Should Crooks start at Burnley?

[parmoboy]

He's now come on and scored the winning goal in back to back games.

He was poor earlier in the season but he was playing with a hernia, and most players were struggling under Wilder. Players are given a fresh start under a new manager, so does Crooks deserve a run in the team?

For the record, I'd keep thing as they are for now and continue to use him as a super sub, I was just interested to find out what others thoughts were.

 

[Andy_W]

We're playing well with the team that's starting, and if we need a goal he's the ideal person to bring on. If we're winning, then he's not the ideal person to bring on.

Keep it the way it is for now, but the door certainly isn't closed.

 

[TeaCider]

Not sure who you'd drop for him right now.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

Not sure who you'd drop for him right now.

Forss.

 

[parmoboy]

Not sure who you'd drop for him right now.

Think at a push you could bring him in for Forss and play Akpom a no 9 but it would be risky when you consider how well Akpom has performed as a 10. We'd miss Forss the high-pressing.

 

[TeaCider]

Forss.

Having Crooks as our main striker would not work for me.

Akpom has been brilliant as a number 10, I wouldn't want to move him from there right now either.

 

[Andy_W]

Think at a push you could bring him in for Forss and play Akpom a no 9 but it would be risky when you consider how well Akpom has performed as a 10. We'd miss Forss the high-pressing.

Exactly, Akpom's been one of our best players, and the biggest goal threat we've had in years, no way should we move his position.

He seems very good at making a run from a number 10 position, which often doesn't get tracked very well, which is where he's getting his goals. It's harder to do that from further up the pitch.

 

[Diego]

Stays on the bench for me but he’s unlucky and he’s the first person to come in the team if there’s an injury in midfield or if we are to change to shape for any particular game.

 

[Alexander Supertramp]

Absolutely not

 

[muniz]

working great as sub why change it, he wont have same impact as a starter

 

[Marvanelli]

If it's not broke, don't fix it.

 

[Morton94]

Wouldn't change the winning team as long as we keep winning, Forss has been silently excellent with his pressing and movement and I wouldn't want to change Akpoms position.

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

Wouldn't change the team at the min and crooks is perfect in that impact sub role.

Also dont think with Burnleys high pressing, high energy game it would be suited to crooks starting. Think he will have more impact coming on when there are a few more tired legs on the pitch

 

[fella]

Impact sub. Don't mess with what's proving successful.

 

[allied_assault]

Forss does a lot of work which is appreciated by the team and gives Chuba the room to get into goal scoring positions - don't change it

 

[Beverleyred]

For me, Duncan and the Tree are our super subs, leave as is, barring injuries or a drop in form.

 

[DanBoro4499]

I wouldn't be against giving crooks a go up front in place of forss, but it's difficult to justify at the minute because of the results.

While I appreciate the work Forss gets through, he's not scoring or creating, he's just running around a lot.

 

[starplayer]

I wouldn't be against giving crooks a go up front in place of forss, but it's difficult to justify at the minute because of the results.

While I appreciate the work Forss gets through, he's not scoring or creating, he's just running around a lot.

He had an assist fir Jones v Blackpool and for Mcgree v Norwich

 

[Mendieta14]

Wouldn't start Crooks upfront so I don't see how he can be in the starting 11 atm.

 

[Maccarone]

No need to change at this point,keep the same winning formula, we have had too many Manager's who have messed around with the team selection and we have suffered because of it.
I like Carricks approach, keep it simple and reward the players who are doing well.