Since there is a lot of conjecture about two or one upfront, I wonder in City's history what strikers have played the lone striker role effectively?
Considering he was playing next to Aaron McLean most of the time, Fryatt was a pretty good lone striker.
Fryatt did it pretty well in 2009-10. Windass was the spearhead in a 4-3-3 when he helped keep us up in 2007. Before then it was pretty uncommon to play only one up front. I miss the days when most teams played 4-4-2 with two out and out attacking wingers as well as a creative player in the middle, it's only about 10-12 years ago.
I hate one up front. It's simply not possible to play successfully when you have a lethargic midfield that plays about 25 metres behind the 'lone striker'.
That's the thing, it's not just the one up front that's the problem. Most of the top clubs play it after all. However for clubs like us it'd be a big help to have two proper strikers up there to occupy the opposition defence; otherwise you just get penned into your own half with no viable outlet when we get the ball. Problem for City now of course is that we barely have enough to field a lone striker, never mind two.
2 up front would leave us short in midfield. I actually can't think of a side that have recently played two upfront successfully.
That might be the theory, but they're traditionally strikers and they played like two strikers against us. Still, if you don't like that one, Watford player two strikers against us two weeks before the Sunderland game. Burnley also did, though it would be a stretch to suggest they did so successfully.
It's definitely more than theory. Looking back at their games on whoscored, they haven't played two up top for a good while. Suppose it's the same debate as whether Diomande generally plays for us wide left or up front Also a stretch to say Watford played against us with it successfully.
They had 23 shots, they were all **** shots, but they still got off 23 shots and one of them bounced into the goal and that's what wins you the points.
