It feels as if a lot of people have been brainwashed into thinking we would have won a few matches if we had a striker.
All the dog excrement aside we cannot tell what would happen in any game after a goal is scored, the team could have sat back, the other team could equalize, the referees might involve themselves to make the game entertaining for Sky or lightning may strike the ground from furious football gods angered by the dross served up. 'At the end of the day' whether or not we have points on the board is all that matters and we just didn't want it enough.
The Maupay argument is moot if you consider that Dyche did not feel desperate enough to play Keane further upfront until the dying moments of the game against Wolves. We also had a Captain who took positives not from their own team but the team that battered them and then sent out our on-loan forward to churn out what the manager would have said the very next match when we failed to turn up. If the argument is for the team to gel together, then why did we spend the majority of the pre-season just talking about fitness? If we did not spend the money on players, then the delay in signing players when the broadcast revenue is just a failed argument, and so the people associated while fully aware of the risks were also comfortable enough taking it. We just have to accept the fact that we are a team that felt comfortable enough to give up on several matches at the start of a season.