Please log in to use all the site's facilities
|This business about Fraser playing wide|
at 12:07 20 Aug 2021
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.
|Forum Votes: ||358|
|Comment Votes: ||371|
|Prediction League: ||0|