Five strikers??

[trent-ender]

Certainly ambitious... be interesting, if it happens, to see if he can keep them at all happy! I'm one for keeping a strikeforce together really, gain a relationship just like the centre halfs should. So four is enough for me. But each to there own!

 

[Darth Pierre]

Certainly ambitious... be interesting, if it happens, to see if he can keep them at all happy! I'm one for keeping a strikeforce together really, gain a relationship just like the centre halfs should. So four is enough for me. But each to there own!

5 is too many.

 

[DanR]

Even the French would shudder at the ambition of having five strikers.

 

[tom1990]

5 is too many.

It's not. A successful club always has plenty of attacking options. Look at Man Utd, Chelsea etc. With Tyson and Earnshaw injured and Garner suspended, we currently have no other strikers to pick from. When they are all available for selection, including the two potential new boys, the manager will have a serious selection poser, which can only be a good thing as it will guard against complacency for fear that they will be replaced. If we are struggling to break down the opposition, it's good to have options that will offer something different to the team, e.g. height, pace etc.

 

[Quinn^2]

I think that 5 maybe too much to keep the players happy, as he said he wants them all to be a high standard then they will want first team football and if they don't get it they won't be happy.

I think he will get another Striker, an attacking midfielder as such instead of a striker ( Mcsheffery who can play up front aswell ) and a left back.

 

[trent-ender]

I agree, five is too many. Sheff utd and brum always have too many strikers and never seem to get a good partnership together.
5 is fine for the chelseas etc of this world cos they have no sort of budget, and some players are happy sitting in the reserves on large wages. Dont think it would be the same for us somehow. There is other priorities rather than the luxury of a fifth striker. If it gets to the point where 3 of the 4 are out then you can always go one up front, or anderson, mccleary or newbold can easily step in without me worrying too much

 

[ForestNo10]

You can never have enough strikers. every club needs 4/5 strikers at most nowadays.
I would like 1 defender and winger in before weekend if davies is getting 2 in before weekend. 2 left-sided players.

 

[trent-ender]

I really dont agree. But i'm not a fan at all of rotation policies, and if your not using that system how many games, let alone starts, do you think a fifth choice striker is going to get over the course of a season? Surely not enough to warrant the need for one of a high class. Thats when your youth team players should be getting a shout.

 

[andyred]

I think it's best to have 3 strikers and a couple of midfielders who can play there in emergencies. Like Commons for example.

 

[Benchwarmer]

I think 4 strikers is an ample number.

McCleary / Davies can also play upfront (why we would use Davies up there in the first place is beyond me), and McGugan has been known to play there.

 

[Benchwarmer]

Infact he probably identifies Emile Sinclair as one of our current 4 strikers.

 

[It's Baggio]

Infact he probably identifies Emile Sinclair as one of our current 4 strikers.

I doubt it as he's at Macclesfield and will probably be released in June.

I don't think 5 is too many, actually with the amount of times we've been short up front over the last couple of years I'd be delighted to have 5 front men.

 

[Baronvon]

Whether five is too many or not we certainly need more than three!

 

[tom1990]

I think 4 strikers is an ample number.

McCleary / Davies can also play upfront (why we would use Davies up there in the first place is beyond me), and McGugan has been known to play there.

So he can't play up front then? I think you've just contradicted yourself there.

 

[Daniel]

I think 4 strikers is an ample number.

McCleary / Davies can also play upfront (why we would use Davies up there in the first place is beyond me), and McGugan has been known to play there.

T'is probably why Billy Davies is a successful manager in football and you are not. lol lol

 

[Benchwarmer]

So he can't play up front then? I think you've just contradicted yourself there.

Sorry:

Arron Davies has been known in the past to play upfront.

Why (based on his performances) we would want to play him (up there or otherwise) is beyond me.