Ayub95 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I don't think someone like Welbeck is that unique' date=' the reason he stands out at the moment is that it's ages since we've had someone up front who actually does the striker thing properly. Plenty of players around who can do what he's doing and in addition be a lot more clinical.[/quote']Like who? Because it's either journeymen, young inexperienced overpriced players like Martial or the Giroud type which are the new craze. I don't even buy this we create many chances narrative anyway. We create half chances mainly from Özil but let's not kid ourselves this isn't 06/07 levels of clear chances being missed constantly every game. We need better players to create better easier chances simply. A WC striker this season would just bail us out, not be the icing of a well formed cake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 They aren't half chances though, we create so much and have got into so many good positions this season and its been woeful from our frontline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 So which striker do we sign then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Higuain and Lukaku would be top of my list for the central role, would hope Arsenal's scouting system has plenty of other targets on the radar as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayub95 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 They aren't half chances though' date=' we create so much and have got into so many good positions this season and its been woeful from our frontline.[/quote']We don't create much. We create one chance a game which is usually missed. A lot comes from set pieces or Özil crosses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 So a bottle job that's build up play isn't great or a raw striker whose first touch is genuinely bad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 We don't create much. We create one chance a game which is usually missed. A lot comes from set pieces or Özil crosses. Simply not the case? Look at how much we created against this Barcelona side over the two legs, and the only goal we scored was Elneny from 30 yards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayub95 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Higuain and Lukaku would be top of my list for the central role' date=' would hope Arsenal's scouting system has plenty of other targets on the radar as well.[/quote']Higuain like its 2013 and Lukaku hahahaha. Should have just paid 30m for Benteke and his **** first touch instead of Arsene potentially paying 50m for Lukaku and his even worse first touch. Very Arsenal. Very Wenger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 So a bottle job that's build up play isn't great or a raw striker whose first touch is genuinely bad? You appear to be talking about Giroud for some reason with your first comment, and Walcott with the second comment. Bottle jobs and raw strikers with the stats Higuain and Lukaku have I'm happy to take. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Higuain like its 2013 and Lukaku hahahaha. Should have just paid 30m for Benteke and his **** first touch instead of Arsene potentially paying 50m for Lukaku and his even worse first touch. Very Arsenal. Very Wenger. Should have signed Higuain in 2013, awful decision not to. And confused by the Lukaku thing when he's a proven PL goalscorer. But sure lets persist with Giroud and Walcott season after ****ing season. Awful attitude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Charlie Austin is a proven Premier League goalscorer. Lets sign him. Or even Jamie Vardy. Lukaku has scored goals for an Everton side that is near enough perfect for him. There's less pressure, teams tend to attack more and Everton play to his strengths. It's also weird how we weren't hearing about how wonderful he is last season when he scored 10 goals in 36 games. (Giroud got 14 goals in 9 fewer games) At Arsenal he'd have to play against more packed defenses and every single game he plays would be scrutinised. Also, Arsenal won't play completely to his strengths. And his first touch is genuinely terrible, so he'd be an awful fit for this side. It's so lazy to assume he'd excel and score goals just because he has done well at Everton and West Brom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 laughing at lukaku as if he isn't a remarkable improvement on olivier giroud and danny welbeck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayub95 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'm sure Özil would appreciate Lukaku killing moves constantly because his touch is erratic. Well known that Arsenal got ****ed over the Higuain deal then. And also no one is saying persist with Giroud and Walcott but the chances of getting someone who'd be a clear no1 option is so unlikely it's better that Wenger prioritises other parts of the side instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Double post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 laughing at lukaku as if he isn't a remarkable improvement on olivier giroud and danny welbeck How much of Lukaku have you seen this season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 song i see what you're saying but everton play very possession heavy and close quarter football too though in reality. but even still why not shift the style around a little to fit in what someone like lukaku brings? teams would need to