Look at the picture below and see if you can tell which Premier League striker had those numbers. Really, take a few seconds to think about it.

If you thought "Roberto Firmino," you're right. Congratulations, you're a football nerd.

But I want you to notice something, Bobby Firmino, although widely regarded (and rightfully so) as one of the most exciting strikers to play in the league, was never a prolific goalscorer. His highest tally was 15 in a season, and that happened only once. He had seasons with a total goal tally as low as 5.

Personally, I don't like stats like these because they lack so much nuance (minutes played? xG? goals per minute?). However, the reason I bring up Firmino's numbers without nuance is to make a point: something has changed about how we assess strikers in the Premier League.

We used to understand that different kinds of teams need different types of strikers. Some teams need a striker who scores lots of goals and is a threat in the box, others need a striker whose best attribute is associative play with the midfield, and so on. But now all we judge strikers on is their goal output. "How many goals has he scored?" is all we think about when deciding whether a particular striker is a good fit for our team or not.

And I suspect that the reason for this change is Erling Haaland.

Haaland joined Manchester City in the 22/23 season, the same season that would be Firmino's last season for Liverpool. In retrospect, that fact seems significant, Firmino's exit marking Haaland's arrival, as well as the arrival of a new standard for judging Premier League strikers.

Haaland joined the Premier League and started smashing goal-scoring records to pieces from the get-go, and in the four years that he has been around, he has successfully rewired how we judge strikers. Haaland is now the gold standard for strikers. Every striker must now be a prolific goal scorer or face the wrath of the mob.

It wasn't too long ago that Manchester City and Liverpool both deployed false 9's at the peak of their joint dominance over the EPL. Gabriel Jesus for City, Roberto Firmino for Liverpool. Both were Brazilian, beautiful players to watch, integral to title-winning squads, and both never scored more than 15 goals in a season.

But things have changed, and perhaps nowhere was this more obvious than last summer, as several big clubs were in the market for a striker. You could see the respective fanbases judging potential striker acquisitions on goalscoring pedigree alone and not on the broader needs of the team. There is no better example of this line of thinking than Victor Gyokeres.

In the summer, Arsenal needed to sign a striker. Naturally, the rumour mill linked them with everyone from Alexander Isak to Julian Alvarez and Victor Osimhen, but eventually two names rose to the top: Benjamin Sesko and Victor Gyokeres.

I remember being off social media for most of the transfer window and excited about the prospect of a Benjamin Sesko signing. I liked Gyokeres as a player, but I thought Sesko fit the Arsenal mould better. Then I came back online and realised that most people actually wanted Arsenal to sign Gyokeres. And their rationale was simple: Gyokeres was a prolific goal scorer, and Arsenal needed a prolific goal scorer.

Arsenal did end up signing Gyokeres, and he has struggled to replicate his prolific goal-scoring form at Arsenal, to no surprise. And the very same people who clamoured for his purchase have begun to turn on him.

So, the question is: what did Arsenal really need in the summer? A striker? Or a prolific goalscorer?

To understand Arsenal's real needs, let us consider two things.

First, Arsenal didn't have a goal-scoring problem. In the three seasons prior, they'd scored 88, 91, and 69 goals in the league. The drop-off from 91 to 69 in the 24/25 season is steep, but you must remember that they played most of that season with an injury-ridden squad (playing Merino at 9 famously), and still scored the third-highest number of goals in the league. Also, the 88 goals scored in the 22/23 season broke the club's previous record for most goals in a season. A record they would go on to break the following season again by scoring 91 in the 23/24 season. Arsenal wasn't just scoring a lot of goals; they were scoring goals at a historic pace.

Second, look at the players who competed for the striker position at Arsenal: Gabriel Jesus, Kai Havertz (and Mikel Merino). The very reason Arsenal was shopping for a striker was that Gabriel Jesus was too inconsistent due to recurring injuries, and Kai Havertz had picked up an injury as well. So, in essence, they needed a striker who offered the team a similar skillset to Jesus and Kai Havertz.

Now, put those two things together: a club with prolific goalscoring power as a team in need of a striker to provide competition and cover for the injured group of strikers they have, who are of a similar profile. What should they do to take the team to the next level?

Quite simple: sign a striker who brings the same kind of skillset as Havertz-Jesus-Merino, but either has those qualities at a higher level or has a higher ceiling than they do.

