Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
This business about Fraser playing wide 12:07 - Aug 20 with 587 viewsHighgateBlue

I would very much prefer Fraser to be playing in the No. 10 role, as would many others on here. However, I think he can do a job out wide, if we need him to. We've looked slick passing the ball around in the middle of the park and going forward (albeit without enough penetration at times).

However, I really do wonder what Cook was trying to say in his interview, and why it is that he was unable to communicate it to us. If you take what he says literally, he lacks a grasp of basic logic.

This is his justification for Fraser playing wide:

“If Scott doesn’t play wide, the reality is, we haven’t got, since Conor Chaplin got injured, a number 10. We haven’t had Wes Burns and Sone Aluko and Kyle Edwards wasn’t in the building, so we’ve had no choice with some of our selections."

If Scott /doesn't/ play wide, we don't have a no. 10?! That makes no sense at all. If Scott plays no. 10, he is NOT wide, and we DO have a no. 10.

Presumably he is complaining that we don't have a wide player fit at present, so he has made the decision that Fraser goes there, and then a striker plays no. 10 because we have no others if Fraser is playing wide. But (a) he doesn't say that, and (b) that doesn't explain why he doesn't play Fraser at no. 10 and either a striker or another midfielder wide. That may not be the best answer, but at least it only involves one player out of position rather than two, in this shoe-horned 4-2-3-1 obsession.

He only has one rigid plan, does Cook. One would expect him to understand it and be able to explain it.

I do worry about Cook. I hope I am wrong.
1
This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:14 - Aug 20 with 551 viewsportmanking

I read it as Cook acknowledging we didn't have a dedicated number 10 with Fraser wide? Given the injuries to Chaplin, Burns, Aluko and Edwards being a late arrival. I think that's all he was trying to say.
0

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:18 - Aug 20 with 531 viewsRobTheMonk

I really want to see Fraser in that number 10 spot. He has a bit of elegance and is good at creating little pockets of space.
0

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:18 - Aug 20 with 527 viewspointofblue

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:14 - Aug 20 by portmanking

I read it as Cook acknowledging we didn't have a dedicated number 10 with Fraser wide? Given the injuries to Chaplin, Burns, Aluko and Edwards being a late arrival. I think that's all he was trying to say.


I think he is making it up as he goes along slightly though - both Dobra and Barry are wide players; we played the latter at Burton in the number ten position and still shoved Fraser out to the wing. Admittedly perhaps both Dobra and Barry are happier on the left than the right which is where the issue could lie.

Poll: Would you be happy with Anthony Barry as the new Town manager?

1
This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:21 - Aug 20 with 508 viewsBluefish

Sounds like a man floundering under pressure. He is taking lambertesque nonsense there

Dobra could play either side, Barry should have played on the left and not down the middle. Bonne could have played.

Penney could have played left with coulson at lb. Coulson apparently played as a 10 for boro sometimes. Fraser looks out of sorts and seems as if he needs to be central, not sure how that is going to happen when Chaplin returns and we try and juggle Bonne and Norwood


The reality is Cook doesn't have excuses and needs to be decisive about what he wants and make it work.

Poll: Who has performed the worst but oddly loved the most?
Blog: [Blog] Long Live King George

0

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:35 - Aug 20 with 449 viewsHighgateBlue

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:14 - Aug 20 by portmanking

I read it as Cook acknowledging we didn't have a dedicated number 10 with Fraser wide? Given the injuries to Chaplin, Burns, Aluko and Edwards being a late arrival. I think that's all he was trying to say.


OK, so he meant "If Scott plays wide", but he said “If Scott doesn’t play wide".

If that's right, fine, we all make mistakes with language every now and again.

It still isn't a justification for him playing wide though. It's just pointing out another problem with him playing wide, namely that there isn't a no. 10 playing at no. 10.
0
This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:36 - Aug 20 with 438 viewsPinewoodblue

This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:21 - Aug 20 by Bluefish

Sounds like a man floundering under pressure. He is taking lambertesque nonsense there

Dobra could play either side, Barry should have played on the left and not down the middle. Bonne could have played.

Penney could have played left with coulson at lb. Coulson apparently played as a 10 for boro sometimes. Fraser looks out of sorts and seems as if he needs to be central, not sure how that is going to happen when Chaplin returns and we try and juggle Bonne and Norwood


The reality is Cook doesn't have excuses and needs to be decisive about what he wants and make it work.


Perhaps there is a lack of quality, or experience, in his mates who assist him.

Poll: how many changes to starting 11 v Wcombe

0
This business about Fraser playing wide on 12:53 - Aug 20 with 397 viewsbluestandard

Reading most posts on here, there is a lot of attention on the need for Fraser to play the no10, but heres what I don't get.

Fraser is 6ft, not short but not exactly a massive aerial threat, and surely different to Crooks who was previously targeted for the number 10 position? Given that, and the fact that we are clearly being set up to push the wing backs on and get lots of crosses in the box, are we planning to partner him with Bonne (5"11), or Chaplin (5"7) or Pigott (6"1)? Chaplin has clearly been brought in to play either as a 9 or a 10 (best finisher PC has ever worked with + in the opening game, played through the middle in preference to Fraser). Can anyone really see a front two of Fraser and Chaplin/Bonne? The only one with real aerial ability is Pigott, which is why I think he is starting all the games. Is it the case that Fraser only starts at 10 with Pigott? It feels a bit unbalanced to me.
0


Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2022