What do we still need?

[Downloads 35]

Walcott doesn''t play through the middle.

 

Arsenal often play one up front with 2 advanced wide men who have limited responsibility to get back. Walcott plays the AM on the right.

[smooth 114]

2 strikers, attacking midfielder would be perfect in the January transfer window bring in that defender or a winger as I do not think eb is up to it and actually if pilky get injured then I am worried as snoddy and Redmond would be our only two.

Have to say I am in two minds about hooper, one side says he knows the game here in England, he clearly is or was liked buy our team. But on the other hand I think we can do better, and we would need better if he was our number two next season. That worries me as I don''t want priority to bring in another high quality striker next summer. Lets get our strikers set for this summer for the next few seasons.

Hooper is one that I could let go if we had better options or came in as third choice.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Downloads"]

Walcott doesn''t play through the middle.

[/quote]

Sometimes Walcott does play through the middle, but he was a fifth player anyway, I still named four. Walcott played through the middle and scored a hat-trick last year.

We don''t have a player like Walcott who can score a hat-trick up front, so I don''t see the point. We need four strikers because we don''t have any wingers who can move up front if necessary. Chelsea do, Arsenal do, we don''t. 

If we sign one more striker and then a midfielder who can play as a striker then great, but we still need two players who can play up front. If one is an out and out striker and the other is a striker/winger like Huckerby then fine, but no point in saying that we only need one striker because other teams have wingers who can play up front. We don''t have them. 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="smooth"]2 strikers, attacking midfielder would be perfect in the January transfer window bring in that defender or a winger as I do not think eb is up to it and actually if pilky get injured then I am worried as snoddy and Redmond would be our only two.  [/quote]

Bennett is up for it, and we have Olsson who Blackburn fans claim is a better winger then he is defender. He has played left wing for Sweden.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Another striker, another winger and an Attacking Midfielder. All according to the ''list''.[/quote] Disagree. All we really need is one more striker. Anything else is luxury. And tbh I''m concerned too many signings could upset the apple cart. I think we''ve signed enough. And what we have signed is quality.[/quote]

Totally ridiculous. What happens if one gets injured and another gets sent off in the first game? You have to allow for injuries, loss of form and suspensions. As sure as night follows day, they all happen at some time.

[/quote]

It''s all very well saying this but if there are no injuries how will you keep excess players happy?

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Webbo118"]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Another striker, another winger and an Attacking Midfielder. All according to the ''list''.[/quote] Disagree. All we really need is one more striker. Anything else is luxury. And tbh I''m concerned too many signings could upset the apple cart. I think we''ve signed enough. And what we have signed is quality.[/quote]

Totally ridiculous. What happens if one gets injured and another gets sent off in the first game? You have to allow for injuries, loss of form and suspensions. As sure as night follows day, they all happen at some time.

[/quote]

It''s all very well saying this but if there are no injuries how will you keep excess players happy?[/quote]

We get a squad of 25 just like any other team, and just like any other team we have some players who get more minutes than others. Elliott Bennet and David Fox have just got on with it, haven''t they? 

[Downloads 35]

Sorry you miss the point.

 

Snodgrass can easily play the AM on the right role that Walcott does.

 

Its not exactly a fair comparison as everyone knows what a great striker Walcott could be, but that doesn''t change the fact Snodgrass can do that, in fact he would be better at that role than a pure right winger.

[smooth 114]

Eb - 2 goals and his crossing success is about 1 in 10 not good enough, he is not a good enough threat for me. But that is my opinion, I do not think he has shown development over his two years here into a class wide player. We can buy better and I would want us to do so.

Snoddy pilky and Redmond are ahead of him right now and pilky as many have admitted goes in and out of games, well we can''t afford too much of that we need him to be a force now in every game from minute 1

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Downloads"]

Sorry you miss the point.

Snodgrass can easily play the AM on the right role that Walcott does.

Its not exactly a fair comparison as everyone knows what a great striker Walcott could be, but that doesn''t change the fact Snodgrass can do that, in fact he would be better at that role than a pure right winger.

