Why do we have EIGHT strikers?

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

But those games aren't declared over before the striker scores are they? If we had say Charlie Austin or Aaron McClean then maybe some games like Rochdale, Bournemouth, Tranmere etc WOULD have been 3 to 4 nils rather than draws.

The distinction you're drawing here doesn't really make sense. Ok, it's not purely about the number of goals, but when people talk about a 20 goal striker they just mean a top striker who can always nick you a goal. whether it's 0-0 or 4-0 doesn't change the players ability. With Barnes he's scored goals but he's missed hatfulls too, so in the proverbial tight 0-0, if you get one chance in the game, it falls to Barnes, the chances of him scoring it are less than you would like from one of your first choice strikers (in fact this actually happened in the Woking home match, he had by far the clearest chance of the game that would have won it for us but he totally scuffed it).


Again this isn't really the point... this hypothetical striker would be in addition to what we already have, he'd be extra. Was anyone in 2001 saying that Steele should play not Zamora because Zamora was scoring too high a percentage of our goals?

It's great to be top but that doesn't mean everything is perfect. Most supporters know there are areas we need to strengthen, Gus certainly does. He's talked about a 20+ goal striker too, more than once. A top striker would arguably be the final piece of the puzzle.

I get what your saying, but a player such as lambert takes the penalties, the free kicks and scores 25 odd a year, yet southampton wern't promoted (and we are above them now).

Im not arguing your point, but my view is that this 20 goal figure is just very weak when determining a strikers worth. Assuming a striker takes the penalties then the end-of-season figure is very distorted as they may have scored 10 from penalties alone, whereas a player who doesnt take penalties may have 10 less goals. This doesnt mean the player with less goals is worse by any means, just he doesnt take penalites.

I would much rather a player scored 6 single goals in 10 games than a striker scoring 3 goals, then 3 goals and then 2 goals and then not scoring for 7 games. Thats what i mean by the amount of goals is not really a strong figure to go on.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Again this isn't really the point... this hypothetical striker would be in addition to what we already have, he'd be extra. Was anyone in 2001 saying that Steele should play not Zamora because Zamora was scoring too high a percentage of our goals?

Possibly, but if you have a guy scoring a lot, then most of the delivery tends to be aimed at him. To use your example, people would have quickly moaned if OGH pased to Lee Steele every time rather than Bobby. Then if your top man gets injured it spoils the shape of the team and they no longer have an obvious target. But, hey, I'd take either the leagues' top scorer or goals from anywhere, both are an improvment on recent years.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

If we include Chris Oldroyd (on loan at Stevenage) we currently have EIGHT strikers!

We don't. We've got two worthy of the name, two possibles and four fails.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

But those games aren't declared over before the striker scores are they? If we had say Charlie Austin or Aaron McClean then maybe some games like Rochdale, Bournemouth, Tranmere etc WOULD have been 3 to 4 nils rather than draws.

The distinction you're drawing here doesn't really make sense. Ok, it's not purely about the number of goals, but when people talk about a 20 goal striker they just mean a top striker who can always nick you a goal. whether it's 0-0 or 4-0 doesn't change the players ability. With Barnes he's scored goals but he's missed hatfulls too, so in the proverbial tight 0-0, if you get one chance in the game, it falls to Barnes, the chances of him scoring it are less than you would like from one of your first choice strikers (in fact this actually happened in the Woking home match, he had by far the clearest chance of the game that would have won it for us but he totally scuffed it).


Again this isn't really the point... this hypothetical striker would be in addition to what we already have, he'd be extra. Was anyone in 2001 saying that Steele should play not Zamora because Zamora was scoring too high a percentage of our goals?

It's great to be top but that doesn't mean everything is perfect. Most supporters know there are areas we need to strengthen, Gus certainly does. He's talked about a 20+ goal striker too, more than once. A top striker would arguably be the final piece of the puzzle.

Isn't there occasions too when a 20+ goal striker scuffs his shot or puts it wide?

A 20+ goal striker only scores on average of 1 goal in 2 or more games (depending on how many he plays during in the season, 46 league games + any cup games) and if he scores 2 or more in a match, there are even more matches he fails to score in.

I feel Barnes hasn't been doing much wrong this season but he has been stopped by bad luck (shots coming back from the inside of the post) and some great keeping, he's still young and learning and he could well hit a purple patch where things go for him and still ends with 20+ goals this season. - keep the faith

 

[Guy Fawkes]

If we include Chris Oldroyd (on loan at Stevenage) we currently have EIGHT strikers! Why, when none of them has yet to prove he can be our 20 goals a season man!

So does this add more or less credibility to the rumours that we are about to sign Charlie Austin for £850k plus Muzza?

I would have thought we should do all we can to keep Muzza and maybe off load at least a couple of the other strikers... and sign Chris Wood?

Gus certainly has me puzzled by his thinking, loaning and buying.

In reality we have 4 players competing for 1st team league games as a forward, they are Murray, Barnes, Wood and Sandaza (who is currently injured leaving just 3).

-Baz is more a midfielder and that is where he is competing for a place on the pitch.
-Hart is a utility player, he will play wherever needed but isn't really classed as a striker ((he played there in the FA Cup so we could rest a forward (as we were pretty thin on the ground for them at the time of the tie) and to give him some match time))
- Holroyd is out on loan, it remains to be seen if he returns to us after it expires and is considered a part of the squad or whether he is moved on but i feel that as he was getting a lot of stick last season from some fans and therefore it could have been difficult for him as back up this season and maybe the loan move gets him back into the scoring habit and confident, ready for a return.

And Agdestein is one for the future (like Caskey and Dunk)

 

[Zebedee]

And since Murray is a much better player than Austin why would we be interested in such a deal? £850K + Murray? You're avin a laugh (I hope).