either double up on him letting your hordes of attacking midfielders play around more or he gets to dominate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 song i see what you're saying but everton play very possession heavy and close quarter football too though in reality. but even still why not shift the style around a little to fit in what someone like lukaku brings? teams would need to either double up on him letting your hordes of attacking midfielders play around more or he gets to dominate. I'd rather shift the style to suit the team and not just someone as inconsistent as Lukaku. I still maintain that having an actual settled and cohesive midfield would be more beneficial than a striker. And whilst I can see what benefit Lukaku's physical prowess brings, a man with movement and a first touch as poor as his is not going to cut it at the highest level. I'll actually expand on this. We had arguably the best striker in the world from 2011 to the summer of 2012. And we won **** all. Why? Because the rest of the team was so disjointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayub95 Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Because like playing with Giroud it gets predictable at the higher level and teams get creative to stop a team who play through one singular target, that's why Arsenal need someone like Welbeck who can defer play to others or just runs the channels looking for that long angled pass behind the defence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Charlie Austin is a proven Premier League goalscorer. Lets sign him. Or even Jamie Vardy. Charlie Austin has played in the PL for one season, Vardy two and he was pretty terrible last season. Next. Lukaku has scored goals for an Everton side that is near enough perfect for him. There's less pressure, teams tend to attack more and Everton play to his strengths. It's also weird how we weren't hearing about how wonderful he is last season when he scored 10 goals in 36 games. (Giroud got 14 goals in 9 fewer games)At Arsenal he'd have to play against more packed defenses and every single game he plays would be scrutinised. Also, Arsenal won't play completely to his strengths. And his first touch is genuinely terrible, so he'd be an awful fit for this side. It's so lazy to assume he'd excel and score goals just because he has done well at Everton and West Brom. He's 22 which is incredibly young for that type of player, he knows how to score goals, he is strong, he has pace, he is good in the air, he is much better at lot of the target man stuff than Giroud is, and also you have to back the coaching staff to make a player better. He might turnout to be terrible, you might be right, but we are never as a club going to be able to sign an Aguero type striker when they are at their peak, we are going to have to gamble on an up and coming striker (like we did with Henry, all the objections you are raising to Lukaku you would have been raising back 15 odd years ago when we signed Henry). But lets ****ing find out rather than watching Giroud go through the same motions every season. Just bored of it now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 yeah but so does lukaku? so many of his goals for everton are him running through channels from wide for that exact sort of pass. i'm not claiming his link up play matches up to giroud's by any means but... so what? you have literally every other player able to move the ball around quickly and lukaku is the destination moving about and defences with him letting you do that. obviously oversimplifying it here because the problem isn't isolated to strikers alone but bringing someone who not only gets goals but also hassles defences that would let ozil more space to find alexis roaming in the final third or ramsey pushing up etc, seems like a pretty great solution for me instead of a really compact approach you guys have now although i do like welbz as an alternate or plan b to be fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 When was the last exciting up and coming world football talent we signed ? Honestly think it might be as long ago as Reyes. We sort of flutter our eyelashes these days at the likes of Draxler but then we bottle out of actually doing anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 I don't see why Welbeck can't be plan A. A fit and firing Alexis in a settled side can get 25-30 goals easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I'd rather shift the style to suit the team and not just someone as inconsistent as Lukaku. I still maintain that having an actual settled and cohesive midfield would be more beneficial than a striker. And whilst I can see what benefit Lukaku's physical prowess brings, a man with movement and a first touch as poor as his is not going to cut it at the highest level.I'll actually expand on this. We had arguably the best striker in the world from 2011 to the summer of 2012. And we won **** all. Why? Because the rest of the team was so disjointed. fair enough on wider team point although i would still argue against the lukaku cutting against highest level thing. 25 goals he's got and i honestly believe his touch being that bad is overplayed because he gets the job done so often. that chelsea goal recently has given me as much confidence in him as kane's goal against chelsea in january 2015 that there is proper quality here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 I don't see why Welbeck can't be plan A. A fit and firing Alexis in a settled side can get 25-30 goals easily. You are as cowardly as Arsene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 fair enough on wider team point although i would still argue against the lukaku cutting against highest level thing. 