Those saying we need strikers rather than defenders...

[johnnypd]

we need both. our lack of a natural striker has damned us so many times this season, how often have we dominated a match only to fail to capitalise on the dominance? it's been the story of our season, and probably hurt us more than having a shoddy defence imo. however in the summer we're getting two strikers back from injury, so in terms of transfers, we should concentrate on defence.

[NUFC06]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

If we offer Sibierski new contract we will have:

1.Martins

2.Owen

3.Ameobi

4.Sibierski

5.Dyer

6.Carroll

 

Can you tell me where this new striker will play especially when you consider the option its possible that we dont play in Europe next season=less games??

 

Now will you admit that first and foremost we need to sign defenders?

[NE5]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

If we offer Sibierski new contract we will have:

1.Martins

2.Owen

3.Ameobi

4.Sibierski

5.Dyer

6.Carroll

 

Can you tell me where this new striker will play especially when you consider the option its possible that we dont play in Europe next season=less games??

 

Now will you admit that first and foremost we need to sign defenders?

 

no. Because basically, only Owen is good enough. Martins might be, and Dyer isn't a striker. That leaves 2 forwards, who may not play together.

 

If you dont' score goals, you go down.

 

I think that the team is poor in possession, and looks suspect at the back due to not imposing its presence on the opposition. The forward lacks support. If we do not sign a striker this summer - a good one - we will be in the shit next year. Any money we have should be spent there. A good defender still struggles if they players in front of him are struggling. You can patch up at the back, if you have a leader. We need a leader, I'll give you that, but we will have to find one for a small fee.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Alex20]

We need a veteran defender at CB and 2 good defensive wing players, for LB and RB.

Our D is our soft spot, no need to spend a lot of money on a striker, or an attacking player.

First things first, get good defensive players, and later on a good midfielder.

 

[NUFC06]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

If we offer Sibierski new contract we will have:

1.Martins

2.Owen

3.Ameobi

4.Sibierski

5.Dyer

6.Carroll

 

Can you tell me where this new striker will play especially when you consider the option its possible that we dont play in Europe next season=less games??

 

Now will you admit that first and foremost we need to sign defenders?

 

no. Because basically, only Owen is good enough. Martins might be, and Dyer isn't a striker. That leaves 2 forwards, who may not play together.

 

If you dont' score goals, you go down.

 

I think that the team is poor in possession, and looks suspect at the back due to not imposing its presence on the opposition. The forward lacks support. If we do not sign a striker this summer - a good one - we will be in the s*** next year. Any money we have should be spent there. A good defender still struggles if they players in front of him are struggling. You can patch up at the back, if you have a leader. We need a leader, I'll give you that, but we will have to find one for a small fee.

 

 

 

 

These 2 sentences are pretty shocking and i dont thing anyone will agree with what you are saying

Its like saying that we are so shit upfront that if we dont sign anyone there we will be fucked

What about our defence?

Your way of thinking is pretty strange i must say

 

[Yorkie]

All this 'Dyer isn't a striker' stuff is confusing me.

 

Anyone who thinks that this season, he has been more effective as a midfielder than as a striker, is off their head. He's blossomed having advanced. He's far more involved and we're far better with him up there. I think he's more than good enough as a backup striker.

[Cajun]

At the moment if nothing changes our defence next season will be from:

 

Ramage, Taylor, Edgar, Solano, Huntington, Babayaro, Carr...

 

Do we need defenders or attackers?

[Yorkie]

At the moment if nothing changes our defence next season will be from:

 

Ramage, Taylor, Edgar, Solano, Huntington...

 

Do we need defenders or attackers?

 

I don't follow your criteria...

 

How's that?

[Cajun]

I edited it. Still the other 2 are far from good enough.

[Rich]

All this 'Dyer isn't a striker' stuff is confusing me.

 

Anyone who thinks that this season, he has been more effective as a midfielder than as a striker, is off their head. He's blossomed having advanced. He's far more involved and we're far better with him up there. I think he's more than good enough as a backup striker.

 

£80k a week for a backup striker is ludicrous, which is why it seems nailed-on to me that Dyer will be considered as first-choice right-midfielder next season, if he's fit. It seems our only option is going to be to play an on-the-deck passing game with pace on the flanks and up-front, if Owen stays and if our "big players" are fit. Sort of like a shoddy version of Arsenal, at their very best, with Henry, Bergkamp, Pires, Ljungberg, Vieira and Gilberto as their front-six. Dyer being the Ljungberg of that group, obviously, as a wide-man who cannot really be called a winger.

