portlock seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 28, 2003
- 17,776
It isn't upsetting, just ignores the fact that we have been lacking a goalscorer for some time, without ever slipping into the relegation zone ( apart from a 1 game spell at the start of our first season)
Even when Glenn was at his best, we were overly reliant on him and yet still managed to stay up without ever being in the relegation zone.
Last season we scored more than Palace and Newcastle and the same as Sheffield Utd.
West Ham scored 10 more goals than us, finished below us and their top scorer managed the same total as ours.
So why is it that we are seen as needing a goalscorer in order to survive?
Why do journalists think we will finish 2nd from bottom, if we are just lacking goals?
Our attacking options are better right now, than any other premier league season.
Our strength in depth, in all positions, has improved season on season.
It is injuries that cause more teams to fail rather than lack of goals.
19th? very lazy and clueless journalism.
Because it's been so tight, it only takes one or 2 results to go the other way and we'd be relegated. That's why we're deemed a good bet for relegation without boosting our attacking talents. We need to score more goals to creating that critical breathing space and push on, turn draws into wins and loses into draws.