But any right back is better then no right back. Within reason, I mean. If we have to revert to three at the back because our only right back is injured is a bit of a farce, IMO
Jenkinson was available and I'm really surprised we weren't in for him. Ok, he split opinion, but he would have done a job for us and certainly wouldn't have been any worse than Byram.
If we have got a RB you know Byram would not have been injured, it would have been a striker and you'd all want to know why we didn't buy mini judas.
No, I fully expected Byram to get injured, or suspended, or be out of form at some point in the next four months. At least up front we have cover for our starting striker, albeit with question marks over their effectiveness.
At right back we have nothing and the only back up plan could be to change our formation. That, IMO, is poor.
My feeling is that we often adopt too much of a "value for money" approach. I'm not saying we could or should spray money around left right and centre, but there are times and positions where sometimes we have to make a compromise to get players we need, whether that's paying a bit more for someone, or buying someone who'll have no resale value (Fonte being quite an exception, and maybe the penny is finally dropping).
For example, when we signed Carroll, despite the fact that he was already injured, we were then only looking for a quality striker who could also play out wide when Carroll was fit; G&S weren't prepared to pay decent money for a striker who might have to be left on the bench if Carroll was fit. So we've spent how long and how many transfer windows always saying we need to sign a striker? Instead we reach the end of each window and end up with stop gap and almost always poor quality loans that underperform and still don't resolve the issue going into the next window.
Likewise, how long have we been after a decent right back? Sometimes you have to pay through the nose or pay good money even if there is no resale value when there is a glaring hole in the squad.
Slav said they looked for a RB and couldn't find one available that they rated enough to sign, yet people think that is wrong, and we should have signed someone they don't rate? ;hmm
Comments
Adrian
Fonte - Collins - Reid
Antonio - Kouyate - Obiang - Cresswell
Lanzini - Snodgrass
Carroll
Curse of the cup finalists often strikes teams, who go on a long losing run in the run up to the final, and Fonte to get a goal and play a stormer.
Jenkinson was available and I'm really surprised we weren't in for him. Ok, he split opinion, but he would have done a job for us and certainly wouldn't have been any worse than Byram.
Would actually like to see this team...
He isn't very good, at the moment.
He may be a Cresswell one day, but that day is not yet.
At right back we have nothing and the only back up plan could be to change our formation. That, IMO, is poor.
And being forced to change to a 3 may result in being spanked by a side perfectly suited to playing against a 3/5 at the back.
For example, when we signed Carroll, despite the fact that he was already injured, we were then only looking for a quality striker who could also play out wide when Carroll was fit; G&S weren't prepared to pay decent money for a striker who might have to be left on the bench if Carroll was fit. So we've spent how long and how many transfer windows always saying we need to sign a striker? Instead we reach the end of each window and end up with stop gap and almost always poor quality loans that underperform and still don't resolve the issue going into the next window.
Likewise, how long have we been after a decent right back? Sometimes you have to pay through the nose or pay good money even if there is no resale value when there is a glaring hole in the squad.
No RB in world football who they rated lol