One striker up front

[lake district canary 4,545]

Our strikers don't appear to play well together,  so please can we just have one striker on the pitch for the start of games? Two strikers or even three in the line up isn't working. Far better imo to have a really decent midfield set up to supply the lone striker or perhaps score themselves. 

For me, Sargent and Idah on the pitch together is pointless. Neither of them does enough to help the other score, they don't seem to have that great a touch to supply Pukki either.  

Put Idah on his own up front and he would look a better player. Likewise Sargent. Likewise Pukki, who would have the benefit of midfielders able to supply him. 

In short we have three strikers who don't compliment each other, each better on their own with more possibility of decent supply from midfield.  

Do you agree, or should we persevere with two, or as in one match three strikers, in the line up?

Edited April 11, 2023 by lake district canary

[canarybubbles 1,944]

I think aimost everyone has been saying this for a while, LDC, some with a preference for Sargent, some for Pukki (almost no one for Idah). It seems to make sense to me, but two different managers haven't done it so maybe there are reasons why not.

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

Totally agree; Idah, Sargent & Pukki don't complement each other in any way, shape or form! The wide players in the 3 need to be wingers or wing-backs or attacking midfielders who can create or score. Right now, NCFC are sterile; not scoring a goal in the last 3 home games is shambolic given the potential prize on offer.

[repman 635]

It's not just the fact that anyone watching could see that it doesn't seem to work well, the numbers back it up too. We have 34 points from games where 2 or more strikers started, and 27 from when we only started 1. Nearly a 50/50 split in terms of points, however we've started with 2 or more strikers in 29 games compared to just 12 with only 1 up top. The points per game with 2 strikers would have us 18th on 48 points, the points per game with 1 striker would have us top with 92 points.

Obviously the sample size for the 1 striker games may still be too small to accurately judge, but I'd counter that we've seen plenty enough of what it's like with more than 1. Even when looking at the xG numbers we both create more and concede less chances in games with only 1 up top.

At the current moment we are going through an injury crisis where we're struggling to get players in that midfield but I think there's just about enough options worth trying. I'd even rather see Tzolis playing in that no10 position over making one of the strikers attempt to do it.

[canarybubbles 1,944]

3 minutes ago, repman said:

It's not just the fact that anyone watching could see that it doesn't seem to work well, the numbers back it up too. We have 34 points from games where 2 or more strikers started, and 27 from when we only started 1. Nearly a 50/50 split in terms of points, however we've started with 2 or more strikers in 29 games compared to just 12 with only 1 up top. The points per game with 2 strikers would have us 18th on 48 points, the points per game with 1 striker would have us top with 92 points.

Obviously the sample size for the 1 striker games may still be too small to accurately judge, but I'd counter that we've seen plenty enough of what it's like with more than 1. Even when looking at the xG numbers we both create more and concede less chances in games with only 1 up top.

At the current moment we are going through an injury crisis where we're struggling to get players in that midfield but I think there's just about enough options worth trying. I'd even rather see Tzolis playing in that no10 position over making one of the strikers attempt to do it.

Frankly, neither Sargent nor Idah have the skills required to be a playmaker, either physically (sorting out their feet) or mentally (a good and quick vision of what is happening ahead of them on the pitch). This isn't to damn them; it's just to state the obvious that this is not where their skills lie.

[Robert N. LiM 4,493]

I think we have to acknowledge that our current injury list has forced Wagner's hand a little. I'm sure he'd have played an unchanged side from the Blackburn game if we hadn't lost two players during it, forcing us to move a midfielder back into defence.

That said, I do basically agree. Really think if Sargent is going to play he has to be at centre-forward. The thing I am surprised by is that we haven't tried Pukki behind him as a sort of 10. He's such an intelligent player that he seems much better suited to that role than Josh. I understand how difficult it must be as a coach to leave Pukki out: for all his apparent decline this season he's still pretty close to being our best player. But if you're trying to get him and Sargent in the same team, the opposite of the current solution seems an obvious one to me. Wonder why neither Smith or Wagner tried it?