And what did they do? They signed Victor Gyokeres from Sporting Lisbon, a player who is just completely different from the Havertz-Jesus-Merino mould.

When signing a player, you have to consider not only his capabilities but his impact on the team as a whole. To give one example, Gyokeres doesn't offer as much of an opportunity for the wingers to come central by switching places with them as Havertz and Jesus do. This is bad because Arsenal have wingers (Martinelli, Trossard, and Saka) who offer a real threat when they step infield and affect the game centrally. But, with Gyokeres in the team, the wingers are shackled to the touchline.

I could go on about how Gyokeres's strengths turn into serious problems when you put him in the current Arsenal setup. However, this is not meant to be an essay condemning Gyokeres, far from it. If anything, I'm sympathetic to his plight and will continue to offer him support until things change one way or the other.

If anything, I want to slate those people who clamoured for Gyokeres so loudly in the summer and have turned on him as he has struggled to replicate his form at Sporting with Arsenal. You were the problem. You fell for the shiny player syndrome, misdiagnosed your team's problems, backed the acquisition of a sub-optimal solution, and now you want to turn around and blame the player, for what exactly?

Gyokeres is playing how Gyokeres has always played; he is playing as he did when he was bagging goals every week for Sporting Lisbon. The only problem is that if you take that same guy and put him in the Arsenal team, problems begin to appear as he tries to adjust to the team's patterns and his teammates try to adjust to his individual traits.

From now on, I will refer to fans clamouring for a bad solution to their team's needs because they are carried away by some shiny ability or statistic as "The Gyokeres Effect."

There is another example of this effect on the other side of London. When Chelsea bought Joao Pedro, he was expected to become the focal point of their attack and a threat in and around the box. I found that very curious. Anyone who watched Joao Pedro at Brighton knew that he was very much cut from the same cloth as your Bobby Firmino's, and that his biggest strength lies in connecting the midfield and the attack. It took Maresca only a few games to realise that his new shiny striker thrived best when playing off someone else.

I suppose my plea is this: the next time your team needs to fill a certain role, or they're linked with a shiny player, take a step back and try to do a bird's-eye view of the situation. How does this team play? What kind of player do we need for this role? What kind of player DON'T we need for this role? Good players can struggle when placed in systems that don't suit them.

Look at the picture below and see if you can tell which Premier League striker had those numbers. Really, take a few seconds to think about it.

If you thought "Roberto Firmino," you're right. Congratulations, you're a football nerd.

But I want you to notice something, Bobby Firmino, although widely regarded (and rightfully so) as one of the most exciting strikers to play in the league, was never a prolific goalscorer. His highest tally was 15 in a season, and that happened only once. He had seasons with a total goal tally as low as 5.

Personally, I don't like stats like these because they lack so much nuance (minutes played? xG? goals per minute?). However, the reason I bring up Firmino's numbers without nuance is to make a point: something has changed about how we assess strikers in the Premier League.

We used to understand that different kinds of teams need different types of strikers. Some teams need a striker who scores lots of goals and is a threat in the box, others need a striker whose best attribute is associative play with the midfield, and so on. But now all we judge strikers on is their goal output. "How many goals has he scored?" is all we think about when deciding whether a particular striker is a good fit for our team or not.

And I suspect that the reason for this change is Erling Haaland.

Haaland joined Manchester City in the 22/23 season, the same season that would be Firmino's last season for Liverpool. In retrospect, that fact seems significant, Firmino's exit marking Haaland's arrival, as well as the arrival of a new standard for judging Premier League strikers.

Haaland joined the Premier League and started smashing goal-scoring records to pieces from the get-go, and in the four years that he has been around, he has successfully rewired how we judge strikers. Haaland is now the gold standard for strikers. Every striker must now be a prolific goal scorer or face the wrath of the mob.

It wasn't too long ago that Manchester City and Liverpool both deployed false 9's at the peak of their joint dominance over the EPL. Gabriel Jesus for City, Roberto Firmino for Liverpool. Both were Brazilian, beautiful players to watch, integral to title-winning squads, and both never scored more than 15 goals in a season.

But things have changed, and perhaps nowhere was this more obvious than last summer, as several big clubs were in the market for a striker. You could see the respective fanbases judging potential striker acquisitions on goalscoring pedigree alone and not on the broader needs of the team. There is no better example of this line of thinking than Victor Gyokeres.

