Do we really need a prolific striker?

Just a thought, it was touched upon in the West Ham match thread but I think it's an interesting question.

Has football evolved to a point where a 15-20 goal striker isn't vital to a team's success?

We've had a league high of 12 different goal scorers this season which in itself is fantastic, it was only two seasons ago under QSF in 15-16 when "Own goals" was our 3rd top scorer.

It's still early but I think it's fair to say that, despite his other qualities, Andre Gray is probably not going to score more than 10 goals this season.

Troy Deeney isn't that guy either.

Okaka has the potential to be but his career here is seemingly over.

However, do we really need a goal scoring striker? Or just one who brings others into play, allowing them to score, something that Gray & Deeney can both do really well.

If I had to guesstimate what our midfield & attack will score this year, it'd be the following:

Richarlison - 10
Gray - 8
Deeney - 8
Doccoure - 5
Pereyra - 5
Carrillo - 5
Defence - 5

That's 46 goals and I think I've probably been super negative in most cases, Hughes will chip in as will own goals.

So do we actually need Gray or Deeney to be goalscorers? I can't see us buying a new striker in January so we'll have to get the goals from elsewhere - do you think we will? I also don't see Carrillo scoring 5 goals to be honest, I can't see him scoring many at all, I think we'd be better placed bringing in a new winger than a striker, if our wide players can get 20 goals between them then we can afford to carry Gray or Deeney.

Thoughts?

 

Simple answer YES!

 

We have Cucho and Penaranda

The future is bright

Gray will do for now

 

Some good points raised by the op, and I agree a top striker is desirable but not vital to this Watford team.

However, we do need better than what we’ve currently got. Gray runs a lot and always puts in a shift. I think that, combined with the fact others are regularly chipping in with goals, has given him as easier ride from the fans.

If we had to rely on him as our main source for goals we’d be in big trouble.

 

If Deeney and Gray get 8 each isn't that equivalent to a16 goal striker as they don't play together?

 

If Deeney and Gray were both out, could Richarlison slot into the forward role? Sure I read he has played up front for other clubs.

 

A real goalscorer doesn't only get goals, he also ties up defenders as he is obviously more of a constant threat, thus creating opportunities elsewhere. It changes the dynamic of our attacking threat.

No, a goalscorer isn't vital/essential as we should still get by, but in my view finding one is more important than replacing one of our average centre-backs.

 

I'd rather we sorted out our defence.

Zegelaar is more solid than Holebas so thats a start and Prodl will be back next game I hope.

But yeah, I would rather we focused on getting a top class center back over any other position.

Gray was superb yesterday at holding that ball up and bringing others into play.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

How different we are from our first season, when all the pundits where saying "What would Watford do without Deeney and Ighalo".
No one else much was scoring for us then, but now they all seem to be in on the act, and it seems to be working.... so far.
A reliable front man that can regularly bang them in would be a wonderful addition though.

 

How hard is it to spell Doucoure?

 

Yes is the obvious answer.

Man City have Aguero/Jesus
Man Utd have Lukaku
Chelsea have Morata
Spurs have Kane
Liverpool have Firmino/Salah/Mane as a forward line
Arsenal have Sanches/Lacazette
Leicester (recent champions) have Vardy.

we have Deeney/Gray. Not good enough.

 

Penaranda's not a goalscorer.

 

Yes but that is the point. With the exception of Leicester you’ve just named the top 6. All of those strikers are out of our league from a transfer fee and wages perspective, as they are for the rest of the league. If we had any of those strikers we’d be top 6. It’s only the elite that have and can afford the 20+ a season strikers. The rest of the league can’t afford them but don’t need them as much anymore, as the game has changed and thankfully you don’t need prolific strikers to survive.

 

I think the notion of a 15+ goal a season striker being vital to success is another tired football cliche. Relying on one player to score the bulk of your goals is inadvisable, as demonstrated by Chelsea's dip when Morata was out, Tottenham's performance on Saturday with a half-fit Harry Kane upfront, and I'm sure there are many other examples. Spread the goals amongst the squad and you won't be so negatively impacted by one player being injured/suspended.

