Having one fit striker isn't an excuse

[Yousef]

Many people say beacause we only had one fit striker in Cisse, we opted to play lone striker. If we have been poor in scoring goals, a good manager will always try new things and TAKE RISKS. We have seen many times managers taking that risks and even trying defenders upfront and worked, ex: Chris Samba and now Michu who is a natural midfielder has been used as striker with Swansea many times. Taking risks is what we lacked here. Neither Mark Hughe nor Harry Redknap tried. We could have put Mackie and Cisse upront (or whoever, the manager should know) with SWP right winger and Traore left winger or whoever the manager think.

The point is If we never won until the Fulham game, it showed we did not have enough people in the opponent box. I am not here to discuss who should play where, but my point is try news things If it is not working and TAKE RISKS.

[1973 ranger]

One striker has meant we have no options at all, We have more strikers out on loan than we have at the club which is poor management The only other team with the same problem is Liverpool but their striker is Suarez.

[lymehoop]

I hate the one man up front with a passion, when Zamora was fit Hughes still played the lone striker, even against Reading, we have been beaten at home by some right dross due to negative tactics. Our away form under Hughes speaks volumns about his tactical nous and like Yousef said, did'nt have a plan b and kept with a system crying out for change. Sadly believe we are down, but at least lets go down fighting and attacking

[Gtleighsr3]

i think we play to set.I mean i like 442 but we have some very creative players through the side.players should be dropping in out ,poping up all over the place.Fluid movement passing,holding,AT all over,wingers coming in backs pushing up,if we going down make a bloody all out go of it.rather go down 5-2 every week than 1-0 as we were scared to go for it.