Mirth But the question is around the opportunity cost he represents.
Right. Our current question is whether we try to dispense with these opportunity costs by upgrading Havertz or Martinelli, or change our attacking approach more drastically.
Havertz's role is much freer, which means we could basically put any alternative player there and they just have to make a better contribution. Not easy as Havertz does a counterintuitive amount of stuff, but not so hard.
Martinelli's role is much more of a team role (he creates width) which means we'd ideally replace him with a guy who does everything he does but is also much better one on one and a less anxious, more intelligent finisher. Sadly this describes a version of Thierry Henry who also does Arteta levels of defensive and tactical work, like all those selfless left flank or cutback runs to nowhere Martinelli is always doing.
Who? For example, Nico Williams might well not be good enough to fit the description.
So you know, conceptually, I would prefer to upgrade Martinelli but that's probably just because in my mind, we are signing a far better player if we do—because we'd have to.
But in practice, I suspect we upgrade Havertz and make him what he is, the ultimate utility lunk.
As for changing our approach more drastically … an imaginary elite striker who's a great runner, great on the ball, great at finishing and works hard will automatically change it.
I can't see us changing our basic approach. That is extreme territorial domination and pressing, with reliance on volume of key passes and set pieces to get the goals.
We need this approach to be dominant in the Premier League, which is now stacked with clubs that defend deep and compact with great organisation compared to a decade ago. We need 5–6 players joining the attack and we need to score through congestion.