 

I don't think Roeder considers Dyer as a stiker unless there are no other options available and I certainly don't think the player himself has been overly brilliant in a more advanced role, although I can see where you are coming from and I think he would prosper in a team that plays it on the deck and looks for his oft-excellent runs early. I think you're right in saying that up front is probably his best position and I think he'd thrive if played there with the correct service. However, basing it on our current crop of players Dyer's best position, for me, is on the right of the midfield, because if Martins and Owen are fit he quite simply will not get a look-in up front - leaving the only realistic position to call his own as right-midfield (as Roeder doesn't mind dropping Milner half as much as anyone else.) Which, thankfully, he's not all that bad at either.

 

Dyer is a useful player, although his form has stuttered recently, in that he is good enough to be a first-choice player in our current midfield and, as you say, he also offers decent cover up front when called upon. His best game this season came on the right of midfield, I reckon, and he's played some excellent games there in the past, so I'm certainly not worried about him making that role his own. Watch him get injured soon, anyway, rendering all of this entirely futile.

[Yorkie]

Don't agree with the bulk of your post, him being the right winger. Well what i mean is, i don't think he should be. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it did pan out as you have described. Would make sense aswell, what with Roeder's policy of dropping Milners and N'Zogbias

so as not to 'burn them out'.

 

About this...

 

All this 'Dyer isn't a striker' stuff is confusing me.

 

Anyone who thinks that this season, he has been more effective as a midfielder than as a striker, is off their head. He's blossomed having advanced. He's far more involved and we're far better with him up there. I think he's more than good enough as a backup striker.

 

£80k a week for a backup striker is ludicrous,

 

I think we've adapted to suit Dyer's wages after 8 years. It was more ludicrous paying £80k a week for a player who lies on the injury table for 18 months...

[Rich]

Don't agree with the bulk of your post, him being the right winger. Well what i mean is, i don't think he should be. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it did pan out as you have described. Would make sense aswell, what with Roeder's policy of dropping Milners and N'Zogbias

so as not to 'burn them out'.

 

About this...

 

All this 'Dyer isn't a striker' stuff is confusing me.

 

Anyone who thinks that this season, he has been more effective as a midfielder than as a striker, is off their head. He's blossomed having advanced. He's far more involved and we're far better with him up there. I think he's more than good enough as a backup striker.

 

£80k a week for a backup striker is ludicrous,

 

I think we've adapted to suit Dyer's wages after 8 years. It was more ludicrous paying £80k a week for a player who lies on the injury table for 18 months...

 

Still doesn't change the fact that we cannot afford to pay £80,000 every week to a player who will not be considered first choice, whatever way you spin it.

 

Is your general stance that Dyer should not be a first-choice player at all, then? Or should he start ahead of Owen/Martins (if they are ever fit at the same time, that is)?

[Guest Knightrider]

If we are being honest with ourselves we need defenders, strikers and midfielders - basically a whole new team. However we don't have the money to carry out such major surgery on the squad and therefore need to prioritise which means we have to strengthen where we are most weakest, which is in defence.

 

The way I see it:

 

Can we score goals? Tick

Can we create goals? Tick

Can we keep clean sheets? NO!

 

So we need to forget about buying strikers and midfielders for the foreseeable future, we already have enough in supply up front to cover most eventualities, especially with the impending return of Owen and Ameobi which will be like (to use a cliche) two new signings. While in midfield we also have enough options to supply the frontline and to protect the back-four.

 

In defence though we lack just about everything needed to keep clean sheets at this level, so we need to spend all our money on that area, and bring in a completely new back-four that contains experience, skill, leadership and a great deal of quality. Not yet more potential and certainly not square pegs for round holes ala Nobby as right-back or poor Huntington at left-back.

 

Lets, for once, start at the back and lay down some solid foundations to build on from there. With a better defence in terms of individuals and as a collective unit, the midfield won't be so hard pressed to bail them out all the time meaning they can exert their influence higher up the pitch which will benefit the forwards and therefore our goals for column. Goals win games, clean sheets win you trophies.

[Yorkie]

Don't agree with the bulk of your post, him being the right winger. Well what i mean is, i don't think he should be. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it did pan out as you have described. Would make sense aswell, what with Roeder's policy of dropping Milners and N'Zogbias

so as not to 'burn them out'.

 

About this...

 

All this 'Dyer isn't a striker' stuff is confusing me.

 

Anyone who thinks that this season, he has been more effective as a midfielder than as a striker, is off their head. He's blossomed having advanced. He's far more involved and we're far better with him up there. I think he's more than good enough as a backup striker.

 

£80k a week for a backup striker is ludicrous,

 

I think we've adapted to suit Dyer's wages after 8 years. It was more ludicrous paying £80k a week for a player who lies on the injury table for 18 months...

 

Still doesn't change the fact that we cannot afford to pay £80,000 every week to a player who will not be considered first choice, whatever way you spin it.

