That 12-20 let's play with what is not essential thing is such a simplistic fantasy.
Like "there are 11 clear ones, our ideal; and then there is reality and what it imposes:
injuries, suspensions, burnout, form. But what we really want our 11".
Which automatically creates this 12-20 category, and invites such futile games as
"Cazorla belongs there anyway; he can serve as a pawn in "let's raise money for X" charade.
The possibility of a clear first 11 does exist in theory, and it's appeal is mainly pragmatic again: it'd be easier
to apply optimal action when the ideal is so simply defined and clear.
But is it really this way? Is there always a clear difference?
If you think that strongly, it's easy to see why you'd want to attribute each player to a clear category - it's the only way things make sense to you.
But even in theory, at least for some managers, a better philosophy would strive to have a first 15, or maybe more.
It's in the nature of the game, which is based on natural humans, that changes do occur at all times.
In fact it looks reasonable to hold that the "clear 11" idea is itself a pragmatic consequence - clubs just can't raise the funds to assemble the ideal team.
I've grown absolutely bored with hearing about Cazorla - and not just Rex's honest, no nonsense claims, but also reading through the forum you get the feeling
we don't really have a player by that name, All ideas, suggestions, formations have all the other names, but not his.
Part of me says - forgive the thought, it has to do with his age. But it's not serious enough. Age has to show.
Saying he's slower now is a half arsed excuse (he always looked like a chubby cream cake on the pitch).
But his other traits to me form such overwhelming evidence the dude is top quality, and of vital importance for us,
that I just don't get it. Pfft.
