December 12, 2018, 05:21:41 AM

Author Topic: What team would you pick  (Read 3563 times)

Online kramer0

  • Joe Mercer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4552
  • Karma: 6249
Re: What team would you pick
« on: January 17, 2018, 09:44:25 PM »
GK: Pickford
RB: Kenny
CB: Holgate
CB: Keane
LB: Baines
DM: Gana
CM: Rooney
CM: Davies
RAM: Walcott/Bolasie/Lennon (genuinely don't care)
CF: Calvert-Lewin
LAM: Sigurdsson

There's enough younger players in there to develop (Pickford, Kenny, Holgate, Keane, Davies, Calvert-Lewin), there's enough experience in there to prop them up (I think -- if Holgate-Keane doesn't work out, we can easily drop Keane for Jagielka or Williams), and that's our only midfield configuration that has shown any signs of being functional. Sub Vlasic or Lookman into the right attacking mid slot at the 60' mark if we're up 2 goals or more for some extra player development.

I get that Gana, Rooney, and Davies have all picked up injuries over the past month but I have no idea why Allardyce deviated from this basic blueprint. We played some watchable, effective football with that team shape and mix in midfield. And we actually scored goals too, even though the attacking lineup wasn't particularly good.

Of course, that's not what we're going to do, as evidenced by the Tosun signing and the grumblings about Cresswell and N'Zonzi.

All Allardyce/Walsh/the rest of the small army of people working on transfers needed to do to get us over the line comfortably this season and put us in a good position for the future is sign (1) a promising, young left back to get Martina out of the team and rotate with Baines, and (2) a good, progressive midfield passer to replace/rotate with Rooney, who can't play all the minutes we need him to.

Instead, we've signed two older attackers to take minutes away from Calvert-Lewin, Lookman, and Vlasic and we've phased out Davies (I don't give a fuck about form, he's still more useful than McCarthy or Schneiderlin). Putting aside the actual cost of the players we've signed, there's also the opportunity cost of holding back the development of players with demonstrated potential to be a part of something good here in the future. (And yes, the main thing all younger players need to improve is competitive first-team matches; nobody improves significantly from the bench or stands.)

Is any of what we've done worth it to be good value for 7th or 8th place for a season or two? No.

In a year or two, we're going to be buried under a mountain of expensive players in decline with fuck all to show for it.

\end{grumpy bastard rant}

Thank-o-Matic 3.0 By Adk Team