I see this a lot about Usworth, but I can't help feeling its a little harsh. I know people use the fact he has gone out to win titles as a stick to beat him with, but to me, that has been a way of instilling a winning mentality to the players as much as anything. He also, to my mind, tends to have the players develop tactically and defensively with an eye on working hard and working for the team first and foremost.
A lot of his players are adaptable and can or have played several positions, which can be a positive or a negative depending on how you see it. Moyes did this a lot with young players in the PŁ which I thought was a negative, as he often left young players to sink or swim at the top level, and often used those experiences as evidence they were not ready, despite being nowhere near their true positions. But in Unsworths case, at the level they are at, I don't see it as such a bad thing developmentally.
All of the players he brings through tend to have a level of respect and decency and seem unite as a team and play for the manager, often playing unfamiliar roles with professionalism, and he has had to deal with several upheavals of playing staff, given the nature of his post, as there is a large turnover of players on a yearly basis, and his better players either get promoted, sent on loan, sold or released, while he constantly fields players from younger age groups as well.
The occasions he has played the likes of Niasse or Charsley are often used as reasons for him being only out for himself, but I think it's a fine balance between doing what is right for the players individual development and the development of the group as a unit. It just always struck me as a little unfair is all.
