Jump to content

Too much utility

Danny

By Danny
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

 Share

Recommended Posts

Danny

Danny 9

Posted
Posted

SB's thread about our first 11 actually raised a very poignant thought in my mind.

When you look at our squad it is really hard to pick a first team because so many of our players are 'utility' players who don't specialise in one position and instead deputise in many.

Dailly - right back, CB, defensive midfielder.

McCulloch - apparently every position bar goalie, and he's no good in any of them.

Novo - right wing, left wing, striker, second striker

JCD - right wing, striker, second striker

Kirk - LB, RB, CB.

Whittaker - RB, RW.

Lafferty - Left wing, striker, second striker.

It's like when you go to pick our best team every position is filled by a guy 'who can fill in there' rather than someone who is filling their natural position.

We have a bunch of jack of all trades and few specialists.

And that doesn't help help get a settled 11 - we need our first choice RW, LW, striker, this that the next thing. We seem to lack any of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ricksen_da_best

ricksen_da_best 2,034

Posted
Posted

Novo - right wing, left wing, striker, second striker

JCD - right wing, striker, second striker

Both player are not right wingers, or were even considered their at their previous clubs.

Mcleish did give Novo a run their, But smith thinks because they have pace they can play their.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CooperSF

CooperSF 5,792

Posted
Posted
Novo - right wing, left wing, striker, second striker

JCD - right wing, striker, second striker

Both player are not right wingers, or were even considered their at their previous clubs.

Mcleish did give Novo a run their, But smith thinks because they have pace they can play their.

:craphead:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny

Danny 9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
good point Danny....when you look at teams who do have the cash you don't see players played in 4 different positions within a month! A player is brought in coz he is outstanding in one particular role not coz he can fill in every where

You'd think, wouldn't you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rfc_no1fan

rfc_no1fan 13

Posted
Posted

We must be the only club in the World, that when looking for a player, one of the main things we look at is if the player in question can play in 2 sometimes 3 different positions.

What ever happened to signing a left mid, if you needed a left mid and signing a striker and playing him there?

No squad should have more than 2-3 utility players, we have about 14

Link to post
Share on other sites
GregW

GregW 0

Posted
Posted

Well I think I disagree here, versatility is a good thing when players become injured as in theory you then have competent cover. Versatility also means you can be flexible with formations and tactics and for matches when you dont have injuries you just put the players in where they are suited best.

Now, as I said thats in theory. The problem we have is that a) our versatile players largely are just shite and b) Walter doesnt appear to be very good at choosing their optimum positions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny

Danny 9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Well I think I disagree here, versatility is a good thing when players become injured as in theory you then have competent cover. Versatility also means you can be flexible with formations and tactics and for matches when you dont have injuries you just put the players in where they are suited best.

I disagree - just buy 2 or 3 good players in each position. One first choice, and 1 good cover. Better than having 2 'versatile' guys neither of whom excel in afforementioned position.

Now, as I said thats in theory. The problem we have is that a) our versatile players largely are just shite and b) Walter doesnt appear to be very good at choosing their optimum positions.

Catch 22. The point is versatility means there isn't one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
GregW

GregW 0

Posted
Posted

Well Danny I think we'll just have to a agree to disagree :) , but thats what a discussion is all about. It all depends on the actual player, if the player is fantastic in one position but can ALSO play in others then I see that as being added benefit. Just because you're versatile doesnt mean you cant have a favorite dominant position which you excel at and other positions less so. So I think versatility as a whole is a good thing. But as I mentioned whether we have the right mix is debatable and most of the "versatile" players we have dont seem to excel anywhere. Though I think we're being unfair to the likes of Lafferty as we havent really had chance to see him play

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

aye "so called" utility, half these players dont play properly in half the positions they are said to be used to, they should be playing in there correct position or nowhere else unless of course there is an injury crisis and they simply HAVE to. I feel alot of players have lost confidence and general ability because they are being forked around in several positions my prime victim in this i feel is Steven Whittaker, boy has played 4 positions since joining Rangers. He was ONLY a right-back before he moved to us. Now he is a LB, RB, RM, MC? for fuck sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skol

Skol 401

Posted
Posted
Glad to see this thread was taken seriously...

I genuinely believe the more 'versatile' players you have, the less it can help you.

I think Holland and Brazil would disagree with you on that.

I see the point you're trying to make. However, it is nowhere near as simple as that.

Our problem isn't that our players are too versatile. It's that too many of them don't have enough quality in any one position (their "true" position if you want to use such parlances).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...