So... what you're telling me is that your entire initial position was completely based on the false assumption that a replacement has to be exactly the same as the thing it replaces. This is rarely the case. Just because something is not as good as the thing its replacing, doesn't make it any less of a replacement. Trust me Belial, I know what the word 'replacement' means. The issue here is that you don't get it.
You don't need the caveat of "100%" . Just say it Belial. "Streit and Hemskey were brought in to take the place of Radulov and Markov, therefore, they are their replacements, even if they weren't expected to do 100% of the things their predecessors did". Trust me, you'll feel a lot better if you do.