Speculation: Andy Carroll

[TheEgo]

How can you talk about people being on drugs for thinking one thing and then come out with, stuff like Bent is FIVE times the player Carroll is? Based on what? how do you qualify that? oh you cant can you.

I would imagine their respective first team stats back it up quite easily actually (without even looking)

Haha how to win a debate. I ask you how bent is 5 times the player Carroll is and you say "I would IMAGINE" followed by "without even looking" haha! How's the crack??

Not after a row, however if you're going to simply ridicule over people's post and therefore opinions, be prepared to justify yours.....

So HOW ( with proof) is bent 5 times better than Carroll! Or is it shock horror, just your opinion?

Boom!!

[rodigan]

i'd rather bring back john carew and spend the money on a new lb and a winger...

joking aside (the jc bit, not the getting rid of warnock part), with our squad and db9 in particular, i suspect moving to a big man strategy will be more of an alternative if things aren't working than our starting point. as such, throwing 15m at a big striker is simply a luxury we can't afford. particularly on someone who has shown that he can be bang out of form for long periods of time...

[Super Jonno]

How can you talk about people being on drugs for thinking one thing and then come out with, stuff like Bent is FIVE times the player Carroll is? Based on what? how do you qualify that? oh you cant can you.

I would imagine their respective first team stats back it up quite easily actually (without even looking)

Haha how to win a debate. I ask you how bent is 5 times the player Carroll is and you say "I would IMAGINE" followed by "without even looking" haha! How's the crack??

Not after a row, however if you're going to simply ridicule over people's post and therefore opinions, be prepared to justify yours.....

So HOW ( with proof) is bent 5 times better than Carroll! Or is it shock horror, just your opinion?

Boom!!

His goal scoring record kind of speaks for itself, Bent is undoubtedly, currently a better player than Carroll. Are you suggesting Carroll is better than Bent or are you just trying to prove a point about opinions ? :oops:

I would happily take Carroll. I dislike him, alot, almost as much as I dislike his fat head and the ridiculous hair he has connected to it. That being said towards the back end of last season, and his time at Newcastle he started to do the things that make him such a pain in the arse to play against.

There arent to many players in football like him, not at his standard. He is a real asset to any side, a number of issues contributed to him being a mahoosive flop at pool. I feel under a manager like Lambert he could thrive.

That being said its a lot of money and I dont think we would offer him 80k wages. Why go through brutal cost cutting just to chuck money about silly again ? That doesnt mean we cant get him. Even if we do spend 15 million on him ( subbed by knocking debt off Liverpool for downing deal ) I dont see that as a bad thing, aslong as it doesnt effect strengthening other areas of our side. Lambert undoubtedly knows we need newfaces and isnt stupid enough to blow our entire budget on one player.

I think its a long shot, and I wouldnt be bothered if we missed out on him, but id quite like him at the Villa.

[Demitri_C]

this is not going to happen. rodgers said he wont be leaving on loan and there is no way randy will spend 20m+ on a striker unless he sells/swaps bent

cant see it at all.

[Folski]

Did Norwich play hoof ball last season ?

I thought they kept it on the deck more ?

Norwich averaged 46.2% possession (47.2% at home, 45.2% away) . We were 45.8% on average (48.2% at home & 43.5% away). However Norwich were 9th in pass completion in the League.

You sure but those stats mate? This is the same Norwich that was one of the very few teams who out possessed Swansea last season.

I assume so. Look at the Liverpool at home game they only managed 44%, Arsenal away 37%, that's just looking at 2 of their last 3 games. Just checked both Swansea games, Norwich had 40% at home & 45% away.

[Stevo985]

I couldn't care if we had 5% possession. If we won the game I'd be happy.

[Folski]

I couldn't care if we had 5% possession. If we won the game I'd be happy.

Exactly how I feel Stevo. I remember talking to a Chelsea fan friend of mine who was giving out how they played under Jose & he said it was much better under Gullit/Vialli, and I was there think oh ya how many leagues did they win ye? Only football worth playing is effective football.

[PaulMcGrath_5]

I couldn't care if we had 5% possession. If we won the game I'd be happy.

Exactly how I feel Stevo. I remember talking to a Chelsea fan friend of mine who was giving out how they played under Jose & he said it was much better under Gullit/Vialli, and I was there think oh ya how many leagues did they win ye? Only football worth playing is effective football.

Yaarr, das is good yaarr?

[SikhInTrinity]

I agree, I can understand that philosophy against the likes of the big 4, we contain and then counter, however using it for every game is ridiculous, no wonder our players are physically ****. I just hope against the lesser sides, we keep the ball and then hurt them with pressure.

[Mantis]

I agree, I can understand that philosophy against the likes of the big 4, we contain and then counter, however using it for every game is ridiculous, no wonder our players are physically ****. I just hope against the lesser sides, we keep the ball and then hurt them with pressure.

Agreed. It's inevitable that most of the time against the top sides you will have less possession (although that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and keep possession against them as well) but it's important that against most teams we try and keep the ball more. I was happy with the results under MON but I always used to hate how we'd have to often rely on backs against the wall defending.

[SikhInTrinity]

You know even with the man who shall not be named, we'd keep possession and then get a goal, then we'd sit back, I'm glad we have a few footballers in the side and gradually PL manages to change the mentality of the side. It's no coincidence either that we conceded late goals on this mentality.

[briny_ear]

How can you talk about people being on drugs for thinking one thing and then come out with, stuff like Bent is FIVE times the player Carroll is? Based on what? how do you qualify that? oh you cant can you.

I would imagine their respective first team stats back it up quite easily actually (without even looking)

Haha how to win a debate. I ask you how bent is 5 times the player Carroll is and you say "I would IMAGINE" followed by "without even looking" haha! How's the crack??

Not after a row, however if you're going to simply ridicule over people's post and therefore opinions, be prepared to justify yours.....

So HOW ( with proof) is bent 5 times better than Carroll! Or is it shock horror, just your opinion?

Boom!!

This might be a private row but just in case anyone is wondering, Bent has scored 173 goals from 403 starts in his career (1 goal per 2.3 games) and Carroll has got 45 goals from 159 career starts (1 goal every 3.5 games).

So Bent is clearly the more effective forward, but not 5 times better. For every 100 games you get about 44 goals from Bent and 28 from Carroll, so about 1.6 times better. No need to exaggerate - but he is much better than Carroll.

However, Carroll does have youth on his side, so he is the one most likely to improve his stats and his more physical style of play probably unsettles defences more so may create more opportunities for his team mates.

[Morkery]

The fact is, unless we have significant investment (And I don't actually want a Chelsea/City scenario) we will not be close to winning the title, no matter what football we play.

So we may as well go for entertaining, good football.

[HolteExile]

Don't see the point in the huge outlay it would take to land the Divvy Ponytail at all.

But if he goes back to Newcastle I'd definitely take Ba off their hands. Personally I think they'd be mad to sell him but (a) he does have a release clause ( Fat Mike will want to balance the books in terms of wages and fees if he does bring Carroll back. I could have seen him going to Tottingham, but with 'arry gone I don't think that's as likely now. Concerns over his fitness/ the failed medical at Stoke might put off the very best clubs. But during his time at West Ham and Newcastle I don't think he's missed many games, and certainly didn't play like he's nursing an injury.

If we do have to go the target man/ tall forward route, then I'd prefer to see us go with someone like Rhodes - a player on the up, who would see a move to Villa as a step up and would be determined to give his absolute maximum to make a go of things here. For a player like Carroll, I get the distinct impression that we'd merely be his latest stopping off point, a chance to come here and poodle for a bit and pick up a fat wedge.

As an option from the bench, it's far more likely that a younger player or player from the Championship would initially accept not being a guaranteed starter.

Bent>Ba>Rhodes as forward options for (possibly) only the loss of Gabby would be a big improvement in our options up top compared to the end of last season.

Sign a player like Carroll and for the fee and wages involved he'd need to start every game- whether his form justifies it or not.

[VillanousOne]

agree, we can't out pass teams all the time, we need to have a few different ways of playing, including winning ugly from set pieces.

