Jut a point about that final sentence.
A successful team has continuity BECAUSE they're successful. Not because they just stick with something and eventually it works out. They change things when results aren't going well and once they start winning they stop changing
Seems a bit odd that you're arguing that we spend more money yet say someone who's arguing we've spent too much on single players who, as of yet, are not performing, wants the club to get into financial trouble.
But from a wider position he's more likely to be running onto a ball. Playing as a centre forward you often get the ball with your back to goal.
Personally, I would play him in the central position with Saka in the wider position.
But I can think of a fair few chances for each of the strikers that they've either hit wide or straight at the keeper. While we do often have a quite laborious build up play, the strikers are missing chances
Doesn't need to be any proof of an issue between them before anyway. If there was then it's more third degree murder.
And it's ice hockey. There's arguments, pushing and fights all the time.
It might seem like a small thing, but that makes a big difference overall. xG shows we should be scoring more than we're conceding, but actual G shows we are scoring less than we're conceding. In a game that changes a win to a loss.
I think it'd be more if someone made an enquiry we'd make out we'd be loath to sell him but if they were to make an offer we'd have to consider it. If no-one does that he'll be staying.
In old money they'd be classed as inside forwards.
It's not a wide position, it's central but giving them a bit more space to turn and run towards goal with their stronger foot