BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
You seem to be missing the point...yep, that's bollux. A case of slipping the word "generally" in as your get out clause. If Bowler is quality then you won't improve the quality of the squad by losing him and who else plays on the right flank who's as good as him? So yep, you won't improve the balance either. Bowler ain't a luxury he's a quality player and in a team of limited attacking threat it's something we will miss if we lose him.
All that said, a bit of pragmatism has to come into it as to if we get a decent offer for him then it has to be seriously considered.
What I'm saying is that you don't need to replace a player 'like for like' in order to improve the overall quality of the squad / team.
So (for example) It's possible to improve the squad (and the balance) by having a better player on the left side, a better player in the middle and a slightly less skilful but more direct player on the right. Of course, you've got to get the right players, but that's kind of the point... I'd expect us to reinvest any fee we got for Bowler.
And as far as I'm concerned it absolutely is a luxury for a side like ours to have so much stock in a single player and that is fundamentally because we are limited if we lose him, which can result from injury, loss of form, suspensions or the fact that decent opposition just seek to nullify the threat.
Last edited: