Where does our strikeforce rate?

[Guest optimistic nit]

how can a team with 3 strikers have a better strikeforce than liverpool and spurs? they'll be contesting 3rd best strikeforce with us.

[Mick]

makes a change to think if were 0-0 at home at around 65 minutes we can actually bring someone one to improve our chances like

 

That same person can come on at 1-0 up and disrupt the game if we're under pressure, the same player can come on if we're struggling and give us a lift with just one tackle.  He wasn't really my ideal choice to replace Dyer but he does have a few good points.

[Guest optimistic nit]

makes a change to think if were 0-0 at home at around 65 minutes we can actually bring someone one to improve our chances like

 

That same person can come on at 1-0 up and disrupt the game if we're under pressure, the same player can come on if we're struggling and give us a lift with just one tackle.  He wasn't really my ideal choice to replace Dyer but he does have a few good points.

 

imo if he's on under 50K a week its a good signing, over a bad signing. Not as good as dyer, but dyer was walking away with too much cash.

[Shearer9]

Most on here are really overrating our strikeforce when compared to those other 4 teams.  Owen is injury prone, Ameobi has never been reliable, Smith probably won't be a striker more than half the time.  The only team I wouldn't swap with is Arsenal, as they have too many unknowns.  Does anyone really think that the likes of Torres, Kuyt, Drogba, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, and Bent don't make their strikeforces better than ours?

[Guest ALNO1]

Most on here are really overrating our strikeforce when compared to those other 4 teams.  Owen is injury prone, Ameobi has never been reliable, Smith probably won't be a striker more than half the time.  The only team I wouldn't swap with is Arsenal, as they have too many unknowns.  Does anyone really think that the likes of Torres, Kuyt, Drogba, Rooney, Tevez, Berbatov, and Bent don't make their strikeforces better than ours?

That's a more sane response, I thought it was me

[Guest optimistic nit]

Drogba and Pizzaro are good for cheslsea, but kalou is still young and not better than our top 3 and shev had a nightmare 1st season. We're joint 3rd with Manure imo, due to Manure only having 3 strikers, bringing their overall score down.

[Dave]

Man United score goals for fun, from all over the pitch.

[Guest optimistic nit]

Man United score goals for fun, from all over the pitch.

 

aye they dee, but we're talking about strikers here, not goals, different thing imo. Manure will walk the top scoring charts, but in terms of strikers they don't have it as good as some of the other teams.

[Guest LucasUnger]

Don't think there is really a simple answer to that one.

 

I suppose you could go off how many league goals each player would score and total them up, so here would be mine off the top of my head.

 

Us- Owen (18), Viduka (15), Martins (10),  Ameobi (6) (Total:49)

 

Liverpool- Torres (18), Crouch (16), Kuyt (11), Vorinin (-8-) (Total:53)

 

Man Utd- Rooney (15), Saha (12), Anderson (6), Tevez (14) (Total:47)

 

Arsenal- Adebayor (11), Van Persie (13), De Silva (15), Bentner (6) (Total:45)

 

Chelsea- Drogba (23), Pizzaro (10), Shevchenko (16), Kalou (5) (Total:54)

 

Spurs- Berbatov (18), Keane (12), Defoe (10), Bent (15) (Total:55)

 

I've removed Smith so everyone has 4 strikers each and i also think he'll be a mid anyway.

 

 

if pizza-ro scores 10 goals this season then iduka must be at 25 goal

[Guest Knightrider]

Options wise I think we have the best set, quality wise we have 5 very good players, with Owen being the best obviously, followed by Viduka, then Martins, then Ameobi tied with Smith. Each offer something different though and are all experienced Premiership players now and can all score and create goals. Very happy with our depth in attack, although fitness concerns still trouble us in that area.

[Shearer9]

Man United score goals for fun, from all over the pitch.

 

aye they dee, but we're talking about strikers here, not goals, different thing imo. Manure will walk the top scoring charts, but in terms of strikers they don't have it as good as some of the other teams.

I think the focus here is off, Manure are absolutley loaded in attack, they'll score goals for fun, so the whole idea that a team's goalscoring ability should be placed solely upon the shoulders of the strikers in comparing teams is a bit ridiculous to me.  This entire thread, especially in relation to Manure and Chelsea, is an apples to oranges comparison.