Fox may be a liability at times at the back but no more than Harding in my opinion but going forward Fox is head and shoulders above Harding,he just has better technique and moves better,also spots a good pass,perfect example is the ball he put in for Guly to head in at Coventry! Harding just hasn't got the ability to put that kind of cross in.It's a game of opinion though and what's right for me might not match what's right for you,that's football as they say.
Harding & Fox are both equal overall, Fox is however better attacking and Harding is better defending as Fox has a tendancy to drift inwards a bit leaving the flank exposed i dont mind who plays as they both play very similar to each other, although people moan at harding for not tackling but no-one mentions it about fox what does harding have to do to impress people? he is very similar to fox, yet no-one criticizes him for a bad game and yes he has had a couple oh, and Fox had a slight pelvic problem last night
I have no problem with Harding,think he can do a job like Dickson can but Fox is a level above both of them.
Just a thought...some teams operate well with certain players on the pitch, even though technically they may be less gifted than others i.e. England have the pick of the best players in the country but are crap, Cloughies Notts Forest a team of less gifted players but gelled together. It's how effective a unit we are...I cant get to many games but, in the ones I have seen, Harding has always contributed well and is not a liability. Compare Morgan with Guly...no doubt who is consistently the most technically gifted...but which is the most match-winning effective? As NA says we have strength in all positions, why keep comparing individuals? (which I know I've just done myself!) We are a team.
great post! who plays should be who best to counter the other teams attacking, be that fox or harding, richardson or butterfield etc etc
