Giroud held Ozil/Alexis back during those years. We’d have been better off with Laca. Having such an immobile and one dimensional #9 for that long was costly. We even looked a more dangerous and cohesive offensive team in the games where a finished Theo played at CF (United at home in 15-16 comes to mind) or Alexis when he moved there in 16/17 (Chelsea at home before Conte changed formation). By that season the defence started to fall apart though.
5 Likes
This made me chuckle, implying lacazette is anything but a one dimensional forward is cute. I don’t even know what his one dimension is. I’d bet he is just as slow as Giroud, he’s not good in the air, he’s got shite positioning.
2 Likes
He’s not supremely athletically gifted but he’s levels above Giroud in carrying the ball/dribbling, in turn opening up spaces for the other attackers
3 Likes
Okay if you argue that what else is he good at over someone like Giroud. What’s his other dimension
It’s now hard for me to justify that Lacazette is demonstrably better than Giroud.
4 Likes
I think the attack as a whole would just be more unpredictable over a full season with Laca instead of Giroud. Their pure goal #’s would probably have very little in it, but Laca I don’t think would actively hinder other elite talents like Giroud did. We’re just guessing though cause Giroud played in a team with Ozil, Alexis, Ramsey and Santi whilst Laca had about a half a season (Alexis left) to a season with them. The attack did improve in that season but the defence fell off a cliff.
Laca is definitely better at being able to strike the ball from range and from different angles. Giroud’s best work is limited to within 8-10 yards.
2 Likes
I agree with the overall sentiment of your post, but we definitely did not take the L on this one. Or Aubameyang haters will think that.
1 Like
So the other dimension is Alexander Lacazette is unpredictable? Fair play man.
It’s all guess work what you’ve said, alexis and ramsey got high scoring seasons playing off of Girouds box presence just look at their goals. Lacazette is a fucking egg in comparison.
I dont think either shouldve be constant starters. But one cost like 15 m and another 55m and we have declined.
1 Like
I must have missed where @AW49 said Lacazette was the better value for money signing, can you please share that post with me.
1 Like
I was adding onto my post my question was one dimensional and I addressed that. Never said he implied that mate calm down
It’s called furthering the discussion and sharing my opinion of thinking neither was good enough but one was meant to be good enough.
Laca was a bad overpay I agree, it was 5 years after Giroud but still bad.
Still prices aside, if I could have my pick of a #9 at the start of 15-16 to pair with Alexis, Ozil, Ramsey and Santi, I think Laca would yield the better all round attack.
I honestly think it’s a much of a muchness with these two as players, probably not worth everyone’s time debating it.
6 Likes
Both underwhelming as fuck that’s for sure
6 Likes
Oh okay cheers mate. Let’s stop talking now lads.
They’re completely different players
Let just say that with the power of hindsight, we would have been better off keeping Giroud & purchasing Auba in first place instead of Lacazette
3 Likes
The biggest stinger with Lacazette is he cost that 50 million quid no doubt.
6 Likes
This is correct
Absolutely zero debates.
Actually one, with the benefit of hindsight we’d have been better off signing Auba for cheap going into the 12/13 season.
3 Likes
Neither are any where near the level of previous strikers we’ve had like Smith, Wright, Anelka, Henry, Adebayor, RVP and Aubameyang.
Giroud got lucky moving to Chelsea as a reserve striker and Lacazette is playing in front of arguably the worst midfield we’ve had.
They’re adequate but no more.
2 Likes
haha, we could go back to snapping Messi when he was on trial at Barca. Lets not stretch the hindsight that far. 
1 Like