That would be a fair arguement if we have other players that could score but with Lallana, Gross and March in the team we are lacking. Therefore you need a striker that scores or change the attacking midfielders to those that can score.
[Albion] Danny Welbeck, should we? [18/10: we did - one year deal] - *** NEW ONE YEAR DEAL ***
- Thread starter Cowfold Seagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,872
Agree the concept of the striker has been blurred in modern football but 'Does he have to score' - yes when he is given very good chances , yes as he is played the main striker and there is an expectation he will do so. If you are going to play him then you need someone to play upfront with him and with who we have that should be Trossard not (no goals ) Lallana or Undav who currently looks like a fish out of water.
Yes I expect the keeper to keep clean sheets , building from the back is important but secondary IMO to conceding goals. If you keep a clean sheet you only need to score once and as scoring goals is eluding us at present then its even more important.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,872
Really don't think we should have Gross and Lallana on the pitch at same time their too slow . Great technicians but IMO we need to have to be quicker getting the ball forward.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
The whole argument that he brings others in is total bollocks.
Talking in historic terms, what decent strikers main attribute was ‘bringing others into play’? Heskey?
Don’t care how much he brings others into play, he’s a striker and has had plenty of chances this season, yet still hasn’t scored, it puts too much reliance on Trossard/Gross/March for goals.
But we have no better option so we? Undav is looking like a very bizarre signing, hasn’t even played through the middle since he joined and when we desperately need a goal he gets brought on and played out wide and Ferguson is a total unknown.
Sorry to say but it’s poor recruitment, and I know it sounds harsh I honestly do, but we got nearly 100m in transfer fees in the summer, it should have been the year we made an attempt to push on, instead we’ve got worse striking options than last season, when our strikers also struggled.
Talking in historic terms, what decent strikers main attribute was ‘bringing others into play’? Heskey?
Don’t care how much he brings others into play, he’s a striker and has had plenty of chances this season, yet still hasn’t scored, it puts too much reliance on Trossard/Gross/March for goals.
But we have no better option so we? Undav is looking like a very bizarre signing, hasn’t even played through the middle since he joined and when we desperately need a goal he gets brought on and played out wide and Ferguson is a total unknown.
Sorry to say but it’s poor recruitment, and I know it sounds harsh I honestly do, but we got nearly 100m in transfer fees in the summer, it should have been the year we made an attempt to push on, instead we’ve got worse striking options than last season, when our strikers also struggled.
Brighton announce £53.4 million loss from 2020-21 financial year
Brighton and Hove Albion have announced they made a loss of £53.4 million during the 2020-21 Premier League campaign. Their recent accounts show a reduction in their losses compared to the 2019-20 season when the south coast side made a loss of £67.2 million. Brighton also announced their...
theathletic.com
Brighton's losses tripled in 2019-20 while club borrowed £37 million
Brighton are counting the cost of COVID-19 but say losses show squad investment and they're fortunate for the backing of owner Tony Bloom
theathletic.com
Dennis Bergkamp was alright
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
87 goals in 300 games in that era was pretty decent goalscoring wise, let’s not seriously compare Bergkamp and Welbeck
re: your other post, The club have made heavy losses but in the long term if we are going to cover our losses with player sales and not reinvest in the blatantly obvious weaknesses we will end up in relegation scraps and possibly even going down.
Granted it’s risk reward but this summer after finishing 9th should have been our moment to pounce, we were at our most attractive to a potential signee as well.
Nahhhh he's been good for us. And he was free ! He just has ZERO help upfront now maupays gone. He can't do it on his own.
Marshy
Well-known member
Welbeck is a very very good player. I would rather see him operate of the left of a 3 ideally though.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
It’s strange seeing the same people who chastised Maupay, defending Welbeck.
Say what you want about Maupay this season but there were games when he would grab a goal with a moment of individual finishing brilliance, we’ve not had one of those from Danny this season, last 2 games highlight it.
I don’t doubt he’s a good player but a striker not scoring in 3 months is not good enough.
Say what you want about Maupay this season but there were games when he would grab a goal with a moment of individual finishing brilliance, we’ve not had one of those from Danny this season, last 2 games highlight it.
I don’t doubt he’s a good player but a striker not scoring in 3 months is not good enough.
Sure but the facts are that he was not considered enough to warrant a starting place, and our best results were without him.
and now ? How’s our other options looking
Badger Boy
Mr Badger
- Jan 28, 2016
- 3,658
His attempted header last night was very, very poor. He should have done better. Otherwise, I think he just isn't getting service. Forest were camped on the edge of their box so we weren't going to get him through 1-1, where he's generally very good, or give him a yard or space to get a shot off. He was more involved in the game than Maupay was under similar circumstances and he's clearly a better player - but we have to work out how better to serve him.
It is just totally unfair to expect the guy to do it all on his own. And heaven forbid what happens when he gets his annual 2 month injury lay off. It is ridiculous our squad is so baron of striking options considering the money we have made from sales. I think you'd struggle to find one other squad so totally reliant on just one striker in the entire league.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
How can we be totally reliant on a striker who hasn’t scored a goal all season?
I like Welbeck, he’s a solid player, but nobody here is expecting him to do it all on his own, thank god we arent because without Trossard and Gross goals this season we’d be up the creek.
Nobody is expecting him to do it on his own, we just expect him to do better with the chances he has been presented with not just in recent games, but this season overall.
The_Viper
Well-known member
We have scored 14 goals this season, 1 was an OG, the other 13 came from our midfield. He isn't doing it on his own, our midfield are contributing with goals as we've needed, he is doing nothing.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
I agree that we don't want too much reliance on several players to score. We want it on one person so it all goes to shit when they misfire.
I care about WHO is scoring, not how many the team is scoring.
Don’t know until Undav given an opportunity. Feel certain he’ll be more lethal than Maupay, but not sure he will contribute to the same extent outside the box.
So effectively unchanged in terms of numbers, anything else is unknown
Lifelong Supporter
Well-known member
The club did not handle Maupay very well, did they? To have him behind Undav in the pecking order seems farcical now.
It’s not about having ‘an opportunity’ - 2 separate head coaches in top flight football haven’t deemed his quality to be enough to start a game so far. No one has a god given right for a chance, it must be earnt.
Potter was happy to start Maupay immediately, but not Undav, says a lot