• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Zaha

camspur said:
Joint 4th alongside Dele Alli which isn't too bad.

What I'm saying is 9 goals as a main striker is a poor return.
Click to expand...
In a season where Alli played further back than he usually does.

How many did he score when he played closer to Kane?
 
camspur said:
Fully understand that, what I'm saying is that I'd sooner have Son play than Zaha and then have a deputy for Kane that doesn't fill a slot where we have 3 players already.

Son, Lamela and Moura as our wide players with Kane plus new backup. IMHO Son > Zaha.
Click to expand...

Then fundamentally I disagree.

We have tried with a rookie back up striker, and an experienced back up striker, and neither managed the game time to ever find form. Neither have been of any actual use, to be honest. I dont see what spending more money on another immediately sidelined player achieves.

However, improve our attacking options - and allow Son more freedom to play up front without compromising us elsewhere when he does? Well that just makes sense to me.

Son/Lamela/Moura is not enough to sustain our wide attacking options through the season, we need an extra body - and Zaha would work for me just fine. Im not committed to Zaha, Im a big fan and I think he would be a great addition - but "another" attacking player is required regardless IMO. And a striker would be a waste of time.



Maltese Falcon said:
How much would you CF "upgrade" cost? 20mill? 25 mill? 30mill? And for what? half a dozen starts a season mainly in the minor cups?
Click to expand...

Or what he said...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Then fundamentally I disagree.

We have tried with a rookie back up striker, and an experienced back up striker, and neither managed the game time to ever find form. Neither have been of any actual use, to be honest. I dont see what spending more money on another immediately sidelined player achieves.

However, improve our attacking options - and allow Son more freedom to play up front without compromising us elsewhere when he does? Well that just makes sense to me.

Son/Lamela/Moura is not enough to sustain our wide attacking options through the season, we need an extra body - and Zaha would work for me just fine. Im not committed to Zaha, Im a big fan and I think he would be a great addition - but "another" attacking player is required regardless IMO. And a striker would be a waste of time.

Or what he said...
Click to expand...

Did you contradict yourself there. A striker surely is an attacking player and I've always said I want a CF who can play out wide rather than a wide player that can play CF. We have enough wide players to be flexible but zero backup for Kane with all due respect to Son he is not Kane's backup he's our first choice wide left player.
 
camspur said:
Did you contradict yourself there. A striker surely is an attacking player and I've always said I want a CF who can play out wide rather than a wide player that can play CF. We have enough wide players to be flexible but zero backup for Kane with all due respect to Son he is not Kane's backup he's our first choice wide left player.
Click to expand...

Son IS Kanes back up. He has proven it, made the position his own. And he is bloody good at it.

Its not a contradiction to consider a player primarily attacking, or primarily a striker, its a pretty clear distinction when talking about Son/Zaha etc.

A CF who can play out wide is primarily a striker, who can also "do a job" in a wide position.

An attacker who can play CF is precisely the opposite.

In a team where Harry Kane plays 90% of the games, what makes more sense? A striker, who will never play striker, but might cover the LW on the games Son doesnt play (which you primarily want him to).

Or a versatile attacker, who can play many times covering various players, and also allow Son to play CF as needed - which he is really good at?

As I said, I am very happy with the prospect of Son being a reserve striker providing we can cover his absence on the wing.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Son IS Kanes back up. He has proven it, made the position his own. And he is bloody good at it.

Its not a contradiction to consider a player primarily attacking, or primarily a striker, its a pretty clear distinction when talking about Son/Zaha etc.

A CF who can play out wide is primarily a striker, who can also "do a job" in a wide position.

An attacker who can play CF is precisely the opposite.

In a team where Harry Kane plays 90% of the games, what makes more sense? A striker, who will never play striker, but might cover the LW on the games Son doesnt play (which you primarily want him to).

Or a versatile attacker, who can play many times covering various players, and also allow Son to play CF as needed - which he is really good at?

As I said, I am very happy with the prospect of Son being a reserve striker providing we can cover his absence on the wing.
Click to expand...

But when Son has played without Kane we haven't looked very impressive (Bournemouth the exception) generally.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Son IS Kanes back up. He has proven it, made the position his own. And he is bloody good at it.

Its not a contradiction to consider a player primarily attacking, or primarily a striker, its a pretty clear distinction when talking about Son/Zaha etc.

A CF who can play out wide is primarily a striker, who can also "do a job" in a wide position.

An attacker who can play CF is precisely the opposite.

In a team where Harry Kane plays 90% of the games, what makes more sense? A striker, who will never play striker, but might cover the LW on the games Son doesnt play (which you primarily want him to).

Or a versatile attacker, who can play many times covering various players, and also allow Son to play CF as needed - which he is really good at?

As I said, I am very happy with the prospect of Son being a reserve striker providing we can cover his absence on the wing.
Click to expand...


I dont know how many more duff strikers we need to sign to back this up.

Signing a striker is the worst option.
 
P.D. said:
But when Son has played without Kane we haven't looked very impressive (Bournemouth the exception) generally.
Click to expand...

Over the new year (I think!) when Kane was out, Son played centrally and we looked like a fantastic and fluid team, getting the results.

If anything, Kanes return took the wind out of our sails somewhat because we were looking really good up to then, and then stuttered a bit.
 
Still think our primary target should be cover for Eriksen. Without him we often look devoid of inventiveness.
 
scaramanga said:
He's not going to play a proper tournament, it's unlikely to be too taxing.
Click to expand...

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

He is the captain and the leader of the team and these is pressure on to win both for his country and to avoid military service so to assume it will not bee too taxing is both folly and arrogant
 
NaijaSpurs said:
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
It took that comment for you to notice that?

NaijaSpurs said:
He is the captain and the leader of the team and these is pressure on to win both for his country and to avoid military service so to assume it will not bee too taxing is both folly and arrogant
Click to expand...

ShipOfGoldblum said:
It's four games in the group stage, so more taxing than a world cup.
Click to expand...
If he gives the competition the respect it deserves then he'll be avoiding injury, spending his time training for proper football when he gets back and will probably still win the thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back