[/quote]

Perhaps you missed the point, which is that Levanche challenged us to name teams which play 1 striker who have 4 strikers on their books, and I named four for Arsenal which did not include Walcott. So they have four out and out strikers whether Walcott is a right sided attacking midfielder or not. 

[Lavanche 0]

Pilkington can play as a lonely striker so can Redmond. They cant play as a target, but that doesnt mean they cant play as lone 9. Saying they cant play as alone striker is like saying Suarez cant play there as he isnt target either, but as we know with dribbling skills he can do more damage than more profilic lone strikers.

Anyway read the posts as whole. Now you answered me twice and splitting the post and found a zero team with 4 pure 9.

As I said somewhere in this thread I''m up for signing players that can perform multiple tasks, but for example buying RvW, Hooper and Charlie Austin (Just an quick example of pure 9) in same window with having Becchio already sitting on the bench would be stupid. We would have 3 sitting on the bench most of the times and only tactical variety we would have with them would be play them as a pair.

Instead buying RvW, Quaqliarella and Toivonen same window with Becchio sitting on the bench sounds immediately better tactic wise thought I still would change italian fellow with someone more pace and equal ability to play as goalscoring winger. Then we would have most likely only 2 of them sitting on the bench, but have more than several tactical options.

You catch my point?

[Downloads 35]

This is true, just depends if you are talking pure names on their books as one of Arsenal''s never played in the league and was loaned out. To me they only had 3, but on a factual basis they had 4. We have bids in for a striker, so we know we are getting one more at least and have Morris, so if we want to get factual we will have 4 strikers. Morris being as much use as Marouane Chamakh.

 

Although Arsenal''s 3rd striker only played 18 times in the league too...

 

Points about injuries is a good point though. But whether we need 3 frontline strikers with Becs as the fourth is debateable. I would have a young prospect as the fourth who has a bit of pace to he can play as an AM too.

[ReadingCanary 0]

Philipp Hosiner being linked

[Lavanche 0]

And Newboy Gervinho is winger by education, Michu is CAM by education and both have played mostly in those positions.

Borini, Aspas, Podolski and Ode have played at least half of their carreers at wing, so they are not out to out strikers.

[Lavanche 0]

And I more and more start to feel there is some language barrier that I''m not aware :D

As out to out striker means in Finland pure centre forward without any other aspects in his game.

Sorry for multiple messages. I hate that we dont have that edit button.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Lavanche"]And Newboy Gervinho is winger by education, Michu is CAM by education and both have played mostly in those positions.

Borini, Aspas, Podolski and Ode have played at least half of their carreers at wing, so they are not out to out strikers.[/quote]

Are we talking about ancient history or other Premier League clubs? Michu plays up front for Swansea, hardly ever played deep, doesn''t matter where he played in Spain. 

It simply doesn''t matter whether other teams have attacking midfielders who can play up front, we don''t. Snodgrass, Pilkington, Bennett, Hoolahan, none of those players can play as a striker. No idea about Redmond but doubt it.

It is irrelevant whether Michu can play attacking centre mid, or whether Walcott plays right wing, all that is relevant is that Norwich have two strikers, one who is of questionable ability. Signing just one other striker would leave us one injury away from a crisis. 

If Arsenal had a couple of injuries they could play Walcott up front. Norwich would get relegated if we tried to play Elliott Bennett as a striker at this level. 

I really don''t see your point here, sorry. If your point is that we should sign one striker and and then an attacking midfielder who can play up front if needed, then fine, I agree.

If your point is that we should only sign one striker because other teams have attacking midfielders who can score goals for fun when played through the middle, like Walcott, or Mata, or Podolski, then sorry I don''t get your point. We don''t have those players. 

[Downloads 35]

They don''t need to play up front in the middle if you are paying 3 up front!

 

They absolutely can play on the left and right of a front 3.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Downloads"]

They don''t need to play up front in the middle if you are paying 3 up front!

They absolutely can play on the left and right of a front 3.

[/quote]

Where has this three up front come from? We play 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, not 4-3-3. 

 Easy to argue that they are the same, but the idea that Pilkington and Snodgrass are ''forwards'' is comedy gold.

