At times he looks like he's never seen a football before but that unpredictability seems to increase his threat. He falls over the ball one minute, then creates or scores a goal the next. Is he really good enough though?

I think many would take that view that he's best used as an impact player/sub but the argument may be that he needs to play regularly to get the very best out of him. Use him sparingly and he's less effective. Start him often and he will contribute goals outside of his foibles.

It's fascinating how someone like Ryan Kent - an undoubtedly more skilful player - doesn't seem able to contribute the same numbers but Sakala - so clumsy and inconsistent - usually always does something of note.

For example, if we were to choose between him and renewing Ryan Kent's contract, how would you vote? Kent, whilst arguably more skilful, can flatter to deceive and actual stats appear poorer. But is he a better, all-round option? Or are we just Sakala snobs?