[Robert N. LiM 4,493]

1 hour ago, repman said:

It's not just the fact that anyone watching could see that it doesn't seem to work well, the numbers back it up too. We have 34 points from games where 2 or more strikers started, and 27 from when we only started 1. Nearly a 50/50 split in terms of points, however we've started with 2 or more strikers in 29 games compared to just 12 with only 1 up top. The points per game with 2 strikers would have us 18th on 48 points, the points per game with 1 striker would have us top with 92 points.

Obviously the sample size for the 1 striker games may still be too small to accurately judge, but I'd counter that we've seen plenty enough of what it's like with more than 1. Even when looking at the xG numbers we both create more and concede less chances in games with only 1 up top.

At the current moment we are going through an injury crisis where we're struggling to get players in that midfield but I think there's just about enough options worth trying. I'd even rather see Tzolis playing in that no10 position over making one of the strikers attempt to do it.

Great post and terrifying stats. I can just sense @Parma Ham's gone mouldyflexing his typing fingers to use the word plusvalenza and make the point that playing more strikers doesn't make your line-up more attacking.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Robert N. LiM

[Commonsense 646]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

Frankly, neither Sargent nor Idah have the skills required to be a playmaker, either physically (sorting out their feet) or mentally (a good and quick vision of what is happening ahead of them on the pitch). This isn't to damn them; it's just to state the obvious that this is not where their skills lie.

I’m starting to think that the first nine words of this post are the crux of the problem!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I think we have to acknowledge that our current injury list has forced Wagner's hand a little. I'm sure he'd have played an unchanged side from the Blackburn game if we hadn't lost two players during it, forcing us to move a midfielder back into defence.

That said, I do basically agree. Really think if Sargent is going to play he has to be at centre-forward. The thing I am surprised by is that we haven't tried Pukki behind him as a sort of 10. He's such an intelligent player that he seems much better suited to that role than Josh. I understand how difficult it must be as a coach to leave Pukki out: for all his apparent decline this season he's still pretty close to being our best player. But if you're trying to get him and Sargent in the same team, the opposite of the current solution seems an obvious one to me. Wonder why neither Smith or Wagner tried it?

It did force his hand so surely Hayden could have started and come off later if tired.

[Robert N. LiM 4,493]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

It did force his hand so surely Hayden could have started and come off later if tired.

I can only assume he thought Hayden was only good for 10-20 mins or so, fit enough to be on the bench to use in an emergency (given how few options we have at the moment), but not yet ready to play any more than that.

[sgncfc 1,258]

Idah will be our main striker next season. We'll all get the chance to see if it works. I forecast it won't.

[repman 635]

13 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Idah will be our main striker next season. We'll all get the chance to see if it works. I forecast it won't.

The big worry for me with Idah (Sargent is similar) is that he doesn't seem to ever take good shots. People will talk about Pukki not taking chances yesterday but none of these chances fell to either Idah or Sargent. The big differentiator between top strikers and lower level ones isn't that they finish at a far greater rate but that the shots they take are from better positions.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

Against Rotherham Pukki played number 9. Sergeant and Marquinhos played behind. We didn’t have two strikers . Not in a 2. 

[Indy 3,317]

5 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Our strikers don't appear to play well together,  so please can we just have one striker on the pitch for the start of games? Two strikers or even three in the line up isn't working. Far better imo to have a really decent midfield set up to supply the lone striker or perhaps score themselves. 

For me, Sargent and Idah on the pitch together is pointless. Neither of them does enough to help the other score, they don't seem to have that great a touch to supply Pukki either.  

Put Idah on his own up front and he would look a better player. Likewise Sargent. Likewise Pukki, who would have the benefit of midfielders able to supply him. 

In short we have three strikers who don't compliment each other, each better on their own with more possibility of decent supply from midfield.  

Do you agree, or should we persevere with two, or as in one match three strikers, in the line up?

We have been used to playing with a really good number ten and wingbacks the we only needed one striker. In my view you can play Sargent & Idah together but not as wingersor number 10, both in an old fashioned 442 with wingers who get the ball into the box both could be a handful, Sargent has decent skill set.

