Does there have to be a top dog? It's a team sport after all. People need to get out of this notion of such and such is the main striker. One of the keys to our successful campaign last year was our tactical flexibility in our formations. What we need is a striker that can play with Sturridge, or instead of Sturridge, or with Lambert or Borini (if he stays). There might be times when 4-4-2 is best suited, others when 4-3-3 or or 4-2-3-1 or whatever other combination of ten numbers you can come up with. What we don't need though is more creativity in the side, or I should say, more creativity at the expense of clinical finishing because we already have enough of that; in short we need goals. We need a proven and experienced top, top goal scorer and not someone from some mid-table team but someone used to scoring against Europe's elite and one who can play up on his own, as a strike partner or anywhere across a front three. Last night reinforced the fact that we just don't have that with our current strike force.
You ask if we need a ''top dog'' when the realities are such an enquiry is a faulted flattery.
What we do need are two recognised hit men, proven goal scorers and game winners, otherwise we face the same failure and disappointment as last season with spectacles like Steven Gerrard with his head in his hands and open space between him and Mignolet.
Sturridge is our only credible threat, a threat that will take out two or three of the opposition in an effort to mark him out of the game, if we had two players of Studge's calibre how much space would that free up?
The absence of the lad confirms the proposition, it really is not worth the time discussing make-piece replacements....to make the most of where we are at we need quality in depth up front; a prima donna or ''top dog'' is not the priority, a credible attacking unit most certainly is......
........as for Johnson, Skrtel, Kelly etc....the sight of Steven Gerrard with his head in his hands appears once more.
Logged
