Two strikers versus one?

[Qprtanpa1]

Seemed a done deal we would start Dykes and Austin every game. But with our midfield looking stronger on the offensive end (especially Chair and Willock), do we opt instead for our Man U game approach and go with one striker?

With that said, suggest we send Kelman out on loan to get badly needed full game experience, and bring in a seasoned striker on loan.

Thoughts?

[MYU]

It's a tough question but we need a few more games to see how it works out, and need a plan B if things not going our way.

[qpr4life]

Dykes and Austin are better as a 2.

[RussianRanger]

Send Kelman out on loan to L1/L2, not quiete ready, will only benefit from it like Chair and Eze did. Get that Man U lad Elanga, I think, for one season.
I don`t think Austin and Dykes will last whole season without injuries, goal droughts etc...sticking with only two senior strikers (Ramkilde, Armstrong and Kelman are all not obv) is not the best idea if we are really pushing for promotion this year.
It`s a shame Bonne is nowhere near our standart, but that`s football I guess, sometimes works out sometimes doesn`t.

[stainrodisalegend]

Think our formation will change according to opposition. We started one up top against Man U, two up top against Cambridge. Away/ against good teams think we will have a holding midfielder alongside Johansen (either Ball or Dozzell until Field is fit), and when we want to go for it play two up top.

If we don't bring in a young loan striker I think our next best option off the bench is to play Albert as an out and out striker or push Willock further forward - not convinced Kelman is there yet, though he looked stronger against Man U than he did last season when tbh he looked out of his depth when he came on.