 

Is your general stance that Dyer should not be a first-choice player at all, then? Or should he start ahead of Owen/Martins (if they are ever fit at the same time, that is)?

 

Sorry mate, but we can. And have done for years.

 

I wouldn't have Dyer in my starting line-up when everyone was fit, no. How i see it, and i'm not going to guess new signings, i'd like to see us line-up like this.

 

Given

 

Solano --- Taylor --- Defender --- Defender

 

Milner --- Emre --- Butt --- N'Zogbia

 

Martins --- Owen

 

But then Dyer can fit in anywhere, and we're bound to have injuries so he will still get a lot of games. Wil be a good impact player n'all. He'll still be a key player for us next season if he doesn't get another long term injury, but i think we'd be a better team without him if everyone was fit.

[Rich]

How many back-up players have been paid £80k a week, like? Must have missed all of them over the "years", I highly doubt there were first-choice players getting over £80k even 2/3 seasons ago, man. Or even before Owen was here, to be precise.

 

That daftness aside, it's one of those "agree to disagree" things because I'm never going to believe that playing James Milner on the right ahead of Dyer with Michael Owen and Obafemi Martins up-front is the best move, until it proves to be so (if it ever does), nor will I agree that we should be paying a "back-up" striker the second-highest wage in the entire squad, especially when we need to spend money so badly at this particular time. (£80k a week is £4.16m a year, according to my noggin.) I'm sure you feel equally as strongly the other way, too.

 

It's one of those things that can't be proved and that we could spend hours of our lives going on about. If you're ever truly at a loose-end for something to do we could bring it back up, though!

 

As for the original question of strikers/defenders, I completely agree with your initial post on the subject in that it would be ludicrous to buy another big-money striker if Martins & Owen stay and IF we don't have that much cash to throw around. The Viduka suggestion is one I back 100%, although it's probably wishful thinking, but as far as spending big money goes I think we need to build from the back and I think Glenn knows it. People shouldn't underestimate the difference that having a fully fit Michael Owen/Shola Ameobi will make to our goalscoring power, either. Both had excellent goal records in varying times last season, playing in a team that was no better than it is now and playing with vastly inferior partners to what they should have now.

 

Two first-choice fullbacks and a centre-half would be top of my wish-list for this summer, with Carr, Bernard, Moore & Bramble all hopefully waving "goodbye" and provided that Onyewu improves/is signed, which I fully expect to happen.

[Yorkie]

Dyer's been paid £80k a week when he's been a million miles away from the first team fold, never mind backup. That's what i mean by us doing so for years. We could and did. Doubt it'd make a major difference now.

 

And i said that he'd still be a key player, which he would be. I would just prefer to see Milner on the right than him.

 

Nevertheless, so long as Dyer's still fit and Roeder's at the helm - he will fit him into the team somehow, even if it meant making the team worse off. Cos Roeder seems to have the nack of not dropping his best players, even if it meant fatally unbalancing the side. But if i was manager, i would prefer him not to be in my starting line-up, though am sure would still get plenty of games due to injuries/inconsistency/his versatility/and being an impact player.

 

Agree with rest of your post.

[Rich]

It's never years, man! He signed the £80k p/w contract in the summer of 2005, played about a dozen games that season and made his full return to "fitness" in November 2006, this season. I'll give you "15 months", but no way are you saying we've paid him £80k for being injured for years! Cheeky blighter!

 

Technically, we've never paid a supposed back-up player £80k p/w, have we? Ever?

[NE5]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

If we offer Sibierski new contract we will have:

1.Martins

2.Owen

3.Ameobi

4.Sibierski

5.Dyer

6.Carroll

 

Can you tell me where this new striker will play especially when you consider the option its possible that we dont play in Europe next season=less games??

 

Now will you admit that first and foremost we need to sign defenders?

 

no. Because basically, only Owen is good enough. Martins might be, and Dyer isn't a striker. That leaves 2 forwards, who may not play together.

 

If you dont' score goals, you go down.

 

I think that the team is poor in possession, and looks suspect at the back due to not imposing its presence on the opposition. The forward lacks support. If we do not sign a striker this summer - a good one - we will be in the s*** next year. Any money we have should be spent there. A good defender still struggles if they players in front of him are struggling. You can patch up at the back, if you have a leader. We need a leader, I'll give you that, but we will have to find one for a small fee.

 

These 2 sentences are pretty shocking and i dont thing anyone will agree with what you are saying

Its like saying that we are so shit upfront that if we dont sign anyone there we will be fucked

What about our defence?

Your way of thinking is pretty strange i must say

 

 

I don't care if you agree with me or not, or anyone else for that matter. I think your way of thinking is very strange, I can't imagine why you want to watch a team that cannot hold the ball, nor do I understand why you think a good defender or two will do anything to the shape of the team other than continue to fight a defensive battle against too many teams, too often.

