Bishop
John Lacy
He's a threat in behind, has good movement, creates space for others. Reasonably quick. Quite good at creating a bit He's a decent target for crosses. And he presses well.
The only way he's not a good fit is that he's not a clinical finisher.
I don't get your final paragraph. He's not a backup striker. But he is a backup striker? I don't particularly care why he was signed over a year ago. He's currently our backup striker.
I largely disagree with your first paragraph. I don't really see any of that but maybe I'm just missing it. I don't recall his runs in behind, I think his creation is poor, his passing is often off target although he does have some decent layoffs but not something I would label as good imo. His hold up play is poor as his first touch is often awry, I dunno im just totally missing this good fit thing. [emoji28]
I'm saying he's not supposed to be our backup striker and wasn't bought to be one. He has become a backup because he hasn't been good enough to keep the starting berth.
Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk