Why Are We Scared Of Goalscorers?

He wouldn't have had the chances and meanwhile we'd have been shipping even more goals at the other end.

wanderlust wrote:He wouldn't have had the chances and meanwhile we'd have been shipping even more goals at the other end.

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.

I'd rather have a player who did feck all for 89 minutes but scored a goal, than one that ran around for 90 minutes who didn't.

Goals win games. If a team can't defend it's got nothing to do with one striker.

Teams with superb individual defenders can afford a luxury player or two.

Real Madrid, UTD, Chelsea etc etc.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Teams with superb individual defenders can afford a luxury player or two.

Real Madrid, UTD, Chelsea etc etc.

A goalscorer is not a "luxury player".

Was Klasnic not our leading goal scorer last year?

and that's coming on from the bench most games.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Teams with superb individual defenders can afford a luxury player or two.

Real Madrid, UTD, Chelsea etc etc.

A goalscorer is not a "luxury player".

Anyone that negates what you do on one end of the pitch is a luxury I'm afraid.

Van Persie is a luxury player, so is Ronaldo etc etc. Great goal scorers who don't even bother to defend.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Van Persie is a luxury player, so is Ronaldo etc etc. Great goal scorers who don't even bother to defend.

So you think strikers should defend? Weird concept. I'd prefer stikers to score goals.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Van Persie is a luxury player, so is Ronaldo etc etc. Great goal scorers who don't even bother to defend.

So you think strikers should defend? Weird concept. I'd prefer stikers to score goals.

strikers should work within the team concept on the defensive side of the ball.

Not a coach but I'm sure most would tell you that.

on some teams the concept will be for them not to "defend" certain areas, this team isn't one of them as we don't have the individual prowess in the back 4.

In my opinion anyhow.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:Teams with superb individual defenders can afford a luxury player or two.

Real Madrid, UTD, Chelsea etc etc.

A goalscorer is not a "luxury player".

A lazy one is!
Titty liners used to be the description in the schoolyard.

Most goalscorers are branded "lazy" at some point, usually when they go a few games without scoring. Wood at Leicester is taking some stick right now, but I'd rather have a lazy striker with 18 goals than a workaholic like SKD with 6 goals.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Van Persie is a luxury player, so is Ronaldo etc etc. Great goal scorers who don't even bother to defend.

So you think strikers should defend? Weird concept. I'd prefer stikers to score goals.

I think they have to help out in this system

wanderlust wrote:
I think they have to help out in this system

When a striker is asked to defend from the front they are forced to drop deeper.

It's no surprise our strikers don't score goals.

I'd be interested to know if Charlie Austin or Glen Murray are asked to defend.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
I think they have to help out in this system

When a striker is asked to defend from the front they are forced to drop deeper.

It's no surprise our strikers don't score goals.

I'd be interested to know if Charlie Austin or Glen Murray are asked to defend.

I very much doubt they are. That's the point. Why chase a poacher/striker to play in this system? We haven't played a system that would give our current strikers any chance of bagging a bunch of goals. Ngog and Sordell might have scored 20 each if they'd been playing for Burnley or Palace. They could be better finishers than Austin and Murray - unlikely, but we just don't know.

People think the only trouble with Klasnic was his work rate. It was probably his biggest weakness, it was far from the only one.
Whilst not quite as uncomfortable with the ball at his feet, he was every bit as slow and immobile as Kevin Davies.
His eight game run in the side last season was our worst of the year, where funnily his only goal came from the penalty spot. That's a ratio of less than five goals a season for this nailed on 20 goaler we had. Used as a chance card, he occasionally worked a treat. Used as part of plan A over a considerable period of games, he's poor.

doffcocker wrote:People think the only trouble with Klasnic was his work rate. It was probably his biggest weakness, it was far from the only one.
Whilst not quite as uncomfortable with the ball at his feet, he was every bit as slow and immobile as Kevin Davies.
His eight game run in the side last season was our worst of the year, where funnily his only goal came from the penalty spot. That's a ratio of less than five goals a season for this nailed on 20 goaler we had. Used as a chance card, he occasionally worked a treat. Used as part of plan A over a considerable period of games, he's poor.

Don't agree.

He wasn't quick I'll give you that, but when the ball was played on the ground he was excellent - the 2-1 win at Ewood a prime example. The problem was we just kicked the ball long which wasn't his game.

If he'd played every game last season we'd have stayed up for sure.

Doffcocker would prefer a fast striker who scores 10 goals rather than a slow one who'd score 30. So I don't take anything he says too seriously.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:So I don't take anything he says too seriously.

You're only fooling yourself. Everything I write gets you riled.

You're a lot like largehat. He didn't like anyone his junior talking sense either.

How is saying you'd prefer a 10 goal striker who is quick more than a 30 goal striker who is slow talking sense?

It's fucking nonsense.

Largehat is obese and I'm not btw.

Bernard Dennis Park wrote:How is saying you'd prefer a 10 goal striker who is quick more than a 30 goal striker who is slow talking sense?

Where's that come from? I'll resign from the forum if you can find the quote.

hang on are they paying you to post?