We are currently the top scorers outside of the top 6, and that's mostly down to the way we play affording the midfield and wingers ample opportunity to shoot on goal. Doucoure has generally been our deepest lying midfielder this season, but how many times does he pop up on he edge of the box in a given match? It confuses the opposition, because they don't know where the threat is coming from. I would love for Gray and/or Deeney to notch well into double figures this season, but we can still have a highly successful season and be great to watch even if they don't.

 

The title of the thread says "do we need a prolific striker." So I contributed by adding that to get to the next level it would be a good idea and gave examples. If the title of the thread said "do we need a prolific striker to survive" then my reply would've been different.

 

Well the thread title is not ‘do we need a prolific striker to get to the next level’ the title is so we need a prolific striker? to which you answered yes, when the answer is clearly no we don’t.

 

depends on your ambition for the club. I want us to get to the next level.

 

Everyone knew who he meant though so who cares?

 

Yes we absolutely do.

And the answer to all our problems is very simple: gabbiadini from southampton. I believe we'd be in the champions league places if we had him - and I'm as serious as cancer.

He's up for sale too (sorry for the daily seig heil link)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...mpton-open-offers-Gabbiadini-Austin-Long.html

 

Southampton have been shy of goals this season so this suggestion makes no sense to me. Gabbiadini was brilliant at the start of his Southampton career but since his injury has struggled. Don't think this is the answer.

 

I have a mate who's a southampton fan who says he's still a class act, just being ruined by bad tactics and surrounded by crap players. In terms of strikers who are available and proven I cant think of anyone better (though I know naff all about football outside of WFC admittedly)

 

21 goals from Gray, Deeney and Carillo seems optimistic to me. I would take Giroud on a loan in January to the end of the season to get him fit for the world cup. He has a good goal per game ratio. Of course he wont be available, or at least at a price we can afford. So your have to hope that the recruitment team can turn up a gem or two.

 

Verry

 

I don't think a prolific striker is a necessity given our style of play, but that being said someone who could tuck away more chances from crosses into the box would be a good addition. Gray hasn't been prolific so far, but has had some fantastic games where he's been involved in creating chances. Would rather focus on getting a quality left footed centre half in as opposed to another striker though

 

It depends where we are aiming. We're fine for a mid-table place.

We are getting better and better at getting into counter attacking positions, only for the striker to not be fast enough to beat the last defender or run the channels. We get goals from all over the pitch, but there will undoubtedly be scrappy games where you need to be able to rely on a clinical striker to take the few chances they are given.

A quick, clinical striker would be the icing on the cake of a great squad. As would a quick defender who is good on the ball and in the air.

The problem is, that statement is probably true for every team in the league.

 

They better get started, then.

 

Well I hope he is; but he was playing against a very poor West Ham team.

 

This should be a pole

And the answer is yes, if we had a prolific striker we would have scored 4 or 5 yesterday and then if we let a couple in it wouldn’t matter.

Against Everton if we had scored a third they would never have thought back

 

There are never enough good goalscorers to go round. That's why they are so expensive. Yes, a good one would add to Watford's scoring totals, why would anyone not like that? More points and more entertainment. But there is something advantageous in not relying on just one man (who might get injured at any time).

 

Why does having a goalscorer mean that other players dont need to chip in as they are now? As I said earlier a good mobile goalscorer takes defenders away from others, creating even more chances for them.

 

I think the fact we don't have a prolific goal scorer is exactly why we can't beat teams by more than 2 goals... A good prolific striker would have won us that Everton game.

 

You are right and it doesn't. And I wasn't suggesting it.

 

I'm a bit confused: Any willingly mobile player would do that (eg Gray) and it is a valuable contribution in its own right. But the question was about people who actually score goals - 'goalscorers'.

 

I don't know that we need a profilic but I'd like one to improve us and let one or two of the currrent lot go.

I know some on here hate Gray but I still hope he suddenly gets a few goals and becomes a revived player with confidence.

With a decent in form striker we could be awesome as we are capable of creating chances.

My main priority would still be as top a CB as we can get.

Probably another winger but if necessary Pereya, Femenia and maybe Hughes can cover. I suspect either us or Everton will get Markovic in January.

 

Exactly. Some of our best football of the season, playing a really poor side, and we only scored twice

Edit: As Caveman has already pointed out