The Annual Tottenham Hotspur Striker Search: January 2015 Edition

[billyiddo]

you're potentially dropping two of Lamela Eriksen and Chadli to play Kane alongside one of Adebayor and Soldado - both of whom have played as lone forwards throughout their careers. I don't really see how that can be considered more attacking

 

[milo]

you're potentially dropping two of Lamela Eriksen and Chadli to play Kane alongside one of Adebayor and Soldado - both of whom have played as lone forwards throughout their careers. I don't really see how that can be considered more attacking

I agree. Also where does it leave us with Poch's preference for the team closing down from the front and trying to force errors.

 

[Shelfie]

you're potentially dropping two of Lamela Eriksen and Chadli to play Kane alongside one of Adebayor and Soldado - both of whom have played as lone forwards throughout their careers. I don't really see how that can be considered more attacking

There's room for two of those if we play 'two strikers', although I agree not against a team ike City away where we needed another defensive mid. Against Asteras we probably don't need the extra defensive mid though. We'll see what happens on Thursday, But Kane deserves to start more than Lamela Ade or Soldado.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Why is it attacking to go to 2 forwards, when we are currently playing with 3 (Soldado/Ade, Chadli and Lamela)?

 

[Gutter Boy]

No they haven't and that's partly because they don't play as well as the forwards we had then. I'm not going to have a big debate about Crouch as I've done it too many times over the years. I was and remain a bg fan of what he did for us during Harry's halycon years, and for me it would improve our squad if we could get in another striker as good as Crouch was.

I couldn't disagree more - I thought Crouch was a poor excuse for a player

- We had great strikers like Berbatov, Keane I and Kanoute up till 2008.
- Then we had absolute dross - Crouch, Pav, Defoe, Keane II - even decrepit Gudjohnson was the best of a bad lot - who were just embarrassing in front of our solid defence and dominating midfield
- The we got Rafa and Ade and finally looked good up top again

I actually really like Soldado, Ade and Kane as a trio. I think now our AMs are functioning cohesively for the first time in more than a year, goal will be no problem.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Why is it attacking to go to 2 forwards, when we are currently playing with 3 (Soldado/Ade, Chadli and Lamela)?

While I agree that Chadli is pretty much playing as a forward (he has no more defensive responsibility than a number 10 would). I do not agree at all that Lamela is playing as a forward. I think he does just as much work defensively as Ericksen.

I couldn't disagree more - I thought Crouch was a poor excuse for a player

- We had great strikers like Berbatov, Keane I and Kanoute up till 2008.
- Then we had absolute dross - Crouch, Pav, Defoe, Keane II - even decrepit Gudjohnson was the best of a bad lot - who were just embarrassing in front of our solid defence and dominating midfield
- The we got Rafa and Ade and finally looked good up top again

I actually really like Soldado, Ade and Kane as a trio. I think now our AMs are functioning cohesively for the first time in more than a year, goal will be no problem.

Again I disagree with you (about Crouch). I really do think that because he looks so ugly - as a footballer I mean, not whether or not he is aesthetically pleasing on the eye as a gentleman and I'm sure Crouch doesn't give a f*** about that seeing as how he is married to (the lovely) Abigail Clancy - people downplay his ability as a footballer. Crouch was a good player for us when Harry had the team set up to suit his strengths with VDV playing off of him and Lennon and Bale getting to the byeline and getting crosses in. Teams couldn't play a high line against us because our two wide players would kill them with their pace in behind and teams couldn't play deep against us as Crouch would win any high ball played up to him around the edge of the box and then get VDV on the ball in dangerous areas.

 

[Nigeyman]

Why is it attacking to go to 2 forwards, when we are currently playing with 3 (Soldado/Ade, Chadli and Lamela)?

Because playing with two strikers, Lets say for example Ade & Soldado would mean that we would have to play direct (not long ball) football, but generally our transition would have to be quicker without an AM, depending on whether one of the strikers has pace means that teams would be more wary regarding opposition defenders pushing up on us.

Your notion is that we are playing wing forwards but that is not the case from what I have seen with the exception of QPR (home) There are plenty of times Ade & Soldado are isolated because Lamela & Chadli are on defensive duty. In order for us to have those two operating as wing forwards or support strikers then first. we need to dominate possession and have an amazing DM, your notion is fine but in reality because we don't dominate games our lone striker is always to far away from another white shirt.

