does villa not have a better scoring ratio at barca than etoo has at inter?
You should factor in that Inter have a lot of dross in the team and a central midfielder who hogs the ball while Villa has Xavi putting embarassingly easy chances on a plate for him all game long. Inter were built on a rigid defensive system with a manager who isn't there, they aren't really built to give Eto'o chance after chance after chance. Barca are almost the polar opposite of Inter.
Its insanely hard to quantify who is doing well, even at the same club because, take a Bendtner, or Anelka or, any second string striker who when they get in the team is often playing with a weakened side and not in form. When comparing different clubs its almost impossible to directly compare people. IE you'd expect Eto'o to score more at Inter than at Newcastle say, and more at Barca than at Inter(based on where the teams are now).
Villa's had good games, and bad games, his scoring record is more than good enough, but then Ibra had a pretty damn good scoring record last year.
I think people who watch Barca just expect the "main" striker to score more than Messi, because as Messi was younger the main strikers were outscoring him. Not outscoring Messi or Ronaldo doesn't make a striker crap.
Barca are being very weird, Ibra did as well as Villa, and both did as well as Eto'o--ish, Eto'o was a little better but he was gelled with the team, settled, and had years at the club.
If they buy Rossi...... I just don't see the point, replace a 20+ goal striker every season at huge expense for no real reason?
