What changes do you want to see for next season?

[DannyMan2006]

4-4-2

And Gerrard back to CM please.

Yes please.

Or if it's 451, have it so that there is two attacking midfielders and one DM, as opposed to two DM's and one AM.

Mascherano behind Gerrard and Aquilani wouldn't be too bad.

I'd also like to see Kuyt put back up front or sold. No more wing play for Kuyt please. If Rafa needs a hardworking player he knows where to come, he can take Lucas whilst he's at it actually.

[Craig_H]

Chelsea had 2 strikers on the pitch, but Anelka played wide if he played with Drogba. They played two up front quite often actually.
3 strikers is not 2 strikers. Not one either.
Nearly for Real, but they didn't, they also commonly played with one up front.Oh come on, 96 points or whatever it was. I'd ****ing take that kind of return They certainly will have one up front now.
Inter had 2 strikers on the pitch, but only one played as a striker.
Bayern were the real exception.

2 Strikers is not more attacking than one striker by default.

2 strikers increases your general attacking potency, provided you can create chances.

[SERVO1]

Is that why Chelsea won the league with 2 strikers? Barcelona won it with 3 strikers. Real Madrid nearly won it with 2 strikers. Bayern won it with 2 strikers.

Maybe if Rafa hadn't ****ed up the whole Robbie Keane situation then we could have played 2 top class strikers and won the ****ing league

How did Rafa **** Keane up? He played as the main striker and behind a striker and he stank wherever he played.

[Craig_H]

How did Rafa **** Keane up? He played as the main striker and behind a striker and he stank wherever he played.

That's the point really, the biggest **** up was signing him in the first place.

[Mattshark]

2 strikers increases your general attacking potency, provided you can create chances.

I disagree, we were top scorers with one up front 2 seasons ago. I think the idea that is naturally more attacking is a complete myth.

Chelsea rarely played both Drogba and Anelka as strikers together and real commonly played with on up front.

And I never mentioned one striker in my original post.

[Craig_H]

I disagree, we were top scorers with one up front 2 seasons ago. I think the idea that is naturally more attacking is a complete myth.

Chelsea rarely played both Drogba and Anelka as strikers together and real commonly played with on up front.

And I never mentioned one striker in my original post.

Chelsea played them as two strikers fairly often.

If you create chances, it stands to reason that if you have two good finishers/strikers in the box, you'll probably convert more chances than if you've got just one.

[red g]

Trying to win every game from the beginning rather than shutting up shop for 60 mins and then trying to nick a 1-0 win

[Mattshark]

Chelsea played them as two strikers fairly often.

If you create chances, it stands to reason that if you have two good finishers/strikers in the box, you'll probably convert more chances than if you've got just one.

That isn't the same as playing to up front though.

[Pablo]

Trying to win every game rather than trying to nick them 1-0.

Warning! Warning! Pedant alert!

Trying to nick a 1-0 result would still be trying to win the game

[Craig_H]

That isn't the same as playing to up front though.

I honestly think you're more worthy of my status tag than i am.

Playing with two strikers means you're more likely to have two strikers in the box, as opposed to one. If you have two strikers in the box as opposed to one, and you're creating chances, you're more likely to score.

Happy now?

[ric.williams]

we dont have good enough wide players for 1 upfront thats why i'd want 2

[Mattshark]

we dont have good enough wide players for 1 upfront thats why i'd want 2

We have even less strikers!

[Rich]

Shouldn't get into a tizzy about 1 or 2 strikers.

I'd be happy with a forward 3 who are all effective attacking, coupled to a deep lying playmaker (Gerrard), one defensive midfielder, and one box-to-box and I'm happy.

Plus enough depth to cover for injuries.

Something like:

Torres
Left Forward - Gerrard - Right Forward
Box-to-Box - Lucas

I'd be happy with that, perhaps Kuyt could be the right forward IF the left forward was pacy, tricky, hard working, and an eye for goal.

[-V-]

How did Rafa **** Keane up? He played as the main striker and behind a striker and he stank wherever he played.

If you've got £20m to spend on a striker you should be able to sign one who is capable of forming a successful partnership with Torres. So either he was a bad signing in the first place or Rafa didn't give him enough game time alongside Torres. Or maybe Rafa wasn't able to adapt his system to play 2 strikers successfully.

Either way it was a massive ****ing waste of £20m and we marginally missed out on the title. And we all know what happened this season (Ngog)

Mattshark- Chelsea played 2 upfront alot this season.
Barcelona played 3 strikers and id say thats alot better than 1.
Real Madrid played Ronaldo and Higuain together upfront as a duo
I bet if Berbatov was any good then fergie would not have been forced to play Rooney alone

[Mattshark]

I honestly think you're more worthy of my status tag than i am.

Playing with two strikers means you're more likely to have two strikers in the box, as opposed to one. If you have two strikers in the box as opposed to one, and you're creating chances, you're more likely to score.

Happy now?

No
My point is that having a striker and an attacking mid would also be 2 players in there or even 1 striker, 1 attacking mid and the player from the other player