Why is the elite pool of strikers ever shrinking?

#3 Evolving use of lone striker / no striker formations

Jamie Vardy was very successful as a lone striker in Leicester City’s title-winning campaign

Two striker formations used to be in vogue in the Premier League in the early 2000s, before inevitably succumbing to the variation in tactics adopted by the rest of Europe. It speaks volumes about the change football has seen that the most widely adopted formations of our time are 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3, both lone striker formations, with the latter suitable even with a false nine.

Teams such as Leicester City (last season) and Monaco (this season) remind us that when executed properly, a 4-4-2 still has a place in elite football – but it is too difficult when opposition managers flood the midfield to take control of the game. There is, of course, no point fielding two strikers if you cannot provide service to them.

Simple logic – When teams require fewer strikers in their starting 11, they require less in their squad, and eventually they scout less for talented strikers and groom less number of forwards in their academy. Striking is perhaps the one department that has been most affected by modern football's obsession with midfield – to the extent that midfielders like Cesc Fabregas are asked to play as a striker even in a match as crucial as the Euro 2012 final.