit overboard. Especially considering he's running more than anyone else while he's out there. Not coming off the bench was a little annoying but I guess ETH wanted Eriksen to sit deeper and control us around while VDB was expected to get in and around the box as we searched for a goal. Hannibal tends to play in between those two areas.

If he doesn't start the next match I'll definitely be disappointed.

Amrabat, Hannibal, Mount and Bruno - I feel we should be rotating the four of them with two, sometimes three, playing at a time. While Bruno would obviously be expected to play most games, I don't see any reason the other three shouldn't end up playing a similar amount of games in total. Let their performances decide who gets the nod, but in most games the ones who don't start should be coming on as a sub.
 
Simply play him instead of Amrabat next to Casemiro. The notion that Amrabat should be this great defensive player we need, is a bit weird.

We're basically too far behind to win anything, and top 4 is almost gone, so it's not like we have a lot to lose with developing a player like him.
 
The two games we won recently, you can put some of the positivity on him and the way he played.

The games we've most recently lost, there has been a big issue with pressing, tracking back and the use of the ball in the latter stages of the games.

He might not be absolutely there technically but he definitely has a unique skillset which we benefit from more than we suffer from when he does get to play.
 
Simply play him instead of Amrabat next to Casemiro. The notion that Amrabat should be this great defensive player we need, is a bit weird.

We're basically too far behind to win anything, and top 4 is almost gone, so it's not like we have a lot to lose with developing a player like him.
"Top 4 almost gone" after 7 games ffs :lol:
 
There were reasons why Amrabat was bumbling into players and looking a lot less composed than he did just four days prior, same with Casemiro being forced to make last ditch tackles because his feathers were ruffled. It's not about Palace's offensive play but about concerted pressure and having the ball in key areas of the pitch for as long as possible, that's why teams seek to win it back ASAP so that they can turn the screw as much as possible.

Possession stats can be misleading if you don't have the ball where you want to have the ball for long enough. What you want is to constrict the times that Palace have the ball to shortest, least effective amount of time possible. They had a plan and executed it, breaking at key times and doing their work in those pockets, which is what you want to disrupt.
To keep this simple, Amrabat isn't a left back, he only played good in the cup because he wasn't challenged for the first 45mins and effectively played as a midfielder. You will say the difference is Hannibal, I will say Crystal Palace was weakened and not interested in winning the game so let's agree to disagree as neither of us can prove the point.

I'd say a main issue in games is that we don't control the midfield enough. The attack is then most often hurried and disorganised because the midfield doesn't give them enough time to settle and make more considered and clever actions as a unit. Of course, all blame cannot be apportioned to the midfield, as our CF isn't comfortable in holding the ball up and bringing others into play and our flanks aren't working well at bringing others into the play, but I believe you sort and settle your midfield first and foremost and bring control to your team before you deal with the disfunction elsewhere.

I think your paragraph about reading too much into what pressure does to teams is taking its effectiveness too lightly. Every team attempts to win the ball back as early as possible now. You give your team so much more time this way. You can make defenders and the defensive end of your midfield look better than they are if they are performing sweeping, clean up actions rather than being involved in battles in areas of the pitch that enable the opposition to set their stall up where they'd like.

Fred and Hannibal are only being mentioned together because of the attribute they share in pressuring the ball and being extremely proactive in winning it back. Even if not Fred or Hannibal, we need players who can do this with a degree of certainty. Our midfield is the most imbalanced of the CL-chasing teams, would you agree with that? If you do then we have to examine why that is and what is going wrong, and more particularly how to address that instead of blundering from one terrible performance to the next.
I agree with midfield being THE issue. However, I just don't see how Hannibal is the solution to it. For me he's just another 8/10 hybrid as we already have 3 of those. He played against Burnley and we were lucky to get anything more than a draw from this game. We actually looked better in possession and created more chances (based on xG) and limited CP to less chances than Burnley. So how did we come to a conclusion that Hannibal is the missing piece here?

Anyway, back to midfield. Amrabat goes back to play alongside Casemiro. One of Mount/Bruno plays #10, the other one goes RW. We pray this works. I don't see any other way. And then, if we're winning, and opposition is trying to win midfield battle and is forced to attack, Hannibal makes sense. He is not a solution for a game that we are forced to play in possession against low block.
 
Fair point raised about selective playing time for a youngster. If it's purely a case of managing minutes based around that, it's a different kettle of fish.
 
Simply play him instead of Amrabat next to Casemiro. The notion that Amrabat should be this great defensive player we need, is a bit weird.

We're basically too far behind to win anything, and top 4 is almost gone, so it's not like we have a lot to lose with developing a player like him.

Top 4 isn't impossible. We lost 9 games last season and came in 3rd.
 
"Top 4 almost gone" after 7 games ffs :lol:

Well look at the table mate. We're 7 points behind and play on a different level than the current top 4. (And top 6 which is 1 point behind top 4, so there's competition)

That can change, but not overnight, while the other top 4 teams continue. It's not far-fetched to say it's almost gone.
 
Sell him. He's not gonna play much. Better let him go, he's a nice lad.
We're going with Bruno and Mount even if it ends the world.