In the modern game, tall, somewhat immobile strikers, and even those with more ability in their left testicle than the majority of players, look rather out of place, in my opinion, particularly in teams that rely on movement and pace in the final third. Both United and Barcelona looked to players like that, hoping to add some "needed calmness" in the final third, likely to open up stubborn teams that sit very deep, but it has largely failed in both instances, and has almost certainly been more detrimental than positive. I understand why a manager might want a player like that, but it is really only necessary in very specific circumstances, and completely counter-productive in numerous others, which doesn't exactly lend itself to a massive transfer fee. And what you appear to lose in the bargain is simply not worth it, in my opinion.
Although most United fans don't agree, that is why I was never as fond of Van Nistelrooy as many people were, even while recognizing his brilliance in front of goal. I admit that preference is likely clouding my objectivity, but I've never been convinced that it is good idea to sacrifice mobility and athleticism in attack, because it often has more of an impact on a teams approach than one player really should. This is apparently what a lot of people in Barcelona are now saying about Ibrahimovic.
In a game where players are fitter, faster, and more athletic than ever before, and where they are far more intelligent about the way that they defend (particularly in England and in comparison to even ten years ago), I'd prefer a front line that are all mobile, quick, skillful, with good movement and the ability to inter-change positions comfortably. And the strange thing is that we have almost always produced our most devastating football with teams like that.