25 goals he's got and i honestly believe his touch being that bad is overplayed because he gets the job done so often. that chelsea goal recently has given me as much confidence in him as kane's goal against chelsea in january 2015 that there is proper quality here Oh Lukaku has quality, just don't think he has enough about him to really cut it at the highest level. I might be wrong, but its probably going to cost close to £60m to sign him and that's far too expensive on a player who has so many question marks against him. For me, Harry Kane is miles ahead of Lukaku. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 You are as cowardly as Arsene. What a ridiculous comment to make. I'm cowardly because I don't think Lukaku is all that? I'll tell you what is cowardly - writing off Alexis Sanchez. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 What a ridiculous comment to make.I'm cowardly because I don't think Lukaku is all that? No, the cowardness comes from choosing to go for an internal solution rather getting out in the marketplace and backing your judgement with money. Every problem we have had in the squad over the last ten years, Wenger's first instinct is to go for a cheap internal solution and then when things go wrong he hides behind the lack of money he's spent as though he's had no other option. It's all lined up to happen again this summer "I must say, the way Danny finished the season, it's a little bit like a new signing to play him as a striker", and you're here cheering him on in this madness Next season will be identical to the last 10 if we don't bring in a new striker (and I agree we need to strengthen elsewhere as well) and try to bumble through with a guy who has no track record of scoring more than 20 goals in a season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Right, but if Wenger thinks that Lukaku wouldn't improve us then surely he's backing his judgement? Or should he sign him just to placate you? I like Danny Welbeck and think that we will struggle to improve on him and that he can play a big part in a title winning squad. How is that cowardice? I just have a different opinion to you on the matter. I'm more than in favour of us spending money and have been more critical of Wenger than most. I just don't think we should go mad on a striker because GOALS GOALS GOALS and instead we should think about who we can get and what areas we need most improvement on. You're incredibly narrow minded on this subject and just seem obsessed with goals. If goalscoring strikers were that important than why aren't City winning the league? Why didn't we in 2011/12? Why did QPR get relegated with Austin? Why didn't Liverpool win it in 13/14 when they had the two best goalscoring strikers in the league in Suarez and Sturridge? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggressive minor Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Pretty obvious what a top striker can do for a team (ie, a hell of a lot), look at Kane at Spurs and Aguero at Man City just to name two. Both teams have a dip a noticeable dip without them. You're just picking out select examples from a very poor sample size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 16, 2016 Author Share Posted March 16, 2016 Spurs is such a poor example and I'm surprised you have highlighted them. Spurs are the prime example of a well organised and drilled side that win matches because of a game plan and a functioning midfield. City are an example of how a top striker isn't enough. Leicester are another side that have proven my point (Vardy's form has dipped significantly in 2016) And besides, I'm not saying a top striker doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that Lukaku ISN'T a top striker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coulthard's Jaw Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Right, but if Wenger thinks that Lukaku wouldn't improve us then surely he's backing his judgement? Or should he sign him just to placate you? I think Wenger in charge of a club with the largest cash reserve in world football should be able to find a better striker than Giroud, a better forward than Walcott, a better central midfielder than Flamini etc etc etc I do not have access to Arsenal's comprehensive scouting system but if they are not able to identify a goalscorer then they are doing something wrong. You're incredibly narrow minded on this subject and just seem obsessed with goals. If goalscoring strikers were that important than why aren't City winning the league? Why didn't we in 2011/12? Why did QPR get relegated with Austin? Why didn't Liverpool win it in 13/14 when they had the two best goalscoring strikers in the league in Suarez and Sturridge? Goals are the most important stat in football. Where would City be without Aguero? Where would we have finished without RvP in 11/12? Would Liverpool have got close to the title without Suarez and Sturridge? I don't massively care who scores our goals, they can be shared around or it can be one player racking them up. What I don't like is the total lack of goalscoring nous in the squad. And as completely overhauling the squad is not going to happen in the short term, the