Patters wrote:
Tony Montana wrote:
@ Patters
No my point is that he shouldn't just be a workhorse who doesn't pretend to be a flashy prick like Milner just because it didn't work out against Serbia. He obviously believes he can play how he plays. Why should he just adapt? Maybe he and the people around him believe he should carry on as is.
And I've explained why - even if it may not be your 'natural game' or what you enjoy the most, it doesn't mean you shouldn't consider playing that position.
I've explained the reasoning of that, and along with my gut feeling, that he is not going to compare favourably with others in his position. That's why I am saying what I am. Other than a "nah he's good at what he does" vs "no he's not" argument, there's not a lot left to be said.
Yeah but it''s only your opinion (which I accept you are totally entitled to give).
I still don't see why, all of a sudden, that Cleverly should just consider playing the workhouse role just because he wasn't good against Serbia. If he's not good enough for United or England, he'll move elsewhere or adapt on the advice of his bosses. Should Lescott consider LB because he was poor at CB for a couple of games?
Should Diaby consider the workhorse role too? What about Ramsey?