Under MON we only really had counter attacking football, which worked really well about 60% of the time unless teams marked our wingers heavily.

Under Houllier we did try and pass through the middle more, and maybe if he had continued we would have improved, then again maybe it was McCallister at the end who halted the slide. Who knows?

Under Eck our game plan was get everyone behind the ball, contain, hoof, defend. Even when he did muster the confidence to attack, our defence would capitulate in a comedy way and it would be back to defending like headless chickens.

Lambert is famed for being able to play different formations and have tactical nous. I think we will look a lot better under him, maybe evern better than under MON, just without the talent, although signings so far have looked decent enough.

[Mantis]

Don't see the point in the huge outlay it would take to land the Divvy Ponytail at all.

But if he goes back to Newcastle I'd definitely take Ba off their hands. Personally I think they'd be mad to sell him but (a) he does have a release clause ( Fat Mike will want to balance the books in terms of wages and fees if he does bring Carroll back. I could have seen him go to Tottingham, but with 'arry gone I don't think that's as likely now. Concerns over his fitness/ the failed medical at Stoke might put off the very best clubs. But during his time at West Ham and Newcastle I don't think he's missed many games, and certainly didn't play like he's nursing an injury.

If we do have to go the target man/ tall forward route, then I'd prefer to see us go with someone like Rhodes - a player on the up, who would see a move to Villa as a step up. As an option from the bench, it's far more likely that a younger player or player from the Championship would initially accept not being a guaranteed starter.

Bent>Ba>Rhodes as forward options for (possibly) only the loss of Gabby would be a big improvement in our options up top compared to the end of last season.

Sign a player like Carroll and for the fee and wages involved he'd need to start every game- whether his form justifies it or not.

Exactly. Bent is our main striker. I can see why we might need a "big man" as backup though so spending £15m on Carroll would just be ludicrous.

[CrackpotForeigner]

Don't see the point in the huge outlay it would take to land the Divvy Ponytail at all.

But if he goes back to Newcastle I'd definitely take Ba off their hands. Personally I think they'd be mad to sell him but (a) he does have a release clause ( Fat Mike will want to balance the books in terms of wages and fees if he does bring Carroll back. I could have seen him going to Tottingham, but with 'arry gone I don't think that's as likely now. Concerns over his fitness/ the failed medical at Stoke might put off the very best clubs. But during his time at West Ham and Newcastle I don't think he's missed many games, and certainly didn't play like he's nursing an injury.

If we do have to go the target man/ tall forward route, then I'd prefer to see us go with someone like Rhodes - a player on the up, who would see a move to Villa as a step up and would be determined to give his absolute maximum to make a go of things here. For a player like Carroll, I get the distinct impression that we'd merely be his latest stopping off point, a chance to come here and poodle for a bit and pick up a fat wedge.

As an option from the bench, it's far more likely that a younger player or player from the Championship would initially accept not being a guaranteed starter.

Bent>Ba>Rhodes as forward options for (possibly) only the loss of Gabby would be a big improvement in our options up top compared to the end of last season.

Sign a player like Carroll and for the fee and wages involved he'd need to start every game- whether his form justifies it or not.

Great post. I don't know why we're even discussing Carroll. Sleb worship maybe.

[Mazrim]

We're discussing him because our manager has said he's interested in him and that we "shouldn't rule it out", which is a lot more tangible and interesting than hundreds of wishy washy notions on how he has a pony tail, would not come here, is no good and that we shouldn't be talking about him etc.

[CrackpotForeigner]

We're discussing him because our manager has said he's interested in him and that we "shouldn't rule it out", which is a lot more tangible and interesting than hundreds of wishy washy notions on how he has a pony tail, would not come here, is no good and that we shouldn't be talking about him etc.

Fair enough.

But he DOES have a ponytail, wouldn't come here and is no good.

[SikhInTrinity]

no one is saying he is not a good player, however the only way Andy Carroll will be a success is if we get wide men in who can cross the ball. I think he'd join us however think we have more pressing areas that need to be resolved.