craig 5,199 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I'd say that we have better cover in central midfield than most other positions. Aside from striker I would say you are right. However..... we also have a lot of CM injuries right now - 3 injured CM's (Mendes, Edu, Thomson) and we are getting closer to bare bones. But if we get to the point of having to play Whittaker in there then we willbe in dire straits. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 .I really don't understand the thinking behind that at all. If he was tasked with the job of being a defensive mid he'd be given a free role to defend & attack as he pleases, which is exactly what he seems to enjoy doing! Yes he does but mostly because he is playing CB. The midfield area of the pitch is far more congested than the defensive area (read 8 or 9 players vs 4 or 5 including Bougherra). Also, when he makes his foraging runs you will notice that he generally makes these down the right flank and not in the centre of the pitch. I would be very surprised if he was tasked to be a defensive mid, sitting in, and he would contain himself to not breaking forward - just doesnt seem to be his style. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Share Posted December 20, 2009 I know you have made some very weird selection predictions in your time Zappa but Whittaker at CM has to almost top them . Oh come on craig! We've played 2 or 3 games this season with LM in central defense & that was Walter Smith picking the team! Being serious for just a moment - even though Naismith hasn't shot the lights out at CM how on earth can you come to the conclusion that Whittaker would be a better option there than Naismith when Whittaker has never, ever played that position before ? . It's quite simple really; Whittaker is more likely to do the tracking & make the blocking tackles required of a good central midfielder whilst also being a player that can take on a man & create like Naismith does. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I know you have made some very weird selection predictions in your time Zappa but Whittaker at CM has to almost top them Being serious for just a moment - even though Naismith hasn't shot the lights out at CM how on earth can you come to the conclusion that Whittaker would be a better option there than Naismith when Whittaker has never, ever played that position before ? Sorry but that would be potentially suicidal if you ask me. I would rather play Fleck there than Whittaker and I would still rather play Naismith there than Whittaker. That said, with the injuries mounting Whittaker is closer to a game in there than any of us would like Whittaker did ok in there against Sporting 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Whittaker doesnt even make tackles in defence so why should we be expecting him to do so in midfield ? Whittaker's defenive positioning is absolutely terrible - not sure why we would expect it to be any better just because he is in midfield. All about opinions I guess, but now isnt the time to be tinkering with putting players into unfamiliar roles, certainly not players who are obviously out of form as Whittaker is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Share Posted December 20, 2009 Whittaker doesnt even make tackles in defence so why should we be expecting him to do so in midfield ? . That's rubbish mate & Whittaker isn't a defender by any stretch of the imagination. If he's played in defense, he's probably a better left back than right back, but that's another story.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 .That's rubbish mate & Whittaker isn't a defender by any stretch of the imagination. If he's played in defense, he's probably a better left back than right back, but that's another story.. What is rubbish ? That he doesnt tackle ? How many goals this season have come from his side of the pitch because he doesnt tackle a player prior to the cross coming in ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,270 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Whittaker doesnt even make tackles in defence so why should we be expecting him to do so in midfield ? Whittaker's defenive positioning is absolutely terrible - not sure why we would expect it to be any better just because he is in midfield. All about opinions I guess, but now isnt the time to be tinkering with putting players into unfamiliar roles, certainly not players who are obviously out of form as Whittaker is. Craig there is a massive difference between not able and low on confidence , Whittakers showing on our UEFA run proves he has ability , our midfield this season would give any team the skitters , we need to get of our players backs and start backing the younger ones , far too often we right off players after a few bad games , wee fleck anyone 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 20, 2009 Author Share Posted December 20, 2009 Whittaker's defenive positioning is absolutely terrible - not sure why we would expect it to be any better just because he is in midfield. . Primarily because he's not comfortable in defense, but as an emergency stand-in midfielder, who are any of us to say that he couldn't do a good job? This thread IS about emergency stand-ins for the central midfield role.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Either way it is a moot argument because Edu is close enough to fitness that IF we had an injury to Davis or McCulloch that he would replace whomever was injured. Chances of both being injured in same game is slim. Thomson only expected to miss 3 games and will not have lost his base fitness in a 2 week period. Mendes due back in January at some point. The need for Whittaker is slim. Either way, whether you like it or not, WS would NOT play Whittaker at CM ahead of Naismith. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.