I said this before earlier, and I’ll say it again (you are right btw), that there are two ways (in its simplest form) to play 3 in midfield. A regular triangle and an inverted triangle. Caicedo would necessitate a regular triangle, which is inherently defensive. Mount would give us an inverted triangle with two aggressive 8s and allow us to play a much more proactive forward press and sit higher up the pitch. This is clearly how ETH wants to play.
The whole Caicedo vs Mount debate isn’t just a debate on players, it’s a debate on tactics. And you have to buy the players the manager wants to implement his preferred approach. Which means it’s Mount. I think everything else becomes moot. Because Caicedo isn’t coming here to be an understudy to Casemiro, and no one should be spending 80m on a player who isn’t essentially an automatic first choice.
Saying we should sign Caicedo instead is akin to saying, not only do I think we should sign a different player, but I want the manager to play in a different way. Okay, as a theoretical debate, but utterly pointless if we prioritise plausibility over accuracy. We are in the market for an 8, and it seems most likely a forward thinking 8. Caicedo is neither of those things.
If we sign a 6, it’ll either be as an understudy to Casemiro, or it’ll be a hybrid 6/8 who can perform two roles. And I’d venture much more likely to be someone like Rabiot on a free. Caicedo is a brilliant player in many regards, but given how the manager wants to play, he’s a square peg in a round hole.