Every player on the pitch has to contribute to gaining control and possession.
No they don't! This is utter myth. I already fully explained this by citing some of the best teams from yester years that didn't use everyone to control and dictate possesion.
No succesful manager in the history of football has set up as you suggest when not having 11 players who can do so.
Obviously it's a sliding scale where different players and positions contribute different amounts, but the position that McTominay is holding is still one of the more important.....
Not in the system ETH employs. This the main reality detractors like you fail to accept: ETH does not employ a Mctominay tactically in a way he is essential to build up play! Its been blatantly obvious since he took over. It doesn't matter if he is employed in the double pivot. He won't be employed in the build up tactically because it is already known it isn't his strength! It is ALREADY known he'd not enhance the team if he is. (Yet here all you are berratng him for not being used in the one way he has NO business being used. Its baffling....)
This was the same case with ALL the prior examples I mentioned before. Y'all focussed on the fact they are better players than Mctominay instead, rather than the blatant fact NONE of them were essential to the build up and control of possession in the tactical system of the tactical setups they were employed in.
Harping on and on about Mctominay not showing for the ball during build up, when it is a blatant tactical reason why he doesn't is being absolutely disingenous. No ifs, buts or maybe's. It has utterly nothing to do with any level of ability Scott may or may not have. Nor does it mean I'd not prefer it if he didn't start regularly.