quickest way to rectify the issue is to get in one or two forwards who can score goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulHartman71 Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 If we'd just coughed up an extra £10/15M for Higuain we probably wouldn't even be having this debate about a striker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawee Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I'm sort of on the fence on this one. I've said many times that I think a world-class striker is the single biggest signing we can make. I don't know why people are bringing up Lukaku, Aguero, Vardy, and Kane as examples. They should be talking about how a player like Suarez turned a mid-table team into a title-challenging side. Just as CR7 transformed Man Utd, RvP won the title for Man Utd, or Henry turned us into one of Europe's better side. That's the influence. However, I also recognize that there's no clear option out there for us. Someone who ticks all the boxes. Like someone else said, we'd never sign a world-class striker anyway. The EPL develop world-class strikers, rather than sign them. We had to do it with Henry. Liverpool did it with Torres. Man City did it with Aguero. Man Utd did it with CR7. The list goes on, I'm sure. If we'd just coughed up an extra £10/15M for Higuain we probably wouldn't even be having this debate about a striker Perhaps. We surely had enough money for both Ozil and Higuain. That would have been a statement. Signing two top players that combines well together. However, in 2013, Suarez was also avaiable. I was on the "throw stupid money at him" train. I've been a fan since I saw his Copa America 2011 performance. 60m for Suarez would have been worth every penny. If Suarez could do what he did for Liverpool, think what he could have done for us in 13/14, and since. So, it's almost pointless lamenting the lack of world-class striker available in the market. When not one, but TWO became available in the market, we didn't risk it with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
el sid Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Question to ajw: Who do you think are the strikers that are currently better than Welbeck for Arsenal? (They don't have to be gettable). Just want to know how high you rate Welbeck/other strikers around the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamjerome Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 on an unrelated note, what do arsenal fans think about jack wilshere and also woj sczeszny? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chr1s Lawson Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 on an unrelated note, what do arsenal fans think about jack wilshere and also woj sczeszny? Jack has/had the potential to be a fantastic dlp but his career may never progress because of injury. Woj is a good GK but not a top level one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Spurs is such a poor example and I'm surprised you have highlighted them. Spurs are the prime example of a well organised and drilled side that win matches because of a game plan and a functioning midfield.City are an example of how a top striker isn't enough. Leicester are another side that have proven my point (Vardy's form has dipped significantly in 2016) And besides, I'm not saying a top striker doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that Lukaku ISN'T a top striker. Vardy's form has ''dipped'' because teams have generally altered the way they play against Leicester. Newcastle's narrow approach highlighted that. Just to add, Spurs might be a organised team, but they still need somebody to finish their chances. Same as City. Plus, you suggesting Kane/Aguero only scores ignores the huge contributions they can and do make. Giroud or Welbeck (who, has CJ pointed out, will not get you 20 goals a season) aren't the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Question to ajw: Who do you think are the strikers that are currently better than Welbeck for Arsenal? (They don't have to be gettable). Just want to know how high you rate Welbeck/other strikers around the world. If they don't have to be gettable then there would be 20/30? Reasonable targets a fair few less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 Question to ajw: Who do you think are the strikers that are currently better than Welbeck for Arsenal? (They don't have to be gettable). Just want to know how high you rate Welbeck/other strikers around the world. There are the obvious ones in Europe like Suarez, Lewandowski, Aubameyang, Benzema etc who are the top tier of strikers. Then you've got the likes of Dybala, Morata and Higuain. Although I don't rate Higuain that highly and maintain that he wouldn't be a great fit for Arsenal and the Premier League. In the Premier League the three main ones I'd have over Welbeck are Kane, Aguero and Sturridge. Lukaku obviously provides a greater goal threat but I don't think a player with his touch and movement can make it at a top club. I've probably missed some out and there are some that are probably at the level of Welbeck which I didn't bother in mentioning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 Vardy's form has ''dipped'' because teams have generally altered the way they play against Leicester. Newcastle's narrow approach highlighted that.Just to add, Spurs might be a organised team, but they still need somebody to finish their chances. Same as City. Plus, you suggesting Kane/Aguero only scores ignores the huge contributions they can and do make. Giroud or Welbeck (who, has CJ pointed out, will not get you 20 goals a season) aren't the answer. Can you point out where I said that please? