I think the situation is more nuanced

The difficulty with Wes is that when he doesn't play regularly and is reduced to short sub appearances his form suffers so it becomes self fulfilling. At the start of the season he was playing well and generally when he has started games he has played well so had he started more games I think that the view that he is a bit passed it would be less generally accepted. Although i think he will probably go abroad, I would not be at all surprised if he had a stellar season next season were he to go to another champ club.

In my view, he has always been a player who has played far better when starting games so this role of substitute making cameo appearances doesn't really suit him. He sometimes struggles to pick up the pace of the game when coming on as a sub for short stints whereas when he starts he gets on the ball and dictates the tempo.

I completely accept the argument that madders needed to start and indeed by playing regularly Madders has developed as a player and has also developed into a massively valuable asset for the club so you can argue that vindicates Farke in terms of what he has done. I would though question whether we needed Leitner (although I think he looks good and hope he stays if Madders goes) and indeed earlier in the season selecting the likes of Vrancic or Watkins ahead of Wes. Its been pretty obvious to me that for the last two seasons we should have been interchanging Wes and Maddison to manage the workload of both of them. As it is we didn;t play Maddison enough last season and we've not played Wes enough this season.

Farke says the right things about Wes etc but his actions betray his words to a degree.

For a side who started the season with Hoolahan, Maddison and Pritchard as attacking midfield options our creativity level and goal return has been absolutely appalling. Hard to think of three better playmakers at this level.

Posted By: Jim, Apr 25, 09:33:21