shmmeee
Well-Known Member
They are disagreeing, not missing
Its blatantly obvious what he is saying, that nobody thinks we didn't need new attackers, but priorities should have been elsewhere. Which is a perfectly valid view.
Other people (I'm one of them) think that attackers were just as much of a priority because we failed to score in more games than almost every other side, and not having options up front completely dictated the way we had to play. I think thats also very valid.
Who's to say who's right or wrong, nobody will know for a fair few weeks/ months yet, but I don't think its any more than a discussion about how we're trying to develop the way we play and what players are needed to set about it. And I don't think anyone would dispute its been a weird window, its not been plain sailing.
One thing that gets lost in all this is that it seems to being taken for granted that Waghorn is a huge improvement- his scoring record was terrible last year- fair bit of pressure on him to deliver not just experience & nous but a few more goals than he scored last year.
Nope. Still missing. The point is the strikers don’t matter if you can’t create chances and you can’t create chances if you have to have ten men behind the ball to stop conceding. Bringing up how many we scored is proving my point. If we had high xG and low goals scored then yes we’d need better finishers, but we don’t, we need to play higher up the pitch and for that the midfield and wingbacks need to be able to leave their half and trust the defence to handle themselves.