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Spurs is such a poor example and I'm surprised you have highlighted them. Spurs are the prime example of a well organised and drilled side that win matches because of a game plan and a functioning midfield.City are an example of how a top striker isn't enough. Leicester are another side that have proven my point (Vardy's form has dipped significantly in 2016) And besides, I'm not saying a top striker doesn't make a difference. I'm saying that Lukaku ISN'T a top striker. You used this statement to justify the fact you don't need a prolific goal scorer, you need a well oiled machine. Most would say you need both, and tbh it just makes me feel you undervalue Kane's contributions. Also, just to clarify, are you saying that Welbeck is the fourth best striker in the league? Or, the fourth who'd you want in your side? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 You used this statement to justify the fact you don't need a prolific goal scorer, you need a well oiled machine. Most would say you need both, and tbh it just makes me feel you undervalue Kane's contributions.Also, just to clarify, are you saying that Welbeck is the fourth best striker in the league? Or, the fourth who'd you want in your side? Well, no, I'm valuing Kane's contributions because he is part of this 'well oiled machine' his ability AND his goals help Spurs massively. Whereas if he just scored goals then Spurs wouldn't be as good of a side. My argument is that a striker that only scores goals isn't enough at the top level. The fourth best for Arsenal. I don't think this league is full of good strikers though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You wouldn't take Payet, for example? This was the season for Arsenal to break their barren run and actually compete for the title. With Welbeck up front, you'd need to see the rest of the team get goals as Welbeck simply doesn't and isn't a prolific goalscorer. Just out of curiosity, RVN wasn't good enough for the top level? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 Payet isn't a striker. RvN was more than just a poacher and the game has moved on massively since the early 00's. Look at what United achieved when Fergie moved him on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawee Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 I wouldn't mind a pure goal-scorer like Ian Wright lol. If our midfield will continue to not contribute with many goals, then our leading striker will have to be able to score goals, first and foremost. When Cazorla was fit, him and Ozil led the league in chance creation. Our striker should be leading the league in the goal chart, since they'd have just as many if not more chances than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajw10 Posted March 17, 2016 Author Share Posted March 17, 2016 A 'pure goal scorer' would do absolutely nothing for us. That type of striker is obsolete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You just need a workhorse who scores 10 or 12 a season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawee Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 A 'pure goal scorer' would do absolutely nothing for us. That type of striker is obsolete. There are very few types of players that are truly obsolete. It comes down to how the team is assembled. Do you know how much pressure an Ian Wright applies on the opponents? A pure goal-scorer actually can add dimensions to your team. Everyone likes to add variation to the build up. An inside forward, a winger, a playmaker, a marauding wingback, a box to box midfielder, etc. Yet a goalscorer who can score many different types of goals will automatically add new angles to our attacks, especially since we are already a team that can create chances. A great goal-scorer would allow our midfielders to create all kinds of chances, because they know he can score from many different types of services. We complain about having to choose between Walcott and Giroud, but imagine someone who score both types of their goals. Obviously, these types of players exist less now because teams like to spread the goals around more. Usually three. Modern managers prefer a striker who can score certain type of goals, but also add to the buildup, rather than a versatile goal-scorer. It'd be great if 2 of our midfielders could get double figures, but they're not. It's not just the strikers. Our entire team has been wasteful with their finishing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kawee Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 You just need a workhorse who scores 10 or 12 a season. Ramsey and Sanchez are suppose to be it aren't they? They're the hard working midfielders who get into goal-scoring chances. They're still hard working, but they're not scoring. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBrown Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Ramsey and Sanchez are suppose to be it aren't they? They're the hard working midfielders who get into goal-scoring chances. They're still hard working, but they're not scoring. My comment was a bit sarcastic because AJW seems to think Arsenal have good quality strikers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.