Why do strikers fail at Chelsea?
Serious topic:
(Premier League)
Shevchenko: 48 apps, 9 goals
Pizzaro: 21 apps, 2 goals
Torres: 87 apps, 15 goals
Sturridge: 63 apps, 13 goals
Demba Ba: 15 apps, 2 goals
Eto'o: 0 goals in all competitions, not sure how many apps
Anelka: 125 apps, 38 goals
If Lukaku came back he would probably struggle too (srsly). The game time he had with Chelsea he looked like a completely different player (in a bad way)
Drogba has been Chelsea's only decent striker since Hasselbaink...
The funny thing is that before they came to Chelsea these players were great, or in some cases once they leave Chelsea they become great.
(Premier League)
Shevchenko: 48 apps, 9 goals
Pizzaro: 21 apps, 2 goals
Torres: 87 apps, 15 goals
Sturridge: 63 apps, 13 goals
Demba Ba: 15 apps, 2 goals
Eto'o: 0 goals in all competitions, not sure how many apps
Anelka: 125 apps, 38 goals
If Lukaku came back he would probably struggle too (srsly). The game time he had with Chelsea he looked like a completely different player (in a bad way)
Drogba has been Chelsea's only decent striker since Hasselbaink...
The funny thing is that before they came to Chelsea these players were great, or in some cases once they leave Chelsea they become great.
Scroll to see replies
Torres may not have performed well in the league but his goals in Europe were significant in Chelsea winning the Europa League last year, personally I think his 'failure' has been slightly over blown because of the ridiculous price Chelsea paid for him.
To be plainly honest Chelsea have rarely struggled for goals in the last few years so the addition of a prolific striker would be at best a luxury and a worst a complete failure (if he was to choke off goals from midfield).
To be plainly honest Chelsea have rarely struggled for goals in the last few years so the addition of a prolific striker would be at best a luxury and a worst a complete failure (if he was to choke off goals from midfield).
Original post by Zerforax
Drogba did more than fine at Chelsea..?
Maybe you should read my post again then?
I can't be bothered to writer an essay out, but to briefly sum it up:
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), so you shouldn't expect a striker to suddenly produced 25+ goals consistently each season. There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), so you shouldn't expect a striker to suddenly produced 25+ goals consistently each season. There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
Probably something to do with the way they play, where they are usually up I their own therefore more reliant on midfielders / wingers.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by eddy000
If Lukaku came back he would probably struggle too (srsly). The game time he had with Chelsea he looked like a completely different player (in a bad way)
It's mostly because of the way we play, the majority of our goals come from midfield and have done for years, Lampard is our top goal scorer for instance. Drogba was the perfect striker for us, and if anyone can fill the void he left it's Lukaku.
Wasn't Sturridge played on the wing for most of his games at Chelsea?
Original post by mojojojo101
Torres may not have performed well in the league but his goals in Europe were significant in Chelsea winning the Europa League last year, personally I think his 'failure' has been slightly over blown because of the ridiculous price Chelsea paid for him.
To be plainly honest Chelsea have rarely struggled for goals in the last few years so the addition of a prolific striker would be at best a luxury and a worst a complete failure (if he was to choke off goals from midfield).
To be plainly honest Chelsea have rarely struggled for goals in the last few years so the addition of a prolific striker would be at best a luxury and a worst a complete failure (if he was to choke off goals from midfield).
They were a champions league team in the Europa league. Scoring a goal for that team in a competition that they shouldn't have been in isn't so much of an accomplishment
Original post by The Assassin
I can't be bothered to writer an essay out, but to briefly sum it up:
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), so you shouldn't expect a striker to suddenly produced 25+ goals consistently each season. There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), so you shouldn't expect a striker to suddenly produced 25+ goals consistently each season. There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
Original post by The Assassin
I can't be bothered to writer an essay out, but to briefly sum it up:
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
We have relied on more than strikers to get goals, even before Abramovich (Frank Lampard being the main reason), There also needs to be a special kind of striker to work at Chelsea, and the strikers you listed were also poorly managed or there were already problems existing beforehand.