Just a question, do people think we get behind teams as much as we should central or wide? my point is that with the three in midfield attacking play will always be slower and we dont have Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and the movement of Messi & Pedro

I hate to feel like I am a dinosaur just because I feel playing 4-4-2 would help us sometimes, people bang on about Liverpool being so exciting last season.....guess what Sturridge & Suarez = two strikers Man Utd treble winners 1999 Cole & Yorke = two strikers.

I dont want us to go 4-4-2 all the time but I am getting a bit miffed, people think of us playing two strikers and crinkle up their nose like they are smelling russian dog sh*t!
Eriksen can play cm Lamela rm and Soldado up front.....thats our three most technical players in the team. whats the problem? we would still be able to have defensive cover from the lm & rm and if one of our strikers has any nouse they can drop back into midfield like Aguero does for City.

I do like our current style I just wish people wouldnt just brush the notion of 4-4-2 under the carpet. Its like its become taboo and your really uncool for liking it

Sorry GB not a rant at you in particular, I just dont see why we cant be a bit more flexible.

 

[Pirate55]

Because playing with two strikers, Lets say for example Ade & Soldado would mean that we would have to play direct (not long ball) football, but generally our transition would have to be quicker without an AM, depending on whether one of the strikers has pace means that teams would be more wary regarding opposition defenders pushing up on us.

Your notion is that we are playing wing forwards but that is not the case from what I have seen with the exception of QPR (home) There are plenty of times Ade & Soldado are isolated because Lamela & Chadli are on defensive duty. In order for us to have those two operating as wing forwards or support strikers then first. we need to dominate possession and have an amazing DM, your notion is fine but in reality because we don't dominate games our lone striker is always to far away from another white shirt.

Just a question, do people think we get behind teams as much as we should central or wide? my point is that with the three in midfield attacking play will always be slower and we dont have Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and the movement of Messi & Pedro

I hate to feel like I am a dinosaur just because I feel playing 4-4-2 would help us sometimes, people bang on about Liverpool being so exciting last season.....guess what Sturridge & Suarez = two strikers Man Utd treble winners 1999 Cole & Yorke = two strikers.

I dont want us to go 4-4-2 all the time but I am getting a bit miffed, people think of us playing two strikers and crinkle up their nose like they are smelling russian dog sh*t!
Eriksen can play cm Lamela rm and Soldado up front.....thats our three most technical players in the team. whats the problem? we would still be able to have defensive cover from the lm & rm and if one of our strikers has any nouse they can drop back into midfield like Aguero does for City.

I do like our current style I just wish people wouldnt just brush the notion of 4-4-2 under the carpet. Its like its become taboo and your really uncool for liking it

Sorry GB not a rant at you in particular, I just dont see why we cant be a bit more flexible.

The Nigeyman talks sense as usual. We need flexibility of formation. 442 should be an option - especially for the weaker teams at home. No bout a doubt it imo

 

[billyiddo]

Id rather play with more attackers personally

 

[Nigeyman]

The Nigeyman talks sense as usual. We need flexibility of formation. 442 should be an option - especially for the weaker teams at home. No bout a doubt it imo

cant take anything I say to seriously with that avatar of mine.

But thanks.

 

[Nigeyman]

Id rather play with more attackers personally

what do you mean? better question put down what you think is our best set up to score goals?

 

[braineclipse]

Because playing with two strikers, Lets say for example Ade & Soldado would mean that we would have to play direct (not long ball) football, but generally our transition would have to be quicker without an AM, depending on whether one of the strikers has pace means that teams would be more wary regarding opposition defenders pushing up on us.

Your notion is that we are playing wing forwards but that is not the case from what I have seen with the exception of QPR (home) There are plenty of times Ade & Soldado are isolated because Lamela & Chadli are on defensive duty. In order for us to have those two operating as wing forwards or support strikers then first. we need to dominate possession and have an amazing DM, your notion is fine but in reality because we don't dominate games our lone striker is always to far away from another white shirt.

Just a question, do people think we get behind teams as much as we should central or wide? my point is that with the three in midfield attacking play will always be slower and we dont have Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and the movement of Messi & Pedro

I hate to feel like I am a dinosaur just because I feel playing 4-4-2 would help us sometimes, people bang on about Liverpool being so exciting last season.....guess what Sturridge & Suarez = two strikers Man Utd treble winners 1999 Cole & Yorke = two strikers.