Even if we did play 4-3-3 and considered Redmond and Snodgrass as wide strikers, that would still leave us with just Van Wolswinkel and Becchio as our main striker. Most Norwich fans want to see at least one other quality striker. 

Nobody is imagining this 4-3-3 that you are. We all imagine the 4-4-1-1, and the only feasible argument that we can have for not signing two strikers is if the second striker who competes with Hoolahan is also able to lead the line, like that Swedish chap from PSV. 

Pilkington scored something like 2 goals last season and Snodgrass only a few from open play. It is lovely to close your eyes and dream of Snodgrass becoming Juan Mata overnight and scoring 20 for us next season, but it just isn''t going to happen. He is a right midfielder who can take a decent free kick, until he becomes anything different we play 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1.

We just need somebody who can stick the ball in the net. A striker. Gary Hooper, for example. 

[Lavanche 0]

"If your point is that we should sign one striker and and then an attacking midfielder who can play up front if needed, then fine, I agree."

That exactly is my point. We should be looking player whose primary position / education is somewhere else than a striker, but who can equally well go upfront if needed.

And I have seen both Redmond and Pilkington play as a striker in youth level and they did just fine ^^ Mayby at this level they would struggle a bit, but as said I doubt we have situation where all 3 strikers would be down at same time and they certainly would do equally well than likes of Harry Kane. ^^

And Michu startend in Swansea in 10 spot.behind Graham and probably got more games there than as a lonely 9. 10 was also position he played in Rayo.

[Juggy 0]

One minute you are asking us to name other teams who have four strikers and play one up front, now you are talking about playing three up front. 

I know that ''fluid'' is a buzz word in football at the minute, but to label Snodgrass, Redmond, and Pilkington as anything other than wide midfielders / wingers is taking it too far. They aren''t ''wide strikers'', they are wingers, pure and simple. They aren''t Spanish for a start. 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Lavanche"]"If your point is that we should sign one striker and and then an attacking midfielder who can play up front if needed, then fine, I agree."

That exactly is my point. We should be looking player whose primary position / education is somewhere else than a striker, but who can equally well go upfront if needed. [/quote]

Fine then, I agree, but I said this from the start! 

[quote] And I have seen both Redmond and Pilkington play as a striker in youth level and they did just fine [/quote]

Oh come off it, this the Premier League mate, we aren''t Doncaster Rovers seeing who we can shove up front. We did that with Darel Russell, it didn''t work out too well. He played as a striker in his youth as well. You even suggested we play Russell Martin up front. We aren''t playing Scunthorpe away any more. 

I''d be happy for us to sign one out and out striker and then a second striker who can play up front, like Michu for example, that''s fine. But we can''t find ourselves in a situation where we are short on strikers like last season. I would rather us blow £20k a week on signing somebody to keep the bench warm than find ourselves with no goal threat again. Norwich fans deserves some bloody goals for once. 

[Downloads 35]

I think you are one of these people who can only see 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

 

A front 3 because ''modern'' football isn''t played in fixed formations where players can''t move.

 

4-5-1 can easily be moved to a 4-3-3.

 

If you see it as comedy gold I pity your faith in our players. Snodgrass and Pilkington have plenty of goals in them in the right formation - As proved already.

 

3 out and out strikers can be enough, but I suspect we will end up with 4 anyway which makes all this moot.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Downloads"]

I think you are one of these people who can only see 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1

A front 3 because ''modern'' football isn''t played in fixed formations where players can''t move.

4-5-1 can easily be moved to a 4-3-3.

If you see it as comedy gold I pity your faith in our players. Snodgrass and Pilkington have plenty of goals in them in the right formation - As proved already.

3 out and out strikers can be enough, but I suspect we will end up with 4 anyway which makes all this moot.

[/quote]

Football has never been played in fixed formations where players can''t move, a load of modern psuedo-intellectual nonsense. When you have just seen a year of football where we spent more time in our own half than the oppositions half, with Snodgrass and Pilkington behind the ball a few metres in front of the full back, it is hard to envisage a situation whereas they are considered ''wide strikers''.

