Ollie Watkins

[Risso]

Yep that's a pretty terrible comparison.

[VILLA MOLE]

Ollie is more of a Sheringham than a Shearer. We need a ruthless finisher. As those are as rare as an FA cup win we may have to wait on Archer developing.

except that Sherringham was excellent at controlling and passing a football.

And wasn't particulalry quick and pretty much played nothing like Ollie at all.

ha ha not the best analogy ever

[cdbearsfan]

Yep that's a pretty terrible comparison.

It's a fairly irrelevant comparison anyway, as Sheringham always played with two up front and those days have gone out with phones that have Snake on them.

[Risso]

Yep that's a pretty terrible comparison.

It's a fairly irrelevant comparison anyway, as Sheringham always played with two up front and those days have gone out with phones that have Snake on them.

Apart from bits of last season, obvs.

[olaftab]

Honestly you lot….full of your deep punditry. My point which you all missed due to lack of intelligence obviously was that he is never going to be the main man.😀

[Steve67]

I think I know what your getting at Aftab.  Ollie is a 1 in three striker.  If we have real hopes of breaking the top six, we need someone more lethal.

[Drummond]

I think that's why he plays two up top. The problem is that system doesn't really work these days.

A three perhaps, but that means shifting Watkins out to the side a bit, in the way that Mane and Salah did for Liverpool with Firmino in the middle. And therein lies the difference, our players aren't as good as that.

[Risso]

I think that's why he plays two up top. The problem is that system doesn't really work these days.

A three perhaps, but that means shifting Watkins out to the side a bit, in the way that Mane and Salah did for Liverpool with Firmino in the middle. And therein lies the difference, our players aren't as good as that.

Watkins can't play that role though. He's tried, and just can't do it.

[Clampy]

I think that's why he plays two up top. The problem is that system doesn't really work these days.

A three perhaps, but that means shifting Watkins out to the side a bit, in the way that Mane and Salah did for Liverpool with Firmino in the middle. And therein lies the difference, our players aren't as good as that.

Watkins can't play that role though. He's tried, and just can't do it.

That's where he played for Brentford though isn't it? . I think he looks better when cutting in from outwide.

[Beard82]

We can’t play 2 up front end of. Our three best players are emi, Phil and Bailey (assuming the version yesterday)

These 3 are heads above Ings and Watkins and as such we shouldn’t be trying to get them both in, on the off chance one of them isnt shit that day. 

I think Watkins is good,  but the way we play doesn’t suit him - he does well with cut backs - we rarely do that - but I think he would benefit more from having Bailey in the team than ings

[ChicagoLion]

I think that's why he plays two up top. The problem is that system doesn't really work these days.

A three perhaps, but that means shifting Watkins out to the side a bit, in the way that Mane and Salah did for Liverpool with Firmino in the middle. And therein lies the difference, our players aren't as good as that.

Watkins can't play that role though. He's tried, and just can't do it.

That's where he played for Brentford though isn't it? . I think he looks better when cutting in from outwide.

Against 2nd Division  defences though.
Has never looked comfortable out wide for us.

[Drummond]

I think that's why he plays two up top. The problem is that system doesn't really work these days.

A three perhaps, but that means shifting Watkins out to the side a bit, in the way that Mane and Salah did for Liverpool with Firmino in the middle. And therein lies the difference, our players aren't as good as that.

Watkins can't play that role though. He's tried, and just can't do it.

Well that's where we agree. He's not as good as either of the two I mentioned, and having done it at a lower level, doesn't seem able to do it in the Premier League. Which is odd. He's good player, and I think (hope?) he'll be better this season and more like his first. As things stand, there are no excuses for anyone this season. We've had a good pre-season, players haven't got injuries, we've made great signings.

[Risso]

Well that's where we agree. He's not as good as either of the two I mentioned, and having done it at a lower level, doesn't seem able to do it in the Premier League. Which is odd. He's good player, and I think (hope?) he'll be better this season and more like his first. As things stand, there are no excuses for anyone this season. We've had a good pre-season, players haven't got injuries, we've made great signings.

Completely agree. There are no excuses for anybody now. Everybody's had a full pre-season, including the manager, and new signings were all done early. No departures of note, so now everybody has to hit the ground running. Watkins could be starting in front of a 3 of Coutinho, Buendia and Bailey. For any striker that has to be an exciting prospect, surely? A mixture of pace, trickery and passing.

[Drummond]

Yep, any striker worth their salt has to be happy with the potential supply line. When you consider Ings, Traore, Ramsey, Luiz, McGinn, Digne and Cash are all their and can supply good passes and crosses, we should be set.

[LeeB]

I think he's actually a really good finisher from crosses, his movement is really good in that aspect. If we get the right service to him those positions he'll score plenty and we've got the players to do it.

But so can Archer, and he's also far, far better when put through. Watkins is a lot stronger though so can probably give himself more chances through that, and his movement is good too.

For me, start with Watkins but if he's underwhelming give Archer is start, with some minutes off the bench first.

Ings is weaker than both and only comes off the bench for now.