The optimum front 3

I've seen a lot of criticism levelled at our strikers. And some criticism appointed to Val's selections/subs.

So I thought I'd break down which strikers were on the field when our goals were scored (since the transfer window closed).

Take from it what you will. 21 league goals have been scored in that time:

Edit: the first row is incorrect as Woodrow had been replaced and Frieser was on the field. Therefore Woodrow should be 11, Frieser 8, WMD 4, WFD 3 (I think)

 

WMD looks like the best then Archey. Plus it's got a catchy name as well - Weapons of Mass Destruction

 

I said to my grandson a few weeks ago that out of the 6 strikers we have I call Dike, Woodrow & Morris our 3 big hitters & in my opinion I would always have at least 2 of them on the pitch at any one time & all 3 when possible , I stick by this but it is only my opinion & I have 100% trust in what Val chooses

 

Great detailed work Archy - however you’ve got Woodrow on the pitch when Alex scored against Reading

 

I like all 6 forwards.

I honestly do.

 

I find it difficult to believe there's any choice at all. Morris, Woodrow and Dike are three excellent strikers. The others aren't.

 

Literally the first one I did as well

Thank you for being eagle eyed

 

Personally I quite like Frieser. Part of the reason I chose to do it was that I had an incline Frieser had been more involved than Woodrow in our recent goals.

In the interest of fairness though, I've still made the post even though I've proven myself wrong.

 

We missed Woodrow in the second half Friday. Frieser should have been the one to go off. The yellow card in the first half influenced the decision and it was never a yellow anyway.

 

Never seen the appeal of Chaplin and Adeboyejo. I like Frieser, but those stats seem to show he offers little more than those two. Also seems to pour cold water on the effectiveness of his long throw.

Might be an idea to just start every game with WMD, smash the opposition early doors then bring on the other 3 if/when tired legs creep in.

 

spot on! Get those three on for 90 minutes, see how that goes.

 

I agree, they,re the best 3 by far,its all about keeping the front 3 fresh to impliment the press isn,t it, i would think playing at that intensity for 90 mins would be impossible, but i would certainly use them as a starting 3 as theres little point in keeping them on the bench and risking only getting them on when the games out of reach...

 

Would have thought the issue isn’t about who the best 3 are, but out of the 6 making two sets of 3.
By keeping them separate it enables VI to have 2 sets of viable forwards available.
Having the option of Vic, Freiser & Chaplin on the bench you would have to wonder where a goal is coming from.

 

To be fair Vic, Frieser and Chaplin would be the three I'd fetch on at 70 mins when we've already stuck 2 away and pressed the opposition into oblivion with WMD.

 

I think our best three strikers are Woodrow, Morris & Dike. However, I have no problems with Valerien's selection policy and reasoning. It's working fine.

 

Agree 100%. Not sure Victor offers much more off the ball than Morris, and Morris’ quality on the ball could’ve made a big difference in the first half. Plus, Victor seems to do better off the bench than starting games anyway.

I’d be starting Woodrow, Dike and Morris. Unless he wants more emphasis on the press, in which case I’d replace Dike with Frieser, and put Woodrow in the middle

 

Mark of a very good scientist. You have a theory, you test the theory, turns out your theory couldn't be more wrong, but you still publish it. This is one of my favourite ever posts on here.

 

And if it's 0-0?

 

It takes some proper lateral thinking to believe that starting with weaker players is a good idea because if you didn't you wouldn't have any of your better players to bring on as substitute.