Fuego (won't quote your posts in order to avoid clutter) - similar and / or inferior strikers are currently playing for top PL sides - which was my initial point to indianspur's comment on 'Bottom 14 sides only' - not sure why you insist so much on 'categorising' him away from what you believe this mythical all-round striker must be in order to be considered 'good enough for the top'
Along with the 10% loss of possession comment, sorry but that is simply nowhere near true - you make him sound like a mid-Championship player. He's scored goals everywhere he's played, and I'm sure if a top team were to take a punt - much of same pattern would continue along with the added quality of improved service. And before the next 'goals is all he offers' - tell me, would you prefer 10 goal/season strikers at Spurs who run around and close players or a 30 goal/season poacher who gets the job done. This season if anything should have confirmed how utterly impotent we seem in converting chances or even threaten the opposition goalie.
Oh, well by that logic Kane, Campbell and various other young strikers played for us, Arsenal have had several extreme fudge ups for strikers and Chelsea have Torres playing for them even now, so sure. If you're point is simply that "worse players have been in top squads", sure.
I categorize him because Heskey played for England and if someone asked him his position he would have said "striker". There are goalkeepers that score more than Heskey. By your logic every single English man between 18 and 32 should have been eligible to play for England a couple of years ago because they could score as many goals as Heskey.
No, doesn't have to be a striker that's good at everything to be picked for a top side. But you can make a list of qualities a top side would want in a striker and if they fulfill half of them, they'd probably get in. It can be a hard working, tactically aware, disciplined player... It can be a 10 foot tall guy purely there for knockdowns and defensive headers, it can be a creator... There are many different types of strikers and if you even look at Berbatov who was PL top goalscorer despite hardly playing any games, he didn't make it into United's side very often the season after, supporting my argument that you can't just look at goals. (That said, Berbatov offers the same as a target man or as a creative forward so he offered way more Bent would have.) However, the common theme is a pure finisher that offers nothing else does not become a regular at a top club. There are a few exceptions across Europe but if you look at the managers of the PL clubs we're talking about, you can generally tell the strikers they like.
-------------
Along with the 10% loss of possession comment, sorry but that is simply nowhere near true - you make him sound like a mid-Championship player.
No, I was only talking about around a 5% swing both ways. Take one of the high possession 4-3-3 Liverpool performances this year or high possession 4-3-3 Swansea performances last year, change it to a 4-4-2 by removing a midfielder and adding a striker, then watch what happens. Defoe would be the same. Each shot = loss of possession unless it goes out for a corner or something.
I was simply stating the trade off. Bent's style is not to work with the team to create little areas around the ball in which his team outnumbers the opposition in order to pass through them, his style is generally to hang around on the shoulder of the last defender and ask for a ball over the top, this ball over the top is likely to result in possession changing hands, even if Bent does get on to it, it should create a chance for him to shoot, which will then probably result in possession changing hands. In each trademark Bent position, he is getting in a position to shoot.
I said he'd get a ton of goals, so I'm not sure why you think I made him sound like a mid-championship player. You know Rodgers has the "play it only when it is safe, else recycle it until the opposition gets bored and leaves space for us" philosophy, but you also know Rodgers had until he signed Sturridge a "oh brick, we only have 2 people that score goals regularly" problem. So he has been playing another striker with Suarez lately... Before he signed Sturridge, if he had been given Bent, he might have played him because he needed goals. That said, they might not have. When Barca had Ibra up front, they didn't hit the ball long to him even when they were losing/drawing games because they couldn't find a way to score. Sometimes philosophies aren't compromised and people seem stubborn as a result.
He's scored goals everywhere he's played, and I'm sure if a top team were to take a punt - much of same pattern would continue along with the added quality of improved service. And before the next 'goals is all he offers' - tell me, would you prefer 10 goal/season strikers at Spurs who run around and close players or a 30 goal/season poacher who gets the job done.
For every "goals is all he offers" comment I make, you make a comment about "Darren Bent scores goals"... I know he scores goals, I'm sure he'd score lots of goals for top clubs. I'm not arguing against that.
There's not enough information in that question for me to give a true answer. If the 10 goal/season striker is just a Defoe that runs around but doesn't score much and the 30/season is a Defoe that scores with almost all his long shots but doesn't run at all, it's a case of not wanting either.
How many games do we usually play a season? 60? 38 league + europa league + cups... If we don't get knocked out about 60, if we get knocked out I guess about 45-50...
So let's look at the best and worst case scenarios. In a 60 game season, you start half your games with a 1-0 advantage but play all games with 10 men. In a 45 game season you start 75% of your games with a 1-0 advantage but play all games with 10 men.
In a 60 game season, you start 10 of your games with a 3-0 advantage but play all of your games with 10 men.
Ok, so playing games with 10 men is probably a bit harsh because even if the guy doesn't run, press, mark, pass, do anything, it shouldn't be that bad. But if that player takes all free kicks/penalties and the focus of your play goes through him, to the point that he takes the vast majority of your team's shots... How would anyone want that guy?
This season if anything should have confirmed how utterly impotent we seem in converting chances or even threaten the opposition goalie.
We have a fudgeton of shots on target, we generally have in the last couple of years.
R Team Shots pg Shots OT pg Dribbles pg Fouled pg Offsides pg
1 Tottenham 18.3 6.3 8.3 10.7 1.6
2 Emirates Marketing Project 17.5 6.1 8 9.3 1.8
3 Liverpool 19.9 5.8 10.1 9.8 2.4
4 Everton 17 5.8 5 13.7 2.9
5 Manchester United 15 5.8 6.5 11.1 2.6
6 Chelsea 16.2 5.5 7 11.4 2.2
7 Arsenal 15.7 5.4 11.2 10.7 2
8 Saudi Sportswashing Machine 14.4 5.1 8.5 11.3 1.8
9 Swansea 13.2 4.7 5.2 11.4 2.3
10 Fulham 12.7 4.6 5.8 11.4 1.5
11 West Ham 13 4.1 4.9 9.9 2
12 Wigan 12.6 4.1 6.9 11.7 2.3
13 Queens Park Rangers 12.7 4 8.5 11.9 2.8
14 West Bromwich Albion 12.8 4 5.3 10.3 2.7
15 Southampton 13.2 4 5.4 9 2.2
16 Sunderland 11.1 3.8 5.9 12.8 1.9
17 Norwich 11.5 3.6 5 10.5 2.6
18 Aston Villa 11 3.4 5.8 8 2.6
19 Reading 9.7 3.2 4.9 12 2.3
20 Stoke 9.9 3.1 3.8 9.5 1.8
Sorry, I'm too lazy to make that table pretty, but we're top of shots on target per game. Opposition goalies are busy when they play us.
I'm not sure why this season should have confirmed we're impotent in converting chances or threatening the opposition GK. For the record, we started this season with Defoe, the finisher...