 

 

 

 

[Cajun]

One of our problems this season has been we are too weak down the left, attacking and defending (one of the main reasons we went out of the UEFA cup) a quality left back would make a huge difference to our team in attack and defence.

[Rich]

One of our problems this season has been we are too weak down the left, attacking and defending (one of the main reasons we went out of the UEFA cup) a quality left back would make a huge difference to our team in attack and defence.

 

Left-back is most definitely THE priority position, for me. Full-back is generally a vastly undervalued part of a line-up, especially in the modern game. I might be slightly zany here, but full-backs are my favourite players to watch (good ones, that is.) They need to be adept at so many different skills and they need to cover so much of the pitch. It's arguably why people say there are "so few good left-backs/right-backs", because it is such a difficult position to master.

 

We've all seen the difference Nobby has made in games where he is allowed to attack more than defend, imagine if we had someone that useful on BOTH sides of the pitch and equally adept at defending/attacking?

[Cajun]

Exactly, our link up down the right on occasion has been fantastic, down the left and you would think they had been told not to walk on the grass the ball so rarely gets played down there!

[ChezGiven]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

All that pressure and we couldnt put the ball in  the net? If we had scored first we would have gone on to win the game. The debate is still open in view of the stats in your post.

 

Also for the record Dyer and Sib are not strikers. Of course we need a LB and after Solano is starting to struggle probably a RB too. Without doubt they need to be strengthened.

[colinmk]

You know if and hopefully when we finally get a quality left back i can see the team improving a hell of a lot. Nobby maybe can play right back but someone should also be brought in to push for that position. With stable full backs this can only help the central defenders and wingers in the team. Bramble is and always has been a shambles and the defence should also be improved just by getting shot of him. Everyone i think is in agreement that Taylor needs someone to help him become a good all-round central defender. He certainly has the ability.

 

Only after the full backs and hopefully another central defender is brought in then we should evaluate the forward line. Not many teams in the premiership can say they have a forward line as good as Martins/Owen/Dyer/Ameobi/Sibi but obviously Owen will be judged if he overcomes his injury fully after the summer.

[Guest Croatian fan]

We don't really need strikers.We have Oba and Owen.We need someone in defence.Players like Gallas,King,Knight.And I think Roeder is not going to change back four,he is blind.SHEPHERD OUT!!!

[NUFC06]

Because they believe we're not keeping the ball enough so the defence is under more pressure. On Thursday night, we had 46% to their 54%, that's only a 4% swing which for a European away match against a good side isn't the worst in the world. Yesterday, we had 65% possession yet still lost 2-0. You sure it's not just the fact the defence is utter, utter sh*t?

 

Goals change games. If you don't score when you are on top, you pay for it. So, yes we still need forwards/strikers.

 

Where on the field was the possession, how was the shape of the team ? Was it aimless sideways passing in midfield, or did we create chances up front ? The straight answer is no, so the conclusion is still that we need better quality forwards.

 

I don't think too many people think we need forwards to be honest, but I'm more convinced than I ever was, that we need a striker and an attacking midfield player.

 

 

 

 

 

First and foremost we need 1 LB,1 CB at least!!!

And then we can think about other areas

If you dont admit that you are out of your mind tbh

 

I think if you don't think we need a striker, you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

If we offer Sibierski new contract we will have:

1.Martins

2.Owen

3.Ameobi

4.Sibierski

5.Dyer

6.Carroll

 

Can you tell me where this new striker will play especially when you consider the option its possible that we dont play in Europe next season=less games??

 

Now will you admit that first and foremost we need to sign defenders?

 

no. Because basically, only Owen is good enough. Martins might be, and Dyer isn't a striker. That leaves 2 forwards, who may not play together.

 

If you dont' score goals, you go down.

 

I think that the team is poor in possession, and looks suspect at the back due to not imposing its presence on the opposition. The forward lacks support. If we do not sign a striker this summer - a good one - we will be in the s*** next year. Any money we have should be spent there. A good defender still struggles if they players in front of him are struggling. You can patch up at the back, if you have a leader. We need a leader, I'll give you that, but we will have to find one for a small fee.

 

These 2 sentences are pretty shocking and i dont thing anyone will agree with what you are saying

Its like saying that we are so s*** upfront that if we dont sign anyone there we will be f*****

What about our defence?

Your way of thinking is pretty strange i must say

 

 

I don't care if you agree with me or not, or anyone else for that matter. I think your way of thinking is very strange, I can't imagine why you want to watch a team that cannot hold the ball, nor do I understand why you think a good defender or two will do anything to the shape of the team other than continue to fight a defensive battle against too many teams, too often.

 

 

 

 

 

I respect your opinion

My opinion though is that you dont understand anything about football