Samir Nasri Says Arteta Signed the Wrong Striker. He Has a Point.

Viktor Gyökeres had a remarkable season at Sporting CP before Arsenal came calling. Forty-three goals in all competitions. A goals-per-game ratio that made him one of the most talked-about strikers in European football. On paper, the signing made sense. Arteta wanted a proper number nine, and Gyökeres looked like the answer.

Samir Nasri does not think it was the right call.

The former Arsenal midfielder went public with his concerns, and what he said cuts deeper than a simple opinion. He is not questioning Gyökeres as a footballer. He is questioning whether Gyökeres fits the way Arsenal actually play.

“He should have signed a striker who can create the link with the midfield,” Nasri said. “Gyökeres is kind of like Haaland, but not as good and without any hold-up play.”

That is a pointed comparison. And it is worth unpacking.

What Nasri Is Actually Saying

Arteta’s Arsenal is built on control. They dominate possession, move the ball through the thirds in structured patterns, and rely on their striker to act as the pivot that connects midfield to attack. When that connection works, Arsenal are devastating. When it doesn’t, they can dominate a game for 70 minutes and still struggle to break a low block.

The strikers who have worked best in that system tend to be footballers first and finishers second. Players who can receive with their back to goal, hold defenders off, lay the ball off, and create space for runners around them. That profile — the link striker — is what Nasri is describing.

Gyökeres is a different animal. He is explosive, direct, and at his best when he is running in behind or receiving in the box to finish. He scored goals at Sporting by being clinical in the right moments, not by orchestrating attacks from deep. His hold-up play is functional at best. His real value is in the final third, not in connecting the phases before it.

That is not a flaw. It is simply a different type of striker. And Nasri’s argument is that it is the wrong type for what Arsenal need.

Arsenal’s Striker Problem Has Been Going On Longer Than People Admit

This debate did not start with Gyökeres. Arsenal have been searching for the right number nine for years.

Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang was the goals man who eventually fell out with Arteta completely. Alexandre Lacazette gave them the link play but not enough goals at the level they needed. Gabriel Jesus brought pressing and movement but was too injury-prone to be relied on. Eddie Nketiah was always the backup option pushed into a starting role.

Each signing addressed one part of the problem and left another part open.

What Arteta’s system ideally needs is someone who gives you both things — the hold-up play and the goals. That player is rare and extremely expensive. When you can’t get both in one package, you have to decide which half matters more.

Arsenal chose the goals. Gyökeres delivers goals. But Nasri is saying the trade-off costs them something in how they build play.

Is He Right?

Looking at how Arsenal’s season went, there is something in what Nasri is saying.

There were matches where Arsenal had more possession, more shots, and more territory than their opponents and still could not convert the dominance into a clear win. The chance creation was there. The finish was not always coming from the right moments or the right positions.

A striker who drops deep and draws defenders out creates different spaces for the likes of Saka, Martinelli, and Havertz to exploit. Gyökeres, by staying high and direct, asks a different question of defenses — one that Arsenal’s build-up play does not always set up perfectly.

That said, Nasri’s comparison to Haaland is worth examining carefully. Haaland also does not offer classic hold-up play, and Manchester City won the Premier League with him leading the line. The difference is that City’s system was specifically designed around Haaland’s movement. Arsenal’s system, as Nasri sees it, was not redesigned around Gyökeres. It was simply handed a new striker and expected to keep working.

That is the real question. Not whether Gyökeres is good enough — he clearly is — but whether Arteta adjusted the way Arsenal attack to make the most of what Gyökeres actually offers.

What Would Have Worked Better?

Nasri did not name a specific alternative, but the profile he described points toward a certain type of player.

Ollie Watkins fits the mould. He links play intelligently, makes runs that drag defenders out of shape, and has the Premier League experience to operate in a high-pressure system. Alexander Isak has similar qualities — technically gifted, comfortable with his back to goal, and clinical when the moment comes. Victor Osimhen is more of a physical presence, direct like Gyökeres but with better awareness of when to hold and when to go.

Any of those names would have addressed what Nasri is talking about. Whether Arsenal could have actually signed them is a different conversation.

The honest answer is that Nasri is raising a legitimate tactical question, not making a personal attack on a player. Gyökeres is a quality striker. The debate is about fit, not ability. And in modern football, fit is often the difference between a good signing and the right signing.

Read Next: Mbappé vs Arbeloa: Something Is Not Right at Real Madrid

Arteta will know better than anyone whether the system needs to change around his striker or whether the striker needs to adapt to the system. How that plays out next season will answer Nasri’s question more clearly than any pundit debate.