AKCJ Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 They only use one striker, though. We use two, so we need twice as many. If you only use 1, you only need 1 or 2 spares. If you use 2, you want 2 or 3 reserves. We've only really got Vardy and Okazaki, and we're going to need them for every match. As soon as we get an injury or suspension, Ulloa has to play, and he's not having a good season. After that, we're down to bare bones. We're almost certainly going to have to put square pegs in round holes at some point. THAT IS THE POINT. The sides we're challenging all put round pegs in square holes when their main strikers are injured (City aside, although their budget necessitates that). We have 3 out and out strikers and could play a 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3 due to our plethora of wingers and midfielders. But seeing as we're doing so well, and have been for 9 months, with two strikers... i'm not going to moan.
The Doctor Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 You've not named strikers though. That is literally the point i'm making. Campbell and Walcott are wingers. Son plays either on the wing or behind the striker. He played the False 9 the other week (as Firminho will tonight). N'Jie is also a winger. Kone plays on the wing although he's comfortable up top (despite not playing there for a good few seasons now) If you want to name those as strikers then you have to name Mahrez as one for us. Campbell and Walcott are strikers utilised as wingers. Us putting Oakley out wide in 2009/10 didn't make him a winger... Son is their back-up striker and played as a striker in germany and for Korea, who can play out wide if called upon, likewise N'Jie Kone is a striker for his national side They're all primarily strikers utilised out wide. Mahrez is not.
Raw Dykes Posted 2 February 2016 Author Posted 2 February 2016 THAT IS THE POINT. The sides we're challenging all put round pegs in square holes when their main strikers are injured (City aside, although their budget necessitates that). We have 3 out and out strikers and could play a 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3 due to our plethora of wingers and midfielders. But seeing as we're doing so well, and have been for 9 months, with two strikers... i'm not going to moan. A bit rude. No need to shout. Whenever we've tried 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3, we've looked poor. I don't think it's a realistic option any time soon. We're over-reliant on Vardy and Mahrez for goals. We need them to stay fit and in form, or hope that others can chip in. I think we are very short up front and really need lady luck to smile down on us for a few months.
Lestoh Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 he can play here, there, every fvcking where Amartey, Daniel Amartey
AKCJ Posted 2 February 2016 Posted 2 February 2016 A bit rude. No need to shout. Whenever we've tried 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3, we've looked poor. I don't think it's a realistic option any time soon. We're over-reliant on Vardy and Mahrez for goals. We need them to stay fit and in form, or hope that others can chip in. I think we are very short up front and really need lady luck to smile down on us for a few months. No need to shout? But you're not listening... Any side up top will struggle for goals without their main striker. If Kane gets injured then Spurs are buggered. If Giroud gets injured then Arsenal are buggered. If Vardy gets injured then we are buggered... it's the way it is. The only side that can afford to keep a guaranteed Premier League goalscorer as their second choice is Manchester City and they're (before kick off at least) 3 points behind us. I'm happy to stick with what we've got (the players that have got us to the top of the Premier League) than spend a fortune, potentially upset the applecart and, given the names of those we were linked with, not necessarily improve us. Why worry? The squad is in excellent shape.
Raw Dykes Posted 2 February 2016 Author Posted 2 February 2016 No need to shout? But you're not listening... Any side up top will struggle for goals without their main striker. If Kane gets injured then Spurs are buggered. If Giroud gets injured then Arsenal are buggered. If Vardy gets injured then we are buggered... it's the way it is. The only side that can afford to keep a guaranteed Premier League goalscorer as their second choice is Manchester City and they're (before kick off at least) 3 points behind us. I'm happy to stick with what we've got (the players that have got us to the top of the Premier League) than spend a fortune, potentially upset the applecart and, given the names of those we were linked with, not necessarily improve us. Why worry? The squad is in excellent shape. I am listening. I am listening to you making little sense. You can argue that our rivals will be just as buggered as we would be without our best striker, but it's just not true. As we've established, our rivals use formations that only have one striker, whereas we use two. Therefore, we're going to need more in reserve than them. We've actually got less. No-one's saying we needed to spend a fortune. We could have just borrowed a player for the last few months, just in case. Any half decent striker would have improved us, bearing in mind we only have 3 recognised strikers (one of which is having a pretty poor season) to fill 2 places in the team for the rest of the season. I wish I could share your confidence, but it's brave or stupid to risk throwing away a chance of a lifetime of doing something unthinkable by not strengthening this area of the team. I'm not losing sight of the bigger picture, however, as this will still be an incredible season even if we do fvck it up from here on in.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.