I do like Ighalo but do share the same concerns as others, we pretty much need the finished article now and not some development job like Ighalo.Originally Posted by IBK
Despite that, I am pretty certain Wenger will go for someone he can mould and develop.
Yeah, Griezman should have been bought when he was leaving Sociedad but Wenger probably thought Oxlade-Chamberlain and Walcott would be good enough. Nope. I wanted Sterling too, even with the high price tag.
And its hard to buy proven goal scorers from bigger clubs because they are so limited.
IIRC, we bid for Dybala last year but he wanted to goto Juventus. Dybala woulda been perfect.
Yeah I really like Griezmann too, think he's a great player.
The guy at Inter, Mauro Icardi, young Argentinian striker, he looked quite a talent a few seasons back, scored a lot of goals two seasons on the trot, he's gone off the boil a bit this season but I still think he looks a good player. It was rumoured we were in for him in the summer but Inter flat out refused to sell him.
Last edited by selassie; 26-02-2016 at 02:51 PM.
I'd happily take another world-class, goal-scoring wide attacker a la Sanchez, if we can't find the world-class CF that we want - one or the other, as long as we inject some more world-class into the forward line somewhere.
A combination of Giroud, Walcott and Welbeck through the middle may even be ok, IF we get that extra world-class wide attacker, and IF we use the the 3 of them in a more sparing, highly targeted way (e.g. start Welbeck as the all-rounder, and then bring one or the other off the bench once we know what kind of game it's going to be).
Those 3 would have to accept sharing the one role though. If Walcott and Welbeck can't stay fit across a whole season, then no more game time out wide unless there's absolutely no other choice. And if Giroud's form is going to dip drastically every time he gets over a certain number of games, then he's gonna have to put up with heavy rotation and less game time. Tough shit, if they don't like it - either stake your claim in a serious way, or accept a more modular role where we have to manage your fitness and freshness.
What I absolutely do not want to see, is us either settling for another middling CF (we have enough of those already, thanks), or signing no one at all to boost the attack, if we can't get the world-class CF that we want.
Last edited by I am invisible; 26-02-2016 at 02:55 PM.
We are getting Aguero then..
Arsene Wenger, the only football manager that got paid 8 million quid to do nothing but sit on his arse..
Lukaku is the most obvious one considering the issues with others.
Even if he cost something like 50 he has enough years in him to repay it.
He's missed 9 games through injury since the start of the 13/14 season. Theo has missed 62 games in that period. Welbeck 47. Giroud 18.
During the period, Giroud has 59 goals, Welbeck 29, Walcott 19, Lukaku 57.
Lukaku scores a goal every 160 minutes, Giroud every 167 minutes, Welbeck every 300, Walcott every 243.
So I's rate Giroud and Lukaku as second tier strikers, and Welbeck and Walcott as nowhere near effective enough to be at a club supposedly chasing major honours. It could be argued Walcott and Welbeck haven't had the run of games or haven't played in the striker's role enough to realistically challenged the other two, but then again if you are injured all the time you aren't going to get the opportunities. If we aren't prepared to spend the money then Giroud is the best we can expect, and spending 50mill to replace him with Lukaku seems a lot of money for not a lot of gain.
Für eure Sicherheit
Should the comparison not be from 12/13? That was Giroud's first year and also in essence Lukaku's as well at West Brom, as Chelsea never used him.
I'd rank Lukaku's progress as more impressive. Much younger than Giroud and has scored goals for an average Everton and an even more average West Brom. Put him in our team and I don't see why he wouldn't outscore Giroud comfortably. 50m for someone at home in this league, goals to his name, years away from his peak and even a sell-on value? Seems pretty ideal to me. The transfer market is ridiculous these days anyway, 50m was probably 25m a few years ago.
The £50mill is a reflection of a crazy market, agreed. So why not embrace crazy wholeheartedly, add £20mill-30mill on top and put in an offer for a real game changer? 10 years of caution surely buys us one window of excess? It's not like we'd be throwing away the principles of the club, we'd just be doing a bit of much needed catch up.
Für eure Sicherheit
The principles of the club are to live within our means, 80million outlay on a striker is within our means now.
Would be interesting whether the board would be prepared to spend it even without a skinflint manager
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote