Best Striker at the Club?

A considerably better striker means considerably more money. After all you never know what you get from him in terms of decisive or winning goals in Europe. He wouldn't be Suarez, Robin van Persie or or Ronaldo who can score winning goals when needed.

Does Deila need a considerably better striker? I think at the start of first training sessions Deila is pleased with pure raw material of the current Celtic strikers. Young strikers like Griffiths, Watt and Pukki (and a bit older Stokes) are really a big striking force potential to try to shape and realize for attacking and passing tactics of his.

I believe, not only hope, Deila and Collins do magic with these young lads. It'll be the team for Deila, not one particular striker. Exiting, isn't it?

 

If we had a better striker we would of took something of the game at the San Siro last season, a game we were on top for most of the game and would also have took something out of the away tie at Ajax as we had our chances. Stokes was decent but no more. He can play at that level but I'll be disappointed if we go into the CL with those forwards.

 

Fixed

 

Stokes unselfish That statement is wide of the mark:smiley-laughing002:

 

Yes it is, but Deila is a complete unknown to all of us, we have no idea what he is capable of. Yes I'm glad we identified what we think is an exciting young manager over a Coyle, MacKay etc. We have pretty average strikers and a couple of poor ones. Fine for SPFL but not sure they are even Europa League class, obviously be delighted if Ronny can develop them into someone as good as Hooper or even better but we'll have to see if that's possible. Must admit I have my doubts. I think he needs better.

 

A would say he is a selfish player in general even though he has also done some unselfish play before.

Stokes the better all round footballer. Griffiths the better finisher.

 

We wouldn't have, our play in the final third was awful, we never made one out and out chance from open play. Sammy's was the closest and he still should have passed it to Stokes.

 

I think you have to include Stokes in that also though. He didn't get himself involved often enough I didn't think. He also had a responsibility to make things happen for us.

The harsh reality is, he can't play as a lone striker, certainly not in Europe anyway. Even domestically he struggles to play the role, but we have enough about us to get away with it, not against top sides in Europe though. Hooper was able to adapt his game to it, but Stokes hasn't in my opinion. As things stand, that should be our priority in the transfer market, as we will more than likely play with one striker when in Europe.

 

I agree, I think Stokes was the best out of the lot though, he tried to get on the ball and kept his composure, nearly set Sammy up (only cross of the night that went by the first defender, it was infuriating), nearly scored from a free kick, was good on the ball and Samaras should have played him in on goal but hit a shot instead.

He's not a lone striker, by any means at all but he was our best player going forward, even though that's not saying much.

 

Aye, I would agree about him being the best out of our attacking options that night, as you say, that wouldn't have been hard really. Matthews was our most threatening, but his final ball was unusually dreadful that night.

 

Would say the same of Lustig as well, him and Matthews would continually get into the right position and then fail to deliver. I felt sorry for Stokes that night to be honest, there wasn't any service at all.

 

I know what you are getting at with the service, as from wide areas it was pretty awful. Maybe I'm being slightly harsh on him, but I can't help but think a player like Hooper would contributed more in the game, even with the poor service taken into account. I think that goes back to the point about how both players adapted to the lone striking role.

 

It is possible, as Hooper is a much better player in the lone striker role but if he had got anything out of that game it would have been on his own, something special. Not something that can be relied upon in Europe, we need to be better as a team to present chances to our strikers in Europe, not hope that they can pull off something special.

Even the Ajax game at home, it was Stokes keeping his composure in the box, drawing in the defender and taking the ball by him that won us the penalty, whereas I still feel there is a lack of composure on the ball from the majority of our team.

That wasn't present the year before, we were composed, I don't know if that was down to our players having more faith in Wanyama and Hooper than anybody else in the squad. We also had the likes of Miku, while not a great success for us, was quite happy on the ball in Europe.

 

I don't actually think there was much difference in our performances in Europe this year compared to last. That sounds ridiculous even to myself, but I honestly don't think there was.

Last year we were clinical, when a chance came our way, it more often than not, ended up in the back of the net, it was totally different this time round. If you look at the chances we had, Mulgrew at home to Barca, Van Dijk's volley at home to Milan, the Samaras chance in Milan, Kayal's opportunity in Amsterdam. Last year, we would have converted those type of chances. All of the ones I mentioned as well, all happened at very important times in the game. All of them were at 0-0 apart from Van Dijk's, which was at 1-0 down. These are all game changing moments.

I agree that we need to be better on the ball, but I think it was the same last year aslo. The results in the Group Stages last year probably glossed over how good we really were in possession. Spartak away perhaps being the exception, as I thought we looked quite good that night with the ball. Even more so when they went down to 10.

 

Griffiths winning the poll looks like he's seen as our best striker.

 

Stokes is better and has the record at Celtic to prove it. Griffiths has the potential to become better but he's never played for a big a club as us.

Then Watt - he "plays" like a goalscorer but we have not seen him enough at our club yet to say how it will pan out.

Pukki - looks a bit of a player, but we need hungry goalscorers. I don't think he looks like he'll be here long.

Balde - not seen enough but that maybe tells us something.

I'm definitely not banking on Pukki or Balde being successes.

In dream world (not possible I know) I'd sell Pukki and Balde tomorrow and pay between 3 and 5 million for a guy who would be a regognised talent, and get Watt, Stokes and Griffiths pushing each other all the way to join him in the team

 

Aye, it's Griffith's for me. He looks like the best goalscorer we have I think.

 

...and, whisper it, Commons might be our best striker. I just watched teh "3 in a row DVD" recently and he looked more like Gary Hooper than Gary Hooper did on many an occasion.

He kept strikers out of the team last season - no reason to see why that should necessarily change this season.