Humphrys isn't prolific..DKD an attacking midfielder...so it's still cosgrove n watters. Marsh is shi*. Jalo Injured. I hope DKD can play up top cos he looks good
Out of interest, who do you think we could have realistically signed whos prolific? I'd suggest 22 goals is pretty prolific, despite him playing behind a striker. Humphrys, Watters, Cosgrove, Jalo main 4 strikers with Marsh being 5th choice? I'm absolutely fine with that, especially if we change to a diamond too. I just don't get the instant negativity
Or look at it this way we've signed a player in dkd who we've chased ages and signed a free transfer striker...I was excited about the Swedish lad..we still need a good no9...I hope Humphrys is good
Good signings today but……….lost over 30 goals in Cole & McAtee. I personally don’t think we’ve replaced them.
I don’t think Humphrys is prolific with a career record of 1 in 6. DKD hasn’t scored at this level. That’s not to say either is a bad signing. I think both add something. I’m just not convinced that something is regular goals.
Its almost like we/Clarke have too many options now lol. I am surprised in a good way, that there weren't a few outgoing loans, or at least one sale.
We needed back up. We haven't sold anyone. Massive squad Jalo to come back. Put your rod away. I'm carping on now .
So again bud my question would be who realistically could we have signed who is prolific at this level then? We've seen a huge improvement in the few games we've already seen in Watters, we still have Cosgrove, Jalo hopefully has an impact
Apart from signing someone with more career goals than McAtee had before he signed, a lot at a higher level than he did too. Off the back of a season where he contributed 32 goals. And another who was club top scorer at this level last season. Think we've adequately replaced those goals.
He has 5 career goals at this level…Marc Roberts has more even Pines has 3. That’s not to say he is a bad signing he isn’t.
5 more than McAtee had before he joined us at this level. Was also referring to the point where you said he hadn't scored at this level, which was factually wrong.