- Jan 20, 2013
- 11,816
- 13,655
- Thread starter
- #541
I do see your point, but If we are buying I would rather it be someone who really is a first 11 player and make us drop one of CE, MD, NC or EL. Not linger behind, making a good cameo here and there. I don't think he is better that our first choice 3, so he doesn't 'improve' us . That's my point. If we want more numbers just don't sell Lennon.
Kono is good but is really just variation and not that much better than the variation we have. I won't be upset him arriving, I love a signing and new blood, just don't really see the point.
The game had become incredibly complicated. It's becoming less and less a case of whose quality XI is the strongest and overcoming the other in that vein, and more and more similar to a chess game (but not entirely of course). There are far too many games in which Chadli goes missing, especially against sides which don't afford him space since he's not great at working through tight spaces. We could spend 15m+ to buy a quality improvement to simply overcome (thereby pushing Chadli back in the preference and thus fucking him off), or we could buy a 5-7m player on end of contract with an entirely different skillset for a versatility improvement to fill in at Chadli's weaknesses.
The whole point I've been trying to make in this thread is why spend that much more for the what would equate to a very similar net effect in point accumulation, if not the very same? Chadli clearly does well against quality sides willing to attack us, so why not fill in those gaps where he's struggled, and earn the same net positive point haul as you'd get if you replaced Chadli, for considerably less money spent? And on top of it, we've not fucked off a strongly contributing winger as the status quo here is alternation per situations rather than replacement.
Does that explain the case being made here better?