Before the season started many of us expected City to sign Kane but that didn't exactly pan out - maybe even looking at Kane's seasonal form, to City's benefit.
Fast forward to Christmas football and City are in a great 'easy' goalscoring form, winning matches and likely to run with trophies; to many on the Cafe - playing like a team in a different league.
At the same time I read posts about the fear people have of City signing Haaland and it actually got me thinking - could Pep's teams be better without a striker?
I remember how shocked I was that Pep didn't win a CL during his time as Bayern Manager - especially with Lewandowski as his striker. Good performances from both but the team seemed a little less deadly overall.
What about Manchester City? He didn't seem like he was a big fan of Aguero especially at the start, where I used to remember him being hardly picked. I always felt Aguero stayed a bit at City due to being a club legend - even though it seemed Pep preferred Gabriel Jesus a bit more.
Then I look back at his time at Barcelona. What exactly happened to Zlatan Ibrahimovic at Barcelona? I remember Henry, David Villa and Eto'o playing more as wingers/inverted forwards than central strikers. Who was the best striker for Pep at Barcelona and the most successful? It was Lionel Messi wasn't it? Arguably not a traditional striker at all; being given a new positional name due to how deep he could play as the "False 9" rather than being a predatory one.
Was it a coincidence that Guardiola's best and most successful seasons were through the lack of use of a traditional striker? Could it be better suited to his positional/possession based tactics that not having a striker almost tricks the opposition with who should mark who during moves of a coordinated team attack?
I'm just starting to wonder if Pep's team's could actually be better without a striker - even if those strikers are Kane or Haaland.
Fast forward to Christmas football and City are in a great 'easy' goalscoring form, winning matches and likely to run with trophies; to many on the Cafe - playing like a team in a different league.
At the same time I read posts about the fear people have of City signing Haaland and it actually got me thinking - could Pep's teams be better without a striker?
I remember how shocked I was that Pep didn't win a CL during his time as Bayern Manager - especially with Lewandowski as his striker. Good performances from both but the team seemed a little less deadly overall.
What about Manchester City? He didn't seem like he was a big fan of Aguero especially at the start, where I used to remember him being hardly picked. I always felt Aguero stayed a bit at City due to being a club legend - even though it seemed Pep preferred Gabriel Jesus a bit more.
Then I look back at his time at Barcelona. What exactly happened to Zlatan Ibrahimovic at Barcelona? I remember Henry, David Villa and Eto'o playing more as wingers/inverted forwards than central strikers. Who was the best striker for Pep at Barcelona and the most successful? It was Lionel Messi wasn't it? Arguably not a traditional striker at all; being given a new positional name due to how deep he could play as the "False 9" rather than being a predatory one.
Was it a coincidence that Guardiola's best and most successful seasons were through the lack of use of a traditional striker? Could it be better suited to his positional/possession based tactics that not having a striker almost tricks the opposition with who should mark who during moves of a coordinated team attack?
I'm just starting to wonder if Pep's team's could actually be better without a striker - even if those strikers are Kane or Haaland.
Last edited: