Never buy strikers because they are overpriced
Think a lot of people are becoming a little too hung on to every word of this philosophy. "Never buy strikers" doesn't actually mean we will never buy another striker. If the need is there I'm sure we'll buy someone who is the right age.
Generally goal scorers, goal creaters and attacking players cost more than defenders. It is far easier to learn someone to defend better than it is to have natural instinct which, funnily enough, comes naturally. Think what the article is saying is, when it is possible, identify this natural instinct and nurture/develop it. i.e. concentrate a little more on attacking players in the academy/identify prospects at lower clubs and save £m's and help them. i.e. Spend on development and (hopefully) reap the rewards afterwards.
Common sense? Look over our recent-ish history. Ian Rush, Robbie Fowler and Michael Owen. All cost a pittance in developing/signing versus their real worth.
Then look at Morientes, Cisse and Dean Saunders. All came here for big-ish money moves and never really succeeded. True, Saunders was in a team in decline but we lost money on all. The bigger the fee, the bigger the risk.
A lot is being said about the fee paid for Carroll. I'm convinced that if Andy Carroll's name was Andries Carrolla and we signed him from Valencia it would be different to the Chamionship Managers on here We haven't signed him for his pace, his looks, his shirt selling ability or his technique in tackling. We have signed him due to his strength, ability in the air and the problems he will cause others. He's young and has years in front of him. He's not going to lose his blistering pace because he doesn't have it. He won't lose is ability in the air and hopefully he won't shrink so Andy Carroll in 10 years will be a similar player to the current version.
More to the point, would we have signed him for that price if we had options at the club? No we wouldn't.