Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I don't agree, why is it okay for one type of player (defenders) to contribute little as attackers, but not okay for attacking players to contribute little as defenders? It's illogical.
As I said, I'm not naive enough to think that you drop players like Collins, Goutas, McGuinness and Sipios because they don't offer a great deal in an attacking or creative sense, but where is the consistency of thought to a process which does not treat the ten outfield players in the same way?
You use the term "dedicated defender" - the one I'm thinking of here is "out and out defender", why is acceptable to have out and out defenders, but, seemingly, not okay to have out and out attackers?
I agree that the two players concerned could do more defensively, but, watching us at Middlesbrough and then against Watford, it seems to me that Bulut is in danger of cutting off his nose to spite his face - is playing someone like Wintle in such an attacking role giving us more overall than what we lose by having the, apparently, defensively suspect Robinson or Colwill there?
I mentioned before on here that most managers appear to be okay with a 7/4 defensive/attacking make up to their team, Bulut wants an 8/3 split.