Managers at AFC have to review their budget and decide how best to spend it. They will look at the relative importance of each position, and how much it would cost to fill it with the quality they'd like to see there. And consistently, going right back to at least Fergie (who played the likes of Rougvie, natural position central defender, and McMaster, natural position lady's blouse, at left back), they've taken the view that money could be better spent than upgrading to a "proper" left back. Why? I would assume a combination of two things:
- good ones are hard to come by and relatively expensive
- they think it's a position where having a guy who's not that great will do least damage. Not no damage, just less than a crap centre-back, or a useless striker for example.
I know we fans like to think we know better, but maybe when the guys who actually played and managed at a professional level are so
consistent, it's because there's some truth in what they think. Obviously whoever is managing Chelsea won't think the same way, but given our budget maybe the approach makes sense.
In an ideal world we'd have a better left-back than Considine, whose limitations are obvious enough. But he was iirc in seventh place in The Scotsman's list of the best full backs in the SPL last season. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, and in the land of the SPL left-back Considine qualifies as more than decent.
We can all disagree of course, but all the evidence suggests Deek doesn't. Having signed a very good left-back he then decided that a player of his quality could contribute more in midfield. Left back isn't where he wants to dedicate too much of his limited resources.
Whether we like it or lump it, we are stuck with Conso for the foreseeable.
|
| + Visit Aberdeen FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Pacman1903