In the summer, Arsenal needed to sign a striker. Naturally, the rumour mill linked them with everyone from Alexander Isak to Julian Alvarez and Victor Osimhen, but eventually two names rose to the top: Benjamin Sesko and Victor Gyokeres.

I remember being off social media for most of the transfer window and excited about the prospect of a Benjamin Sesko signing. I liked Gyokeres as a player, but I thought Sesko fit the Arsenal mould better. Then I came back online and realised that most people actually wanted Arsenal to sign Gyokeres. And their rationale was simple: Gyokeres was a prolific goal scorer, and Arsenal needed a prolific goal scorer.

Arsenal did end up signing Gyokeres, and he has struggled to replicate his prolific goal-scoring form at Arsenal, to no surprise. And the very same people who clamoured for his purchase have begun to turn on him.

So, the question is: what did Arsenal really need in the summer? A striker? Or a prolific goalscorer?

To understand Arsenal's real needs, let us consider two things.

First, Arsenal didn't have a goal-scoring problem. In the three seasons prior, they'd scored 88, 91, and 69 goals in the league. The drop-off from 91 to 69 in the 24/25 season is steep, but you must remember that they played most of that season with an injury-ridden squad (playing Merino at 9 famously), and still scored the third-highest number of goals in the league. Also, the 88 goals scored in the 22/23 season broke the club's previous record for most goals in a season. A record they would go on to break the following season again by scoring 91 in the 23/24 season. Arsenal wasn't just scoring a lot of goals; they were scoring goals at a historic pace.

Second, look at the players who competed for the striker position at Arsenal: Gabriel Jesus, Kai Havertz (and Mikel Merino). The very reason Arsenal was shopping for a striker was that Gabriel Jesus was too inconsistent due to recurring injuries, and Kai Havertz had picked up an injury as well. So, in essence, they needed a striker who offered the team a similar skillset to Jesus and Kai Havertz.

Now, put those two things together: a club with prolific goalscoring power as a team in need of a striker to provide competition and cover for the injured group of strikers they have, who are of a similar profile. What should they do to take the team to the next level?

Quite simple: sign a striker who brings the same kind of skillset as Havertz-Jesus-Merino, but either has those qualities at a higher level or has a higher ceiling than they do.

And what did they do? They signed Victor Gyokeres from Sporting Lisbon, a player who is just completely different from the Havertz-Jesus-Merino mould.

When signing a player, you have to consider not only his capabilities but his impact on the team as a whole. To give one example, Gyokeres doesn't offer as much of an opportunity for the wingers to come central by switching places with them as Havertz and Jesus do. This is bad because Arsenal have wingers (Martinelli, Trossard, and Saka) who offer a real threat when they step infield and affect the game centrally. But, with Gyokeres in the team, the wingers are shackled to the touchline.

I could go on about how Gyokeres's strengths turn into serious problems when you put him in the current Arsenal setup. However, this is not meant to be an essay condemning Gyokeres, far from it. If anything, I'm sympathetic to his plight and will continue to offer him support until things change one way or the other.

If anything, I want to slate those people who clamoured for Gyokeres so loudly in the summer and have turned on him as he has struggled to replicate his form at Sporting with Arsenal. You were the problem. You fell for the shiny player syndrome, misdiagnosed your team's problems, backed the acquisition of a sub-optimal solution, and now you want to turn around and blame the player, for what exactly?

Gyokeres is playing how Gyokeres has always played; he is playing as he did when he was bagging goals every week for Sporting Lisbon. The only problem is that if you take that same guy and put him in the Arsenal team, problems begin to appear as he tries to adjust to the team's patterns and his teammates try to adjust to his individual traits.

From now on, I will refer to fans clamouring for a bad solution to their team's needs because they are carried away by some shiny ability or statistic as "The Gyokeres Effect."

There is another example of this effect on the other side of London. When Chelsea bought Joao Pedro, he was expected to become the focal point of their attack and a threat in and around the box. I found that very curious. Anyone who watched Joao Pedro at Brighton knew that he was very much cut from the same cloth as your Bobby Firmino's, and that his biggest strength lies in connecting the midfield and the attack. It took Maresca only a few games to realise that his new shiny striker thrived best when playing off someone else.

I suppose my plea is this: the next time your team needs to fill a certain role, or they're linked with a shiny player, take a step back and try to do a bird's-eye view of the situation. How does this team play? What kind of player do we need for this role? What kind of player DON'T we need for this role? Good players can struggle when placed in systems that don't suit them.