Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I think offensively they were about the best team we've faced all season. They caused us real problems at times.
-
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
The all new Striker thread..
- Thread starter Richie
- Start date
I think offensively they were about the best team we've faced all season. They caused us real problems at times.
Craig_J
Mido
I'm always happy at the suggestion that we're too good rather than the opposition and always will be. However, I think you'd honestly struggle to say Qarabag are in the top 200 teams in Europe. Again though, always happy at the suggestion that we're brilliant rather than the opposition being terrible
I'd rank them as about the 151st best team in Europe.I'm always happy at the suggestion that we're too good rather than the opposition and always will be. However, I think you'd honestly struggle to say Qarabag are in the top 200 teams in Europe. Again though, always happy at the suggestion that we're brilliant rather than the opposition being terrible
milo
Jack L. Jones
150th since Chelsea collapsed
alekaras
The ITK of IDK
Can someone explain to me why this obsession for a physical presence in the striker role? If we play a fluid front 4, why is that less effective? As others have mentioned, we seem to have done fine when playing this way, although I admit the sample size of matches is not that large.
milo
Jack L. Jones
We play a fluid four when Kane is in the side too, so the sample size is at least season long
alekaras
The ITK of IDK
We do, but you know people will argue it's not when Kane is in, so I wanted to give them a different paradigm to consider.
Craig_J
Mido
Controversial Scara. Usually at this point I'd call you a twunt for disagreeing and tell you to go f**k yourself but you already know what you are and this is your board, therefore I have no further ammunition and politely resign from this discussion.
Baleforce
Les Bennett
agreed, they looked a real threat every time they had the ball
afsoc4life
Dean Richards
In some games, you need a physical strong person to help onto the ball.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
I'm always happy at the suggestion that we're too good rather than the opposition and always will be. However, I think you'd honestly struggle to say Qarabag are in the top 200 teams in Europe. Again though, always happy at the suggestion that we're brilliant rather than the opposition being terrible
Whatever ranking one gives them their performances against other (presumably higher ranked teams) have showed that the difference in quality is probably quite small overall. Or that Qarabag have the quality to raise their performances in their big games. Either way I think they're underrated by many still.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
Several reasons for me.
1. Hold up play. We still struggle at times when forced to play the ball long. A physical and tall striker helps us hold the ball up and build from there instead of it just bouncing off defenders and opponents getting it. This also makes it more risky to press us high up the pitch as those long balls become more difficult for their defenders to deal with.
2. Link up play. Playing the ball into a striker facing the wrong way that can play lay offs or perhaps even turn a defender is very helpful. Doesn't have to be tall to do this, but strength is a huge benefit and height certainly doesn't hurt.
3. Crosses. A tall physical presence is more likely to be threat from crosses. Particularly the type of crosses against teams that sit back a lot and there's not going to be much space to get in behind or space to find in the box. Against teams that more or less park the bus this added ability to be a threat from crosses has real value for me at least. And it's not only the goals you get from crosses. Having players that are a threat in the air actually (imo) makes it easier to play effective football in other ways too. Full backs and wingers from the opponents can pretty much just stand off our wide players and full backs if they have no one to cross to. Give them 2-3 yards of space and back off if they get taken on. A target to cross to forces wide players for the defending teams to close our players down, that also makes it easier to go past them and create space and imbalances in opposing teams.
4. Pochettino's teams. At Southampton he had Lambert. The only striker they signed when he was in charge was Osvaldo, a player that does offer a physical presence. At Spurs Pochettino gave significant playing time to Adebayor at first, before Kane stepped up and made himself first choice. Soldado on the other hand barely had a look in as a striker and was (iirc) used just as often in one of the 3 attacking midfield roles as the striker role.
5. Other teams. Lone strikers that are "complete" seem very popular among teams that play a lone striker, and teams that play similar football to ourselves. Lewandowski was absolutely huge for Dortmund and arguably the only player Klopp lost that he wasn't able to replace effectively. In part (imo) because they couldn't find another complete striker and were left to some extent with a choice between physicality and other attributes. Simeone's Atletico Madrid team seems like a similar story. Costa, then Mandzukic, try to get the same from Jackson Martinez (though not successfully). Bielsa's Bilbao team had Llorrente when they were successful.
Yes there are teams that succeed without a physical option up front. But in my opinion it's more difficult. It requires more quality in other positions and more ball playing quality all over the pitch. Some teams are also helped by physicality in the attacking midfield roles (Yaya Toure at City for example), something we don't have all that much of. I'm not at all saying that we can't succeed without that physicality, but I would like to see us have another physical option that Kane just in case.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Agree100%. Very well explained. It is just about ( with the possible exception of DM ) the only place where we don't have like for like cover in a key specialist position.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I don't think that most of our replacements are like for like. We have cover for positions but the alternatives/cover have different strengths.
Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Our replacements in specialist positions are like for like. e.g. GoalKeeper. Full Backs. Centre Halves. Our AMs all have different attributes but therese aren't key specialist positions . But in other key specialist positions like DM and CF we need like for likes IMO.
milo
Jack L. Jones
But our full backs have different strengths, as do our centre halves and attacking midfielders. Trippier for Walker is not a like for like replacement, neither is Son for Lamela or Chadli for Eriksen. I am not against signing another striker, we should always look to strengthen the team where we can, but people seem to forget that we do not play with a dedicated DM and our front four is very fluid even when Kane is in the team.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
For me at least it's a lot easier to mix and match players with different strengths in the attacking midfield trio than for the lone striker role. Son is different to Lamela, but the overall mix of Son, Alli and Eriksen still has a lot of the same qualities as Lamela, Alli an Son. Similar story with Chadli. Unless we go for extremes most mixes in our attacking trio will have a wide range of skills.
To some extent a similar story for the deep two in midfield and our full backs.
The lone striker though is a lone striker. And a drastic change in the player type you have there is (imo) more difficult to compensate for than a change in other positions.
Bedfordspurs
Chris Waddle
I don't think we need like for like personally in attack
I think variety is the key in attacking situations. If we have a game where Kane is working, bring on a small fast player is a great alternative as the opposition will probably have to change their tactics and style
If it's a like for like they probably won't have to change anything and are therefore no more challenged than before
I think variety is the key in attacking situations. If we have a game where Kane is working, bring on a small fast player is a great alternative as the opposition will probably have to change their tactics and style
If it's a like for like they probably won't have to change anything and are therefore no more challenged than before
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
There's no striker we can realistically buy that I would like to be brought on for Kane no matter how much we're struggling to change the game.
As Chadli showed last time around there are a lot of ways to change things around going forward without putting on another striker. But if we do want someone alongside Kane we also have that option.
But, (knock on wood), if we have to do without Kane for an extended period of time - we're without the physical option up front as well. How then we do force opponent to change their tactics and style?