Well we aren't a counter attacking side. We don't break with pace, we don't burst forward in numbers. We launch the ball at a tiny fella and it regularly comes back at us. It's one of the reasons why, in five of our six league games since the turn of the year we've performed very poorly.
For all Defoe goals have been hugely helpful (in fact, they're the main reason them awful performances haven't all been defeats) and he's done better than I expected, he's still not ideal for that role. We'd be a better all round side, imo, with a striker who scores a couple yes but who can play that role effectively. Defoe has limited impact on the game unless he scores, he's anonymous. Which is fine, he's on a decent run and it's great for us. But as a team, we'd be better off having a gameplan which wasn't just hoping we can soak up shitloads of pressure, and the hope Defoe can nick a goal.
At times we do break with pace, ball retention as well as defensive instability has been the problem, though quite often the way we play doesn't lead to good ball retention either - but I guess that's another argument. One of our main strengths is breaking with pace playing one-twos to get us into the positions, although we don't generally play like that as a whole team, this also lends itself to the sitting deep play we tend to favour because of a slow backline and we have plenty of players with pace to utilise it going forward. You say we don't burst forward in numbers, but the one thing a lone striker would need us to do is support him - what's he going to do like, bring it down and hold it for ten mins or head it to himself? Regardless of whom or what plays up front he needs support, a big strong striker wont change that and it's something we need to address whoever plays up there.
Even now you're begrudgingly giving Defoe faint praise, when realistically he's performed from the off, inspite of our inadquacies. It's still "if we had this player" etc etc, but we don't. We could go out and spend £20m on a lone striker and still not get someone as productive.
Whys it got to he a Heskeyesque striker, with all the negative connotations that brings? How about a Davies sort, who ran the line for Bolton for years with distinction. Or Carroll, who's a cut above in that role?
Heskey was a far better player than Davies for most of their careers IMO and Davies mostly didn't trouble the back of the net too much either, just a plain old grafter. I don't think Carroll is that suited to it either, he's a typical back post/nod it on target man type, who needs someone to play off him. Good player when fit, but rarely is.Great at feeding someone who gets close to him....Someone more mobile and a bit more dynamic is going to add more to team play than him.
This lack of a game plan you're talking about - soaking up loads of pressure and hoping Defoe will nick a goal. Allardyce's game plan is generally soaking up pressure sitting deep and not allowing anyone to get behind you or around you, whilst allowing central shots from distance. Getting the ball forward quickly, playing percentages and looking for scraps is always part of his plan, with a bit of quality either wide or central in advanced midfield areas. As much as he'll probably revert to type and get a big guy up front to create those scraps, I don't think it's ever going to be the kind of well oiled machine with a link man spearheading the attack you seem to think it will or could be. Therefore there's no reason to think that quick balls forward and pressure applied through pace and workrate from wide areas (Borini, Khazri and Watmore other signings etc) as is becoming more fashionable in the PL right now couldn't be just as effective.
Ask any Spurs fan tbh, universally it'll be Defoe.
Defoe more natural, Bent more effective whilst here because he had the raw physique.
