UTILITY PLAYERS

[garnett]

Morning, just, this is a subject I`ve been wanting to talk about for some time.
For those who are not familiar with the term, they are players who can play in a number of positions.
Back in the day they were invaluable, every team had at least one, playing squads were a hell of a lot smaller than today and managers had to do a lot of juggling around when injury hit.
But times have changed, some would argue not for the better, but thats another topic.
With squads considerably bigger and shed loads of money available I dont see the need for them, no more square pegs in round holes.
I believe the minimum requirement is 2 dedicated players per position.
The players I wish to talk about are Ben Johnson Pablo Fornals and Antonio, the first 2 are asked to play many positions when injuries happen only for them to be dropped as soon as the player is fit, I doubt our manager knows Johnsons preferred/best position and I dont believe it is doing his career any favours not being known as a ..........
Pablos career is also suffering not only through lack of game time but what he is expected to do, he is far from the exciting Spanish international we signed, who probably wont be going to the world cup.
And finally Antonio, those who bother to read what I have to say will know I`m not his biggest fan in any position, I`m flabbergasted that he is still considered our No 2 striker and youngsters have been got rid of without being given a decent shot, this wont be popular I know but I dont see any future with us, but our manager, who knows best, will continue to let him make a fool of himself, there is a home for him somewhere.

What do you lot think

[Castiron]

Morning, just, this is a subject I`ve been wanting to talk about for some time.
For those who are not familiar with the term, they are players who can play in a number of positions.
Back in the day they were invaluable, every team had at least one, playing squads were a hell of a lot smaller than today and managers had to do a lot of juggling around when injury hit.
But times have changed, some would argue not for the better, but thats another topic.
With squads considerably bigger and shed loads of money available I dont see the need for them, no more square pegs in round holes.
I believe the minimum requirement is 2 dedicated players per position.
The players I wish to talk about are Ben Johnson Pablo Fornals and Antonio, the first 2 are asked to play many positions when injuries happen only for them to be dropped as soon as the player is fit, I doubt our manager knows Johnsons preferred/best position and I dont believe it is doing his career any favours not being known as a ..........
Pablos career is also suffering not only through lack of game time but what he is expected to do, he is far from the exciting Spanish international we signed, who probably wont be going to the world cup.
And finally Antonio, those who bother to read what I have to say will know I`m not his biggest fan in any position, I`m flabbergasted that he is still considered our No 2 striker and youngsters have been got rid of without being given a decent shot, this wont be popular I know but I dont see any future with us, but our manager, who knows best, will continue to let him make a fool of himself, there is a home for him somewhere.

What do you lot think

I think there is a need for utility players in defence for instance. A full back who can drop to a CB for instance has helped us out a few times recently.
After all what would we have done without Antonio at right back and Reid as left back?.

[Brookbonds73]

On a slightly different take, I've always believed that if you buy a player for a specific role, then you play him there. Unless you're an Arsene Wenger who can turn a Henry from a winger in to arguably one of the greatest players France has produced then not only are you giving a disservice to that player you're also making yourself look like a bit of a cunt.
Personally I think any defender should be able to play at the back in any position, he may well be better in his natural position but in all honesty he should be at least competent in filling in anywhere if the need arises. Steve Potts is a prime example as are Billy Bonds, Ray Stewart etc.
The midfield is different, but then again it shouldn't be if you've bought a player for a particular role.
Forwards are at a premium, as their price tags suggest, if you've got a decent striker whose scored goals elsewhere then it's up to you to play to that players strengths, supply him and he'll score, he's done it previously so don't fix it if it's not broken.

[jameskel]

Fornals is his own worst enemy. Puts in a shift every game, therefor Rab works him like a carthorse

Johnson is a better going forward, but is he good enough to make that his own, probably not

Antonio I just dont get.

[9898]

Hate utitlity players.
From the days of chicken George through to the mediocrity of Fornals and the atrociousness of B Johnson. Get rid of them all.

[Whiskyman]

Fornals is his own worst enemy. Puts in a shift every game, therefor Rab works him like a carthorse

Johnson is a better going forward, but is he good enough to make that his own, probably not

Antonio I just dont get.

Pretty much sums it up for me. Fornals is doing his career no favours staying at our place, particularly as we've now brought in Paqueta to play in the role Fornals made his name in, and, as the OP has pointed out, excelled in to be a contender for the Spanish world cup squad. Incidentally being rated by Andres Iniesta as someone who could be a feature of the Spanish national team in years to come. And I think Iniesta knows a few things about midfield players.

Imo Johnson's future is more CD than FB. Is he good enough to be a regular PL starter.? Agree with you, probably not, certainly not at a contender club, but good enough to be a squad player.

Antonio ? Love his strength and his effort, apart from last night, but he'd be a much better player if he had something between the ears.

[h69]

On a slightly different take, I've always believed that if you buy a player for a specific role, then you play him there. Unless you're an Arsene Wenger who can turn a Henry from a winger in to arguably one of the greatest players France has produced then not only are you giving a disservice to that player you're also making yourself look like a bit of a cunt.
Personally I think any defender should be able to play at the back in any position, he may well be better in his natural position but in all honesty he should be at least competent in filling in anywhere if the need arises. Steve Potts is a prime example as are Billy Bonds, Ray Stewart etc.
The midfield is different, but then again it shouldn't be if you've bought a player for a particular role.
Forwards are at a premium, as their price tags suggest, if you've got a decent striker whose scored goals elsewhere then it's up to you to play to that players strengths, supply him and he'll score, he's done it previously so don't fix it if it's not broken.

Yep. I agree defenders should be able to play across the back and also in my opinion at DM. On Johnson, he is a RB but I've seen him have much better games at LB. As far as him playing CB, that has only been done when we have had 4 CBs out injured....what else are we supposed to do though ? I guess we could have played Rice there but that's a bigger waste.

[OZHAMMER]

As long as the formations continue to change (typically between four at the back or three CBs with wingbacks), then the players need to be somewhat versatile.

And finally Antonio....... I dont see any future with us

He's 32 (33 in March), so I don't think he'll be around for too many more seasons regardless of his ability.

[JayK]

Versatility definitely needed in a team for managers that like to switch things up in games when better subs not available. Takes Moyes out of the equation somewhat

[Dwayne Pipes]

Only really useful if they can actually play well and are comfortable being in various positions.
Not just chucked there to fill vacant places.