Somebody read the stats bandied about on Twitter. We would be in dead last without Suarez goals due to our reliance on him. One man team and all that. Which to be fair at the moment, we kind of are.
Not sure how true this is. There have been many teams who have relied on a single player, some far too much. If that player is suspended or injured, the team is in trouble. However, is it possible that without that player, a different system is played? More players are played in more and are asked to contribute more and share the goals? The chances will fall to more players and more and not fewer goals are scored? Of course s peculation but it is not necessarily a disaster if You have for example 2 or 3 very good strikers instead of one top notch oe like Suarez
That is the stat, not saying we wouldn't manauever what we could to deal without him but it was the stat being thrown about all day today.
Well at least Brendan has seen this and is intent on rectifying it in January. He said he wants to sign one or 2 strikers. Brendan knows the squad is weak and needs reinforcements. I trust him to make the right signings, as he's not done too badly thus far.
That table is a bit stupid, as someone else would be playing instead of him, so other people may score. What would be better is taking everyones leading scorers out of their team. See where United would be without RVP, Spurs without Defoe, Arsenal without Podolski's goals etc. Then that would give a fair evaluation as to who really is dependant on one team. Not denying we aren't, just that it needs something to compare against to have any relevance.
I agree with this. Why has this been set up in such a way that it undermines Liverpool? If Liverpool hadn't got Luis Suarez, they would only be above QPR. If Manchester United hadn't got 12 referees and Robin Van Persie, they would be in the bottom 3.
And even if you are dependent on one player, is it SUCH a bad thing? Barca are dependent on Messi, PSG are reliant on Ibrahimovic and Atletico are reliant on Falcao. But nobody questions how they'd be doing without those players, because they DO have those players, so there's no point asking the question of where they'd be without X player.
Which team will Fergie order him to favour next weekend? It's a good chance for you to get your excuses in early.
Suarez is effective because the team plays around him, if he wasn't there then someone else would step up to the plate and more than likely we'd have other people chipping in with goals who didn't before.
So far United have 16 different goal scorers in all competitions (not counting OG) in the league we have 13 (not bad off 10 games).
Everyone has pretty much stated the obvious: quite a few teams have a predominant goalscorer. Have a look (from BBC website): Liverpool: Suarez 10 goals (g) Sahin 3 g Shelvey 3 g Man Utd: Van Persie 10 g Hernandez 5 g Cleverley 3 g Newcastle: Ba 7 g Cisse 3 g Ben Arfa 2 g Swansea: Michu 7 g Graham 3 g Dyer 3 g Stoke: Crouch 5 g Kightly 2 g Walters 2 g I feel the whole team being carried argument doesn't work. Ronaldo had it at Utd, then Rooney, now Van Persie. Gerrard had it at LFC, then Torres, now Suarez. Means very little, TBH.
Exactly The other point is that looking at the leading scorers aren't they just doing exactly what their clubs pay them a lot of money to do? Suarez should be our leading scorer, Van Persie should be Uniteds, Defoe has played up front for Spurs all season so should be theirs etc etc. I don't think any Liverpool fan will deny that we need other goals from elsewhere. Sterling, Shelvey, Suso, Gerrard, Sahin all should have had a couple extra each this year but what other team couldn't say exactly the same about their players? We all know we haven't enough back up when it comes to strikers and goals so this is not exactly big news.
