I don't see why this would be terrible. We aren't going to sign Adebayor and another uber striker. The next one (if we are indeed to get two) would need to be a distinct back up, happy to share duties, be reasonably priced and preferably youngish.
Two years ago most on here would have loved Chamakh. Because he's been used sparingly as back up to one of the best strikers in Europe hardly makes him shit all of a sudden. He's no RVP, Torres, Rooney, Aguero but we aren'tt going to sign a striker like that any time soon anyway and Adebayor will be our first choice, and Chamakh might not be top drawer but if it's him as back up or Defoe, I'd take him.
Bullshit link I'm sure, but we are not going to do much better as a No.2 choice striker.
Actually, two years ago an awful lot of SC members were disappointed that he went to Arsenal. (Where are they now?) I did point out then that from what I'd seen of him at Bordeaux he had every attribute to be a top-class No. 9 except the ability to hit the back of the net. His Ligue 1 record was pisspoor, let's face it. It's encouraging that Wenger described Giroud in almost xactly the same terms he used when announcing Chamakh.
An emphatic non. I would prefer Defoe.
I'd take Chamakh as a second choice over Defoe, there's a lot more to his game than there is to Defoe's, and I reckon if both played the same amount of games in the same side Chamakh would score at least the same amount of goals.
I'd take Chamakh as a second choice over Defoe, there's a lot more to his game than there is to Defoe's, and I reckon if both played the same amount of games in the same side Chamakh would score at least the same amount of goals.
I'd take Chamakh as a second choice over Defoe, there's a lot more to his game than there is to Defoe's, and I reckon if both played the same amount of games in the same side Chamakh would score at least the same amount of goals.
The only good thing about Chamakh is that some genius called his fantasy football team "Chamakh my bitch up" the year he signed for Arsenal