I dont want us to go 4-4-2 all the time but I am getting a bit miffed, people think of us playing two strikers and crinkle up their nose like they are smelling russian dog sh*t!
Eriksen can play cm Lamela rm and Soldado up front.....thats our three most technical players in the team. whats the problem? we would still be able to have defensive cover from the lm & rm and if one of our strikers has any nouse they can drop back into midfield like Aguero does for City.

I do like our current style I just wish people wouldnt just brush the notion of 4-4-2 under the carpet. Its like its become taboo and your really uncool for liking it

Sorry GB not a rant at you in particular, I just dont see why we cant be a bit more flexible.

Didn't Poch say after the Arsenal game that he considered that as us playing with two strikers?

 

[Nigeyman]

Didn't Poch say after the Arsenal game that he considered that as us playing with two strikers?

I dunno, did he? I remember us setting up to counter and unfortunately not being as effective as we should be, Lamela & Chadli supported ade really well but it seemed that Ade was definitely a loner

 

[braineclipse]

I dunno, did he? I remember us setting up to counter and unfortunately not being as effective as we should be, Lamela & Chadli supported ade really well but it seemed that Ade was definitely a loner

Yeah. Found it here: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29289925 the video interview after about 15 seconds.

I also remember quite specifically Chadli staying forward a lot. During the game it ****ed me off a bit as at first I thought he wasn't tracking back enough, but apparently that was what he was instructed to do.

Had it been Soldado playing exactly the same role I'm sure it would have been named a 4-4-2 by everyone and their grandmothers. But because it was Chadli it hardly registered at all. Illustrates how flexible real game systems are compared to the numerical descriptions I suppose.

In general I don't mind us playing two strikers, at least at times. When the goal is to break down stubborn defensive teams I do think having some physical presence up front (or in the attacking midfield 3) can be advantageous and partnering Soldado with Ade or Kane could be a good idea. But the fact is that stubborn defensive teams are stubborn and defensive for a reason - it works. Another reasonable plan is to introduce more creativity in an attacking midfield trio to try to break them down that way. No easy answers, certainly no easy "just switch formations" answers imo.

 

[Nigeyman]

Yeah. Found it here: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29289925 the video interview after about 15 seconds.

I also remember quite specifically Chadli staying forward a lot. During the game it ****ed me off a bit as at first I thought he wasn't tracking back enough, but apparently that was what he was instructed to do.

Had it been Soldado playing exactly the same role I'm sure it would have been named a 4-4-2 by everyone and their grandmothers. But because it was Chadli it hardly registered at all. Illustrates how flexible real game systems are compared to the numerical descriptions I suppose.

In general I don't mind us playing two strikers, at least at times. When the goal is to break down stubborn defensive teams I do think having some physical presence up front (or in the attacking midfield 3) can be advantageous and partnering Soldado with Ade or Kane could be a good idea. But the fact is that stubborn defensive teams are stubborn and defensive for a reason - it works. Another reasonable plan is to introduce more creativity in an attacking midfield trio to try to break them down that way. No easy answers, certainly no easy "just switch formations" answers imo.

Thanks for that brain, thought provoking, I think your right because its Chadli it doesnt seem to register. But then Chadli isnt an out and out striker....is he?

were cured Chadli is our new striker!

 

[Nigeyman]

I agree. Also where does it leave us with Poch's preference for the team closing down from the front and trying to force errors.

I dont think it hindered pool last year with their pressing game but I accept we dont have anywhere near those players

 

[paxtonwolf]

cant take anything I say to seriously with that avatar of mine.

But thanks.

Dont worry you should be able to get the missus back come Thursday night/friday morning

 

[Nigeyman]

Dont worry you should be able to get the missus back come Thursday night/friday morning

I thought it was we have to win in the league?

oh well, it just feels all wrong at the moment. must take my punishment but its just so repulsive! I thought I would get some scruffy looking pot bellied city fan....never mind

 

[milo]

I thought it was we have to win in the league?

oh well, it just feels all wrong at the moment. must take my punishment but its just so repulsive! I thought I would get some scruffy looking pot bellied city fan....never mind

That's what Moss looked like to me on Saturday afternoon

 

[braineclipse]

Thanks for that brain, thought provoking, I think your right because its Chadli it doesnt seem to register. But then Chadli isnt an out and out striker....is he?

were cured Chadli is our new striker!

He hasn't played as an out and out striker for us. Then again, few teams play two strikers and have both of them play as "out and out strikers" at the same time.

Not a cure, but definitely an option. Wouldn't mind seeing him tested as an out and out striker either. Seems to know where the goal is and is quite good at a lot of things.