Because as Dutch says, the scouting report on him is that he is a well rounded player who isn’t easily pigeon holed. It’s not the role he made his name in, but he has played it and it’s reasonable to look at what he’s good at and think about the ways he might be able to fit into a side that plays the way we do. Very few players will already be doing an exact replica of the role they’d play here so with every player there is a degree of thinking about how they’d fit.
I dont see much in the discussion indicating that anyone thinks he is being earmarked as a straight replacement for Fab though, at least not initially.
Caicedo is the kind of player people are suggesting could come in as a 6, Gravenberch is someone who would more likely come in as the left sided 8, but could potentially play the 6 in a specific situation, based on the fact he has played as a defensive midfielder before and most reports on him suggest he was considered versatile at Ajax
Yes totally fair. It’s the fklip side of the Richie Partridge syndrome - jst because you think the team needs width doesnt mean a player whose best position is out wide is the right option if the player is just not good enough.
But this is just a repeat of the conversation the other week. The answer is the same as it was then. You seemingly dont like the answer, which is fine, but you have had the question answered.
EDIT: That comes across as more dickish than I intended
Haven’t you been talking about playing Trent in midfield more? Is that because he’s not good enough at RB?
Gini played a bunch of different roles. Came here and played the one we needed him to. At 20 years old it’s not exactly far fetched to think he’s not nailed down the type of midfielder he might be. Across his career Gerrard played three different centre midfield roles, out wide and filled in at right back.
Edited my original post to appease your pedantry. Either way, it doesn’t diminish my actual point that the general consensus isn’t that he’d be coming in to solve the Fabinho issue.
What have you looked at? Because at the moment your replies just come off as disparaging of others whilst not really offering any rationale other than “that isn’t where they’ve played most often so far in their careers”.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting he’s our new 6 from day one. The fact he’s played there in the past at least indicates it’s not entirely alien for him.
Same with Mount and playing as an 8. He has played there and not just as emergency cover, but starting games at the highest level of football.
All that matters is whether the recruitment guys think they can do what Klopp wants from them. Plenty examples of Klopp changing players roles to great success. A young lad like Gravenberch could well be someone he sees potential in to offer cover at 6 at a pinch or someone who could be moulded into that being his primary role.
Can we skip back to the part where you show us where all the people are stating confidently that they think he can play as a 6?
You’re asking others to prove something that they weren’t even arguing for in the first place.
It has been reported that Gravenberch was considered versatile during his time at Ajax as either a 6,8 or 10.
Since he would likely be coming in as an 8 and we would still have Bajcetic and some combination of Fab/Hendo/Milner if he can or cannot play the 6 isn’t a huge issue.
That he might be able to play in a double pivot might potentially one day be of use should we ever need him to, and that’s probably the extent of what most people are alluding to when saying he is considered versatile.