Three out and out strikers could well be enough, but that would be dependent on Becchio showing himself capable of scoring goals in this league. He needs further chances to play and the ball in the box, but the jury is still out! 

[Juggy 0]

Matt Le Tissier scored 209 goals for Southamption playing in a role as an attacking midfielder. Football wasn''t invented in 2010. 

[Juggy 0]

Anybody who believes ''fluid'' football is a new invention can''t remember Ruud Gullit who would walk onto the pitch and play on whatever part of it he fancied on the day. 

[CDMullins 436]

[quote user="TheNewBoy"][quote user="Downloads"]

They don''t need to play up front in the middle if you are paying 3 up front!

They absolutely can play on the left and right of a front 3.

[/quote]

Where has this three up front come from? We play 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, not 4-3-3. 

 Easy to argue that they are the same, but the idea that Pilkington and Snodgrass are ''forwards'' is comedy gold.

Even if we did play 4-3-3 and considered Redmond and Snodgrass as wide strikers, that would still leave us with just Van Wolswinkel and Becchio as our main striker. Most Norwich fans want to see at least one other quality striker. 

Nobody is imagining this 4-3-3 that you are. We all imagine the 4-4-1-1, and the only feasible argument that we can have for not signing two strikers is if the second striker who competes with Hoolahan is also able to lead the line, like that Swedish chap from PSV. 

Pilkington scored something like 2 goals last season and Snodgrass only a few from open play. It is lovely to close your eyes and dream of Snodgrass becoming Juan Mata overnight and scoring 20 for us next season, but it just isn''t going to happen. He is a right midfielder who can take a decent free kick, until he becomes anything different we play 4-4-1-1 or 4-5-1.

We just need somebody who can stick the ball in the net. A striker. Gary Hooper, for example. 

[/quote]

I have to say, I agree with this 100%

[Downloads 35]

Who said it was?

 

You are aware that there is more flexibility than back then though?

 

There have always been players who break the mould, but more teams use more flexible formations than in previous years.

 

Once upon a time most teams played 4-4-2 in the top leagues, now that isn''t true.

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Downloads"]

Who said it was?

You are aware that there is more flexibility than back then though?

There have always been players who break the mould, but more teams use more flexible formations than in previous years.

Once upon a time most teams played 4-4-2 in the top leagues, now that isn''t true.

[/quote]

Not really no. Snodgrass is a right midfielder. Ruel Fox was a right midfielder. Snodgrass will both get back and defend, and get forward and attack. Fox would both get back and defend and get forward and attack. 

The idea that we play 4-5-1 when the opposition have the ball and 4-3-3 when we have the ball is just silly. Wide players have always just been wide players. If anything the closest thing that we have had to a ''wide forward'' is Huckerby, because he really did stay up the pitch like a striker.

But that was once known as an ''out and out winger''. This fluid changing formation mid-game rubbish is just that, rubbish. Football hasn''t changed all that much. For all the theories around formation and silly 4-1-3-1-1 things that people like Mourinho use to look clever, all that has really changed is that clubs drop an extra man back into midfield. 

So the ''Hoolahan'' role was created. But it isn''t exactly groundbreaking, Le Tissier was playing as a second striker in the Nineties. It''s just that teams put 10 men behind the ball now instead of nine, leave one man leading the line instead of two. You can create as many different combinations of 10 numbers as you want, that is all that has really changed. 

[clarkey1972 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Another striker, another winger and an Attacking Midfielder. All according to the ''list''.[/quote]

Disagree. All we really need is one more striker. Anything else is luxury. And tbh I''m concerned too many signings could upset the apple cart. I think we''ve signed enough. And what we have signed is quality.[/quote]

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^

[clarkey1972 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="Joanna Grey"]Another striker, another winger and an Attacking Midfielder. All according to the ''list''.[/quote]

Disagree. All we really need is one more striker. Anything else is luxury. And tbh I''m concerned too many signings could upset the apple cart. I think we''ve signed enough. And what we have signed is quality.[/quote]

What he said ^^^^^^^^^^^

Keep some dosh for january if we need it !

[ricardo 7,395]

We just need a proper replacement for Grant Holt.Anything else will be window dressing.