In the current set up LDC your spot on.

[Barham Blitz 661]

5 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

I think we have to acknowledge that our current injury list has forced Wagner's hand a little. I'm sure he'd have played an unchanged side from the Blackburn game if we hadn't lost two players during it, forcing us to move a midfielder back into defence.

That said, I do basically agree. Really think if Sargent is going to play he has to be at centre-forward. The thing I am surprised by is that we haven't tried Pukki behind him as a sort of 10. He's such an intelligent player that he seems much better suited to that role than Josh. I understand how difficult it must be as a coach to leave Pukki out: for all his apparent decline this season he's still pretty close to being our best player. But if you're trying to get him and Sargent in the same team, the opposite of the current solution seems an obvious one to me. Wonder why neither Smith or Wagner tried it?

Absolutely this.  Pukki either as a #10 or wide right given that he tends to operate in that inside right channel anyway.

He is such an intelligent player that he would suit either role.  In fact if memory serves it was where he was initially signed to play with Rhodes at #9.

Ironically the only player who would have the vision to give Pukki the sort of service that he would thrive on is actually probably Pukki ...

But if nothing else it gives Sargent time to develop as a central striker which is what we are going to need him to be next season, and hopefully gets him back to his early season form.

[Barham Blitz 661]

5 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Great post and terrifying stats. I can just sense @Parma Ham's gone mouldyflexing his typing fingers to use the word plusvalenza and make the point that playing more strikers doesn't make your line-up more attacking.

To be fair, he is right.  Even if I don't know what plusvalenza means ...

[Sooty57 403]

One striker up front?  That's one more than we've had in far too many games this season 😞

 

[Newtopia 519]

I think our recruitment / development model under Webber has to play one up top.  Sargent and Idah are that sort of strong focal point.  The two up top is only an issue because we are trying to play Pukki, plus a player who is thatbfocus, we are then running light somewhere else pitch.

[Haus 259]

Neither seem to have the ball control needed to play on their own 

[Well b back 3,280]

When we had 1 up front people demanded 2 up front.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,595]

One striker up front. Sargent or Idah, but not Pukki. Alternate starting them until one takes their chance.

I still say we should have tried to move on Pukki in January, but he's still playing and still underperforming as a finisher compared to his historic standards for us, in spite of getting plenty of decent service.

I genuinely don't understand why he's still first choice up front. Is it that the management is scared to shelve  a historically popular player for fear of fan criticism if Idah and/or Sargent don't immediately wow everyone in that position? Even now, Pukki seems to escape criticism for doing no better than Sargent or Idah, while the latter younger and less experienced players are regularly pilloried.

Edited April 12, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

One striker up front. Sargent or Idah, but not Pukki. Alternate starting them until one takes their chance.

I still say we should have tried to move on Pukki in January, but he's still playing and still underperforming as a finisher compared to his historic standards for us, in spite of getting plenty of decent service.

I genuinely don't understand why he's still first choice up front. Is it that the management is scared to shelve  a historically popular player for fear of fan criticism if Idah and/or Sargent don't immediately wow everyone in that position? Even now, Pukki seems to escape criticism for doing no better than Sargent or Idah, while the latter younger and less experienced players are regularly pilloried.

Welcome to footy.  Players have to step up...as Pukki did , and Sargent started to, in order for the fans to believe in them. Belief creates support, not the other way round. I dont believe in God and so will not support any God based religion.  There isnt a player born that hasnt been told " this is your chance kid, take it" .Some do , some don't....thats footy. No amount of support would turn Hugill  into peak Pukki. 

If i believe  enough, will God really appear? Millions  have tried, no-one  has produced evidence of his/her existence. So 25,000  ish will not change a players inherent  ability...or lack thereof. Even God  doesn't  pass the much derided       ' eye test' . An abstract concept is of no use in the practical world....and that includes footy.

