Personally I'd class him as a left sided midfielder. He can cross, but he's not the type of player to regularly take on his full back, like Snodgrass and to a lesser extent Pilks. You're also far less likely to find him in the box than the others mentioned.
But that's a type of winger. Lappin is a winger in the mould of Beckham, while Pilkington is a winger in the mould of Ronaldo. But they're both still wingers who play in the same position. They just have different styles of play.
I think this is just semantics now, and we basically agree. Personally I'd classify Beckham as a right sided midfielder.
If we're to become a premiership outfit we're to upgrade the squad and there is no room for sentiment. As mentioned though we'll need to keep it in budget so I don't expect loads to happen at once unfortunately, one area at the moment I'd properly go town with would be the forwards as we are severely poor up there and look toothless without Holt, some interesting points being made about Elliot Bennett in Hoolahans role to support the forward yesterday he was pacey and dangerous. I agree with a lot of the names mentioned on here I'd say Fox and Jackson are worth keeping though. This January window is important so I'm not sure if we're going to go for a quick fix like a Robbie Keane and then look at the long term in the summer. Either way this is what we need to bring in my opinion. - Two decent forwards preferably early to mid twenties. - A defensive midfielder who can pass well and has good vision. - A left back hopefully some utility type player who can play both sides (rarity these days) - Left sided winger or wide forward to keep Pilkington on his toes.
I think we only need midfielders if they are better than what we have. The strikers is the big thing for me, no back up for Holt if we are to persist with one upfront and I don't think Jackson is really up to being a first team regular if we play with 2. I really would like to see how Bennett does up front with Holt and creating the space for others which Holt often does, not in the hole behind him.
Yes we do, as 2 at any one time (minimum) are likely to be out injured due to the physicality of the Premier League, that leaves us with 8 midfielders. Now our formation is typically 4-2-3-1, which requires 5 midfielders, and thus 3 in reserve. My point is if it's not broke, why fix it? You say you want to free up space in the squad, fine: jettison Ward, Chris Martin, Vaughan, Korey Smith - that is 4 spaces that can be used to improve the overall squad. I doubt there are any posters on here that would disagree with those 4 choices, they contribute nothing (nb: Ward has a bit) to this club in the last 1.5 years. Most clubs have a stable of 4-5 strikers; with Holt injured, it is imperative that we buy a recognised striker this window, like Graham, who can rotate with Holt and start taking the pressure off our midfield with the goalscoring. If our formation was typically 4-4-2, then I would agree that 10 is excessive, but when you play 5 across the middle of the park, strength in numbers is essential.
Well I'm glad at least someone has come up with a reasonable answer backed up with a bit of common sense, (which makes quite a change on here). Its better than the Goldeneadie repost. Although stating those defenders is not really part of the equation because they are not part of the squad anyway. I'm still dubious that at least one of those midfielders won't be sold, even if to get a better replacement in. In order to improve you buy to make the team better and get rid of the worst and for me Bennet is the worst of those midfielders.
Carrabuh, even if he is the worst midfielder in the squad (which I disagree with), he does fit our formation at the moment, which makes him more useful than, for example Surman, who doesn't play as effectively in any of the roles in our current formation. If a better right winger than Bennett, at a reasonable price, became available, then maybe we'd consider it, as you'd always look to improve the squad where you can. But I don't see the right wing as being a priority area at all. As others have said, Strikers, DM, LW, LB and CB are all higher up the pecking order than the RW position.
Spot on - I remember it as if ti was yesterday. I was watching down the pub and there were 2 Spuds fans sitting in front of me. Even theyhad to concede what a stunning goal it was!!!
Well, I'm sorry but talk about stating the bleeding obvious and trying to make out I don't agree with this. Do you think I'd honestly propose replacing Bennett with a worse player!! Have I not said the forward line is of great importance? This all began because I said we should get rid of Bennet and a few others, not that it was our No 1 priority to do so. There are plenty of others who should go before him BUT, I've already gone through this on many other threads. Surman not playing is nothing to do with the formation, its because he was poor before he was dropped. If players play well enough, (particularly under Hughton) they don't get dropped.
It has EVERYTHING to do with the formation, 4-2-3-1 isn't suitable. Now if we were talking about 4-1-2-1-2 (Diamond) or 4-4-2 (Straight), then he (Surman) is one of the prime candidates for LM, same with Howson/Fox for the CM role. Yes, he has been injured, but I expect our formation to alter somewhat over the rest of the season, as injuries/required rest take their toll, especially on those who have been playing week-in-week-out for the last few months (e.g Snodgrass, Pilkington, Johnson). This has a higher likelihood of happening, if someone like Graham is signed, allowing us to revert to two up top. Secondly, if Bennett is supposedly, as you say, our worst midfield player, then our club is clearly in a good place in terms of strength in depth.
I would be perfectly happy if all we signed this transfer window were a LB and a Striker; in addition to 4 players leaving (Ward, Martin, Smith and Vaughan). This would address our two biggest concerns (Garrido and Holt suffering season-ending injuries), because let's face it, if Morison or Kane had to lead the line the rest of the season, most of us would be seriously worried. CB - Bassong, Turner, R. Bennett, R. Martin, Barnett = 5 RB - Whittakker, R. Martin, R.Bennett and E.Bennett (emergency) = 4 DM/CM - Tettey, Johnson, Fox, Howson = 4 AM - Hoolahan, Butterfield, Howson E.Bennett = 4 LW, LM, RW - Pilkington, Snodgrass, E.Bennett, Surman = 4 GK - Ruddy, Bunn, Rudd = 3 In any of these above positions listed, if someone were to be out for the rest of the season, there is someone good enough to take their place, the same cannot be said for LB or Striker
Well Surman is a sided player so I don't really understand where your coming from. Both of our wingers cut in and Surman is also prone to move inside, both our wingers look to get central to score goals as does Surman. I don't really get your argument because Surman is idealy suited for those roles. I'd understand if our wingers were getting tight and wide to the byline before crossing regularly, but they don't, they either move inside or cross early, much like Surman. Surman is not playing because he wasn't playing well. He is as far as I can see behind Bennett in the pecking order.
Let's agree to disagree...nice to have this type of argument "how do we fit in all of our midfielders" a-la-Chelsea, rather than the "our players are all awful, but we must pick 4" a-la-QPR Surman will get his chance again this season to prove himself, he wasn't the only underperforming one earlier this season, before our massive unbeaten run.
I know you're a big fan of Surman Carrabuh, but I honestly cannot see how you rate him as more effective and a better player who offers us more than Bennett, I truly can't.
Also, he's injured - knee problem I believe. I saw him down the pub where I watch the away games twice last month. I'd sooner have Pilks or Benno though.
He scored 5 times as many goals in fewer starts and much fewer sub appearances. Granted Surman is also plagued with inconsistency but he gets into better positions to score despite being considerably slower, his control of the ball is far superior and his passing is better. Bennet is a much better athelete, more energetic and better defensively. Thats perhaps why people like him, I think we already have plenty of these so I prefer to keep Surman.
Agree with all of that, but perhaps it should be noted that Bennett was coming in straight from League 1, whereas Surman was already Championship quality when we signed him. I'd prefer to keep both. Also, Surman always strikes me as one of our best goal threats in midfield, along with Pilkington and Snodgrass. I haven't really followed this Butterfield chap, is he going to be our future Hoolahan?
I think Butterfield is more like Howson, whereas Hoolahan takes his time and thinks a bit (which I love about him), the other two I believe are more direct and look to go forward earlier and quickly.
