You think Cole and Yorke was elite/WC, while I think they were a tier or two below. Still really good strikers in a well oiled collective machinery, but they were both phased out of the team after the treble season while still in their late 20's. I think they were among the best strikers in England at the time, but that doesn't mean they were among the best in the world, because the best football was played outside of England back then (PL was ranked between 4th and 7th in Europe through the 90s comming in to the 2000s) Cole scored 1 goal in 15 games for England England in his career while Yorke scored 19 in 72 games for Trinidad & Tobago. Both of them went on to play for mulitple midtable/bottomtable clubs after they left us, and I can name at least a handful of strikers I think was better at the time. Let's just agree to disagree on that one.
When it comes to Toney and Mitrovic, I agree that the numbers lack context and doesn't reflect a just image of their quality compared to strikers in better teams. I would take them both here, but I honestly think we would still be looking for an upgrade on any of them if we did. That's why I think their quoted prices are too high.
At which point did I call either of them elite?
Yorke had to be phased out; his head was not in the game anymore and that cannot be ignored to make an overarching point about numbers because you're suggesting an organic decline where Yorke went out of his way to be a very poor professional.
You're reeling off a lot of numbers, but the simple fact is Yorke was easily the match of anyone in the treble season as evidenced in the Champions League where his performances actually went up a level.
Without context Cole's career shouldn't be measured. Glenn Hoddle effectively ruined Cole and his prospects for England, plus Shearer was the absolute golden boy - you either played alongside him in servitude or you didn't play at all.
Cole's trajectory was perfectly clear, as outlined in my previous post. If he had never arrived at United and was left to his own devices, he would never have become a rounded, team player - he would have used all of his intelligence to forage for more and more goals and he would have been fed by the likes of Beardsley his whole career to do so.
Your definition of a striker seems to be goals and ratios and not much else, which isn't going to give team players or those who safrificed themselves or their game for others a chance. By your metrics, Cole had to be his Newcastle version for a career - you seem to dismiss what a feat it is to be that kind of forward and do a complete 180 to what he became.
Also, numbers post-United are going to depend on so many factors, so blanket laying figures down just doesn't work or mean much because context is vital for a full picture.
The Toney and Mitrovic stuff is a fair 50:50 as to why some are apprehensive and others less so - it's a lot of money; it's not a 'sure thing' like getting the hottest prodigy is supposed to be and, if they flop, the club is stuck with them on high salaries with little to no resale value. The season will tell us a lot about both players, but if they have stellar campaigns, the arguments against them hold less weight because some forwards do come to life after ironing out their game.
The derth of amazing strikers is problematic and a conundrum in itself, which is seeing the likes of Liverpool spending crazy amounts on a player who just as many people think is going to be a huge flop as think will just about make a passing grade.
Seemingly, raw numbers are not the way most centre-forwards will be judged over the next few years: this appears to be the era of the modern-day Cole's, Drogba's and Saha's - anyone who contributes an astronomical amount to their team besides goals.