[Search & Destroy]

I understand Cooks dilemma, we play 4231, and I that I applaud, even last night, some of the football 1st half was superb.

If he gets this 2nd quality striker, then either he, or Doyle doesn't play, Cook prefers the Gardners, OShea, Clucas because it's more fluid, it's interchangeable, and it's not the waste of a good wage.
Perhaps that's why we have the Lamb, it's just in case something happens to Doyle, if Doyle gets injured, Clucas or Gardner go upfront, Lamb then makes the bench.

Perhaps that is the way Cook has to play it to make the budget go further, strikers cost ££, good ones cost ££££, you wouldn't pay it just to sit on the bench and come on after 65/70 mins.

I for one would hate Cook to change his whole philosophy and go 442

One thing I would say though, Doyle. That early season form, I'm wondering, was that a fluke and is the Doyle of the last 4 games the real Doyle?

[Bobby Darling]

Search and Destroy, on 29 October 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

I understand Cooks dilemma, we play 4231, and I that I applaud, even last night, some of the football 1st half was superb.

If he gets this 2nd quality striker, then either he, or Doyle doesn't play, Cook prefers the Gardners, OShea, Clucas because it's more fluid, it's interchangeable, and it's not the waste of a good wage.
Perhaps that's why we have the Lamb, it's just in case something happens to Doyle, if Doyle gets injured, Clucas or Gardner go upfront, Lamb then makes the bench.

Perhaps that is the way Cook has to play it to make the budget go further, strikers cost ££, good ones cost ££££, you wouldn't pay it just to sit on the bench and come on after 65/70 mins.

I for one would hate Cook to change his whole philosophy and go 442

One thing I would say though, Doyle. That early season form, I'm wondering, was that a fluke and is the Doyle of the last 4 games the real Doyle?

Doyle has shown he can take chances and is positionally good in the box. Outside of it he can't play and didn't in his "good spell".

[Goku]

Yeah sadly Doyle offers nothing build up play wise.

[Paul Fisher]

Search and Destroy, on 29 October 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

I understand Cooks dilemma, we play 4231, and I that I applaud, even last night, some of the football 1st half was superb.

If he gets this 2nd quality striker, then either he, or Doyle doesn't play, Cook prefers the Gardners, OShea, Clucas because it's more fluid, it's interchangeable, and it's not the waste of a good wage.
Perhaps that's why we have the Lamb, it's just in case something happens to Doyle, if Doyle gets injured, Clucas or Gardner go upfront, Lamb then makes the bench.

Perhaps that is the way Cook has to play it to make the budget go further, strikers cost ££, good ones cost ££££, you wouldn't pay it just to sit on the bench and come on after 65/70 mins.

I for one would hate Cook to change his whole philosophy and go 442

One thing I would say though, Doyle. That early season form, I'm wondering, was that a fluke and is the Doyle of the last 4 games the real Doyle?

This a top post and a little bit of perspective.

[fatfrank]

Search and Destroy, on 29 October 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

I understand Cooks dilemma, we play 4231, and I that I applaud, even last night, some of the football 1st half was superb.

If he gets this 2nd quality striker, then either he, or Doyle doesn't play, Cook prefers the Gardners, OShea, Clucas because it's more fluid, it's interchangeable, and it's not the waste of a good wage.
Perhaps that's why we have the Lamb, it's just in case something happens to Doyle, if Doyle gets injured, Clucas or Gardner go upfront, Lamb then makes the bench.

Perhaps that is the way Cook has to play it to make the budget go further, strikers cost ££, good ones cost ££££, you wouldn't pay it just to sit on the bench and come on after 65/70 mins.

I for one would hate Cook to change his whole philosophy and go 442

One thing I would say though, Doyle. That early season form, I'm wondering, was that a fluke and is the Doyle of the last 4 games the real Doyle?

Good post. Who are you and what have you done with S&D?