BensGrandad
New member
Unfortunately CH record on signing strikers isnt very good for the Premier
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Mr sam Baldock
- Thread starter skintmanblues
- Start date
Scunner
Active member
We have badly missed Baldock, no doubt, but that's down to the inflexibility of the system, 442, as well as his movement. Hemed and Murray just does not work, we all know that, so why not switch to 4231, or - which I would do - 433, if we have no available replacement, especially away from home.
It's the classic conundrum of system vs players. In my view the system has to fit the players, not the other way around, and when Baldock has not been available we have not been flexible.
The intransigence simply magnifies the absence of SB.
It's the classic conundrum of system vs players. In my view the system has to fit the players, not the other way around, and when Baldock has not been available we have not been flexible.
The intransigence simply magnifies the absence of SB.
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I know Van Wolfswinkel was a disaster, who else did he sign?
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,186
Let's hope his record on letting strikers go is better...
:Because of his injury record SB just can't be considered the main striker for that role.
If he were this season promotion would be... I can see a pattern forming.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
The other on e at Norwich was Hooper, but, obviously, if he has singed two duff ins, NSC rules state, he will never ever, ever sing another good un'.
BensGrandad
New member
He spent a lot of money on Van Wolfswinkel and Hooper and I wonder whether we have that amount of money to waste and hope that he signs players that can do better as he did with Murray. My target man to alternate with Murray would be Ulloa as I cannot see Hemed cutting it in the Premier, although I hope that I am wrong. Hopefully they may have their eyes on somebody from Spain or Eastern Europe who we have never heard of as per Ulloa and Hemed when they arrived.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
Ulloa, come on BG, do you really think he is good enough? We need an upgrade on what we have otherwise it's pointless to get in anyone else. There are a lot of hungry young, fast strikers, in Europe, who would love the chance to o play for us in the Premier League.
BensGrandad
New member
Ulloa proved he could score goals in the Premier under a manager who played to his strengths but Ranieri changed his approach and tactics and consequently he didnt fit the bill, that doesnt mean that he couldnt cut it in the Premier playing as we do and in a similar manner as Murray. I know it is not your job to know but who are these young hungry fast strikers that you talk of.
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,125
We need an upgrade on Murray, otherwise what is the point . Ulloa is not an upgrade on Murray.
BensGrandad
New member
I think that he is with 1 starting 1 on the bench. That upgrade is not required on Murray but on Hemed, Both Murray and Ulloa have proved they can score goals in the Premier. Who do you suggest?