Tweet
In think it will be wiser to leave all our three strikers benched and go to a 4-3-3 formation without a recognised striker. Why should we waist a position with any of our strikers? Seven goals by all three together speaks volumes. This system will strenghten the midfield by having Colback, Hayden and Field playing there. This will allow Field to play further up and I am sure he is better than any of our strikers! The usual three of Willock, Chair and Anderson will play upfront.
-
-
I am with you Martin. It has crossed my mind a few times.
It is not common to play without strikers, but Pep did it with Barcelona and other clubs have done it.
I have never understood the cry for two striker up top, when we lack proper strikers in our squad. No strikers seems a more relevant option to me than two. -
Will try anything than having a headless chicken up frontYou RsssssssComment
-
Has anyone seen a recognised striker at the club in recent years?Comment
-
I get why you'd say no to 2, when they are all crap.Originally posted by QPROslo View Post
However, Dykes worked better with a partner, I think Frey would also. It's irrelevant to Armstrong. What that leaves us with in attacking midfield however is probably not worth it.
I agree with it as an idea, but as someone pointed out when I was all up on the Frey's useless bandwagon, runs and hassling defenders is a job, that needs doing in this league. But are Chair, Willock and Andersen good good enough to out play a defence without someone taking up man power?Comment
-
Wells and Hugill but they were 1 in 3 game strikers, so only hit minimum requirements.Originally posted by Dedders View Post
Last 1 in 2 striker was Austin's first stint which ended eight seasons ago!!Comment
Comment