This, you can't expect too prolific of a goalscorer when fat Frank is taking 20 long range shots a game.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by scotttb
They were a champions league team in the Europa league. Scoring a goal for that team in a competition that they shouldn't have been in isn't so much of an accomplishment
This, you can't expect too prolific of a goalscorer when fat Frank is taking 20 long range shots a game.
This, you can't expect too prolific of a goalscorer when fat Frank is taking 20 long range shots a game.
lol, super Frankie Lampard would quite easily be Celtic's best player if he went there, even at 35.
Original post by eddy000
Serious topic:
(Premier League)
Shevchenko: 48 apps, 9 goals
Pizzaro: 21 apps, 2 goals
Torres: 87 apps, 15 goals
Sturridge: 63 apps, 13 goals
Demba Ba: 15 apps, 2 goals
Eto'o: 0 goals in all competitions, not sure how many apps
Anelka: 125 apps, 38 goals
If Lukaku came back he would probably struggle too (srsly). The game time he had with Chelsea he looked like a completely different player (in a bad way)
Drogba has been Chelsea's only decent striker since Hasselbaink...
The funny thing is that before they came to Chelsea these players were great, or in some cases once they leave Chelsea they become great.
(Premier League)
Shevchenko: 48 apps, 9 goals
Pizzaro: 21 apps, 2 goals
Torres: 87 apps, 15 goals
Sturridge: 63 apps, 13 goals
Demba Ba: 15 apps, 2 goals
Eto'o: 0 goals in all competitions, not sure how many apps
Anelka: 125 apps, 38 goals
If Lukaku came back he would probably struggle too (srsly). The game time he had with Chelsea he looked like a completely different player (in a bad way)
Drogba has been Chelsea's only decent striker since Hasselbaink...
The funny thing is that before they came to Chelsea these players were great, or in some cases once they leave Chelsea they become great.
You forgot Kezman.
Also to be fair to Sturridge he was (and still is) a young, developing player and was often played out wide.
How can you not mention crespo. Though he wasn't too shabby for them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by The Assassin
lol, super Frankie Lampard would quite easily be Celtic's best player if he went there, even at 35.
Lol no need to get offended just agreeing with the guy.
Also maybe in terms of ability but ability doesn't go at that age, although he wouldn't get into the team as we don't have a dm with as much energy as Ramires to cover for Lampards none existent defensive contribution
He can kick the ball hard though.
Original post by scotttb
Lol no need to get offended just agreeing with the guy.
Also maybe in terms of ability but ability doesn't go at that age, although he wouldn't get into the team as we don't have a dm with as much energy as Ramires to cover for Lampards none existent defensive contribution
He can kick the ball hard though.
Also maybe in terms of ability but ability doesn't go at that age, although he wouldn't get into the team as we don't have a dm with as much energy as Ramires to cover for Lampards none existent defensive contribution
He can kick the ball hard though.
That's where he got his name from: lump-hard/lampard
The Assasin is right. Chelsea have had brilliant midfielders who chip in with loads of goals.. Other than Lampard look at the minute. Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Willian. Even Defensive Midfielder Ramires gets plenty of goals. Chelsea play best with a Drogba-esk type striker. Someone that will hold the ball up for the attacking midfielders to catch up. While scoring goals himself.
Torres etc ain't like that.
For example. Heskey would have done well at Chelsea. Imagine him holding the ball up for all those midfielders.
Torres etc ain't like that.
For example. Heskey would have done well at Chelsea. Imagine him holding the ball up for all those midfielders.
Firstly, it's not always fair to judge strikers purely on the goals they score.