[lake district canary 4,545]

5 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Welcome to footy.  Players have to step up...as Pukki did , and Sargent started to, in order for the fans to believe in them. Belief creates support, not the other way round. I dont believe in God and so will not support any God based religion.  There isnt a player born that hasnt been told " this is your chance kid, take it" .Some do , some don't....thats footy. No amount of support would turn Hugill  into peak Pukki. 

If i believe  enough, will God really appear? Millions  have tried, no-one  has produced evidence of his/her existence. So 25,000  ish will not change a players inherent  ability...or lack thereof. Even God  doesn't  pass the much derided       ' eye test' . An abstract concept is of no use in the practical world....and that includes footy.

Is "God" an abstract concept, or is it just a name that people use to try and understand things?  As soon as you name the creative force as "God" or whoever or whatever anyone wants to call it, then you devalue it.  The Buddhist way of life (not a God based religion, although many seem to think it is) comes closest for me - and its interesting that science is backing up what buddhists adhere to - that there is a oneness to the universe that we can all tap into. Most religions like to name it, try and latch on to it and then lay down dogma that many people can't relate to.

In football terms people talk of "God given talent" and that is one way of looking at it, another way is to say that there is a potential that exists that people can find a way to tap into - a potential that is there for all of us to tap into. That's why I would never write a player off - they are all capable of finding something extra in the way they do things that can change their game - often it is a change of attitude that improves them, an enlightenment if you like, where the penny drops that it isn't about them, but about something bigger than them and that frees them up to what is possible......     

Many don't change - they just carry on working hard within a narrow mindset that restricts them from really improving. People wonder why I went for Snodgrass.....he clearly loves to play football, but he had a very narrow band of perception that relied on a his ego to govern the way he played, which I found very hard to accept. Other players try to widen their view of the way they play as they get older - they lose the restrictive nature of relying on their ego and learn to play beyond themselves - they are looking to play a higher game - they tap into something better.  

This is why some players develop more than others, it's down to mindset and what they believe. If they believe playing well is down to themselves, they restrict what they can achieve, but if they can get beyond that and understand that there is a potential outside of themselves that they can tap into, then the sky is the limit. I'm probably not explaining myself very well but it is hugely important imo that people understand potential isn't within a person, it is a potential available to all - it's just that some players find it easier to latch on to that potential.  It's no coincidence that many of the greatest sportsman are so humble - they have achieved greatness and understand that greatness was not of their own making, but came about through being able to latch on to something bigger than themselves - if you have to name it, you can say it comes form God, or you can just marvel at it as part of the wonders of the universe. 

This is a tldr kind of post, but I don't really care, I'm passionate about this subject.  There are so many things we don't know about existence, but what has become clear to me that if you open up your mindset to accepting that there is something bigger out there, that you are just a miniscule part of the whole universe but that you are also part of the wholeness of the universe, then your ego ceases to be important and that you can start to latch on to the potential that is out there.

Ego gets in the way of players, it just restricts them - Cantwell for instance a prime example - hopefully players get over their ego and learn to focus on stuff outside themselves a bit more - and those are the kind of players I want to see. Nunez is a prospect - I don't see an ego there, just see a potential magician - the two goals he scored the other week were sensational, imo he will be like Vrancic was next season, a season to settle and then deliver the goods on a regular basis.

Blimey, why did you have to mention religion - it really set me off on one, but the joy I get from not believing in God as such, but at the same time believing in something that is the same as God but that I just can't put a name to, is so liberating. Or maybe I do believe in God, but just don't think you can put a name to it.......

That people believe in God, or believe in any other religion is fine by me, we are all trying to understand the world we live in the best we can - and there are many paths up a mountain (as Webber presumably knows!) - but to bring it back to your post, Hugill is not Pukki and never will be, but he can be the best version of himself and that may be more important than anything else.

So for me "absract concepts" are hugely important in life, it's just that religion often makes  them seem un-relatable to.

Sorry for the long winded post! 🙃

[Google Bot 3,316]

7 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

If i believe  enough, will God really appear?

I think you need an orange and a bin-liner.