Would a new Striker Create more problem than he Solves

[Ulf Ottosson 0]

Okay I all for signing another front man espcially if he''s good BUT - say he get another striker Kuqi for instance this would mean a return to 4-4-2, and personally I don''t think you can play this formation this Huckerby on the left. Yes he does track back sometime but you can''t rely on it this causes all the shape of the team to disppear all of a sudden safri on the left, croft in the centre and lo and behold they have a man free at the far post.

The 4-3-3 accomdates Hucks and has given us a good shape and defensive platform

[Chris Meadows 0]

i agree with you on this, i have been saying ever since we were relegated that huckerby can''t play on left in a 4-4-2, i''d like a big man in but only as an alternative

[John Boubepo 0]

A good striker who may not be used all the time but brought on when we need him, hmmmm, why wont the name Sutton go away?

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

Sutton would not come here to sit on the bench.  The board would not let sutton sit on the bench because of the big wage he would earning if we managed to sign him.  If we want other options we should be looking at young players, who would be happy to wait to earn their place in the side.  4-3-3 was the formation in our title winning year, 4-4-2 was the formation in our premiership year and following championship year....We can all see the difference now we have reverted back to 4-3-3.

Why on earth is evryone obsessed with Chris Sutton.  He is too old, too expensive and too injury prone.  And why do we need a big striker anyway, football on the deck does not require a target man!!

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Jimmy500 - I agree with up to a point, we have Hucks and Croft crossing the ball (in the air) to a forward not renowed for his aerial ability, we need somebody who can get on the end of these crosses, if we stick with 4-5-1 this means one of the midfielders to get into the box on a regular basis.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="jimmy500"]

Sutton would not come here to sit on the bench.  The board would not let sutton sit on the bench because of the big wage he would earning if we managed to sign him.  If we want other options we should be looking at young players, who would be happy to wait to earn their place in the side.  4-3-3 was the formation in our title winning year, 4-4-2 was the formation in our premiership year and following championship year....We can all see the difference now we have reverted back to 4-3-3.

Why on earth is evryone obsessed with Chris Sutton.  He is too old, too expensive and too injury prone.  And why do we need a big striker anyway, football on the deck does not require a target man!!

[/quote]

Sutton for me would be the ideal solution, for the record he isnt a big striker he is a good one, a big difference there I think, sure enough his age does go against him, thats why a role of coming off the bench would not only suit him it would suit us, why do you assume he would be expensive? nothing has been discussed with him, and as for younger players being a better option to come off the bench, I don''t think we actually have a young striker who is good enough to come on and change a game the way Sutton could. As for a younger player being content to sit on the bench - Leon is younger he doesn''t look that content to me!

 

 

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Jimmy500 - I agree with up to a point, we have Hucks and Croft crossing the ball (in the air) to a forward not renowed for his aerial ability, we need somebody who can get on the end of these crosses, if we stick with 4-5-1 this means one of the midfielders to get into the box on a regular basis.[/quote]

I agree, we do need a big man.  For variety of tactics if nothing else.  Having a big man does not mean you have to play hoofball but it does give you another option if your "passing" game is not being effective. 

Every team promoted in recent years has had a big man up front and all of those teams would have had to have won “ugly” on several occasions. 

As far as Sutton goes - I would rather see a young player with potential to come into that role.  We need to be signing more players that will be with us for several season''s not players that will need to replaced very quickly.  We''ve had so many problems in the last two season''s because of a high turnover of players and we could do without too much of it in the future.

 

[Northern Canary 0]

I agree with you Ulf.

I think that any new striker has to be as good as Earnshaw or even better than Earnshaw. The 4-5-1 formation is the best suited to us i think, but on some days we need a bigger striker. I think Eastwood would be a good buy.

I dont think 442 would work for us as it would be more of a 424

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

Earnshaw isn''t too shabby in the air for a small man.  I think a target man is ideal if you want to lump the ball from deep.  Quality crosses from the byline into the penalty area are what we need, and from what I have seen throughout his career earnshaw deals with these quite well.

I do agree that one of the midfielders needs to bomb on to support, preferably etuhu as he seems big and strong enough to cause problems.  I think it is time for one of our midfielders to follow Frank Lampards example, keep shooting and you will score.  Our entire midfield, full backs included seem scared to bang one from distance.  And with Earnie there to pick up the pieces, who knows!!!

[Big Rons Brain 0]

Assuming that we stick to 4-3-3 (good day) / 4-5-1 (when bottling it),  then should we not be buying a young, not neccesairily tall, eager striker, able to play up front in that system, to provide cover for Earnshaw and who would be comfortable to step in if Earnie gets injured (shudder), or whatever.  Could always throw them both on if things got desperate, also could then keep same system game in game out, even in cup ties like tonight when you want to rest Earnie.  Who could step in for Earnie at the moment in that system, McVeigh?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Jimmy500 - I am a big fan of Earnie and I can only comment on what I have seen at the home games, I have seen at least three really good crosses that have evaded him but which would have been "meat and drink" for somebody like Iwan or the great Ted McD. We have won both our home games so the fact these chances went begging is not a problem, my concern is that so far we have only 1 point away from home and have yet to score, I was not at either of the away games so I cannot comment if similar chances went begging. I agree that Etuhu needs to be encouraged to get into the box more to support Earnie more. 

[Hucka Hucka Huckerby 0]

[quote user="jimmy500"]

 And why do we need a big striker anyway, football on the deck does not require a target man!!

[/quote]

Someone else who doesn''t get it... Plan B will have to be used at some point when the opposition stops us playing it on the carpet! Long balls at some point ARE INEVITABLE. When this has to be resorted to, who will hold up the ball? Also who do we have to head Crofts crosses home?

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

Someone who doesn''t get it!!!!!!!!

I understand perfectly that on occasions we will have resort to a plan B, I also understand that it is important to mix it up and change your style during games in order to ''out fox'' better opposition.  My point is why does Plan B in everyones eyes have to be hoof it long!!!!

I personally think that it is only the narrow minded who think we have to hoof it, or those obsessed with bringing Chris Sutton back to Carrow Road.  I personally do not want Sutton back at the club, again too old, too slow, too expensive and too injury prone.  Seeing as there is a serious shortage of big strikers within our price range surely we have to look at other options and come up with a new plan B.

Also do me a favour, don''t assume I don''t get it because I don''t agree with you.  My views are different thats all........

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"]

why do you assume he would be expensive? nothing has been discussed with him,

[/quote]I believe Ips**t (could be wrong) were quoted as saying he wanted £10,000 per game. If true, that''s expensive!