Secondly, Anelka has had a strike rate of between 0.3 and 0.4 at pretty much every club he's been at. Granted his strike rate at Chelsea was at the low end of that range but I think people expect everyone to always be getting ridiculous strike rates like Ronaldo and Messi. That's just not going to happen. An average of around a goal every three games is far from awful.
Thirdly, this a phenomenon that is hardly exclusive to Chelsea. Every club has had plenty of "failures". Sometimes you're just not at the right club.
Secondly, Anelka has had a strike rate of between 0.3 and 0.4 at pretty much every club he's been at. Granted his strike rate at Chelsea was at the low end of that range but I think people expect everyone to always be getting ridiculous strike rates like Ronaldo and Messi. That's just not going to happen. An average of around a goal every three games is far from awful.
Thirdly, this a phenomenon that is hardly exclusive to Chelsea. Every club has had plenty of "failures". Sometimes you're just not at the right club.
Original post by TheMagicRat
Firstly, it's not always fair to judge strikers purely on the goals they score.
Secondly, Anelka has had a strike rate of between 0.3 and 0.4 at pretty much every club he's been at. Granted his strike rate at Chelsea was at the low end of that range but I think people expect everyone to always be getting ridiculous strike rates like Ronaldo and Messi. That's just not going to happen. An average of around a goal every three games is far from awful.
Thirdly, this a phenomenon that is hardly exclusive to Chelsea. Every club has had plenty of "failures". Sometimes you're just not at the right club.
Secondly, Anelka has had a strike rate of between 0.3 and 0.4 at pretty much every club he's been at. Granted his strike rate at Chelsea was at the low end of that range but I think people expect everyone to always be getting ridiculous strike rates like Ronaldo and Messi. That's just not going to happen. An average of around a goal every three games is far from awful.
Thirdly, this a phenomenon that is hardly exclusive to Chelsea. Every club has had plenty of "failures". Sometimes you're just not at the right club.
Although I agree with Anelka (I was going to mention that he wasn't too bad, considering both his age and strike rate at previous clubs, but couldn't be arsed
) Also the one full season he did have at Chelsea before/just as he turned 30 he did score 18 in 39 league games.However, of course all clubs have their flops, no one said they don't, but Chelsea certainly have a higher number of strikers who've failed to make the impact many thought they would. Although I feel the reasons lie away from just Chelsea's style of play/midfielders, and just as much toward the fact that under Abramovich they bought big name strikers who'd already peaked (Schevchenko, Crespo, Torress), perhaps flavour of the month/players untested in a truly big European league (Kezman) and also personal troubles. It's not like many, if any, found decent success after they left Chelsea.
Original post by scotttb
Lol no need to get offended just agreeing with the guy.
Also maybe in terms of ability but ability doesn't go at that age, although he wouldn't get into the team as we don't have a dm with as much energy as Ramires to cover for Lampards none existent defensive contribution
He can kick the ball hard though.
Also maybe in terms of ability but ability doesn't go at that age, although he wouldn't get into the team as we don't have a dm with as much energy as Ramires to cover for Lampards none existent defensive contribution
He can kick the ball hard though.
idk what part of my post suggested I was offended. Just bants -- although idk if scottish people understand that?
Anyways, which guy? You quoted me at the start!
Thing is, Ramires isn't all that defensive himself, so whilst Mikel isn't very good Ramires works better with him than Lamps. Still would be one of Celtic's better players.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Chelsea F.C. Thread IX
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- A to Z of Footballers surnames
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- Best england 11 for euros
- 2015 RCA vs UAL Chelsea for MA Fine art
- Premier League Run In
- Haaland - overrated?
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- What’s the best car to buy???
- What team do you support and why?
- Interviews CSM 2024
- uploading portfolio for multiple courses?
- UAL: Chelsea
- Who is the best ALL ROUND footballer at the moment?
- Can't support Man Utd anymore...plaguing my mind like mad!
- Do you unmatch or ignore Tinder matches you don't like/have lost interest in?
