| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 10 16:09 - Nov 22 with 2650 views | PacittiJohn | that only leaves Nunez. Puzzling. |  | | |  |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 1 i on 12:47 - Nov 23 with 203 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 1 i on 18:56 - Nov 22 by southnorfolkblue | Both were golden boot winners playing in the 10 role. The more puzzling issue is why it’s not working for them here |
Fine margins. Akpom was involved in most of our best moments but he didn't take a. Hance he takes one or two and he's had a great game. He's a moments player and it's not happening goa wise. Chaplin was also a moments player. The more difficult thing for Sammie and Akpom is we used to play a style to go wide and cut back (Davis and Burns). A number 10 dream. Now it's Philogene, Clarke and Egeli who instinctively are looking to cut in and shoot. Not wrong just different. But we don't play a style for huge number 10 scoring numbers like before. |  |
|  |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 10 on 15:55 - Nov 23 with 142 views | cressi |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 10 on 17:16 - Nov 22 by GavTWTD | When Wes returns Walle Egeli could go central. |
That is the most likely outcome |  | |  |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 10 on 16:56 - Nov 23 with 118 views | NthQldITFC |
| Akpom is not a No 10, Szmodics is not a No 10 on 00:56 - Nov 23 by reusersfreekicks | The evidence doesn't suggest that |
I think, to be fair, a lot of this is down to the description of a 10. If it's 'coming with pace/power from a little deeper and playing off the shoulder of a big number 9', then that's exactly what Szmodics and Akpom are/have been. If it's 'being a creative player in behind a number 9 and bringing and bringing everybody else into it just outside the opposition box' then Nunez is clearly more suited to it. I think traditionally a number 10 has been thought as the former, but we are trying to play much more of the latter. |  |
|  |
| |