avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I voted for Cole, not for his performances of late but for the fact that I'm convinced he'll make a top quality striker one day. For all his effort though Crouch will never make a goal scorer. The chances he missed in a Villa shirt live long in the memory for me. Good riddance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 DOL did not slip up FFS. Cole was never meant to be one of the main strikers IMO. DOL thought he was getting BT which would have left him with JPA, DV, BT with Cole and the Moore's as back up. Besides which at the time there were loads on here saying that getting 2M for Crouch and replacing him with a free Cant Control was really good business. FWIW, I think Cole is crap BTW but it's not a straight him or crouch question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomIsADeftone Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Cole was never meant to be one of the main strikers IMO. DOL thought he was getting BT which would have left him with JPA, DV, BT with Cole and the Moore's as back up. I'm not trying to start an arguement, but didn't the Beattie money just turn up with about a week left to the window closing, i remember DO'L making quotes about being suprised that he had more money to spend as all summer we argued over a few 100k with Nantes for Berson and DO'L was told he was on a tight budget but then doug found 6mill down the back of a sofa in the executives lounge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Tom, you're probably right about the money thing, certainly its a theory I have supported in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwheels Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 :shock: And there's me still recovering from the vitriol I got at the time for suggesting such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattS Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Crouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RantinRob Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 The Crouchmeister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted January 14, 2005 Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2005 crouch winning so far with 75% of the vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 crouch winning so far with 75% of the vote Oh ye of short memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ligs Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Crouch tried for us, Cole doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Crouch tried for us, Cole doesn't. Crouch was an unmitigated disaster, he tried his best yes, but he simply wasn't good enough. and to think we wasted £5.5m on him?? Oh my God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ligs Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 He wasn't a success, but neither was he an "unmitigated disaster." I agree with you, from what Cole showed when he first burst onto the seen at Chelsea, he looks a far better player than Crouch. But on both their showings at Villa, there's no contest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancsVillan Posted January 14, 2005 Moderator Share Posted January 14, 2005 but in reality we only 'wasted' £3m as we got back £2m+ but that is why I agree with some (Bigwheels being one of them) that to 'lose' Crouch and get in Cole plus £2m seemed like excellent business, reagrdless of anyone's feelings on loan deals. and for the record I disagree with loan deals vehemently but if they are part of the game it would stupid not to use them, especially in the way they are meant. Which is to see if a player fits the team, the living arrangements etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanPabloAngel Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 He wasn't a success, but neither was he an "unmitigated disaster." I go for disaster. Crouch was **** rubbish. Fickle football fans, who'd have thought it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 He wasn't a success, but neither was he an "unmitigated disaster." I agree with you, from what Cole showed when he first burst onto the seen at Chelsea, he looks a far better player than Crouch. But on both their showings at Villa, there's no contest Well Cole has only been at Villa for less than 6 months, Crouch was at Villa for a hell of a lot longer than that, and in my opinion (and a hell of a lot others at the time) he was a complete and utter disaster. Thank God we got rid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 and for the record I disagree with loan deals vehemently but if they are part of the game it would stupid not to use them, especially in the way they are meant. Which is to see if a player fits the team, the living arrangements etc I agree, the sooner we get rid of this loan system the better. No player should play for one club while actually been owned by another. That's not what football's about. Why should one club contribute to the nurturing and development of another clubs player? It's a joke. The sooner it's scrapped the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorenzo Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Crouch was an unmitigated disaster, he tried his best yes, but he simply wasn't good enough. and to think we wasted £5.5m on him?? Oh my God! By unmitigated disaster do you mean as in he played less minutes than CC and scored more goals? Is that what you're getting at? Thought so. Financially I think everybody would agree that he was bad value for money, but from a footballing sense we've had many players much much worse. One's at VP from chelsea on loan at the moment in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc1982 Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Crouch was an unmitigated disaster, he tried his best yes, but he simply wasn't good enough. and to think we wasted £5.5m on him?? Oh my God! By unmitigated disaster do you mean as in he played less minutes than CC and scored more goals? Is that what you're getting at? Thought so. Financially I think everybody would agree that he was bad value for money, but from a footballing sense we've had many players much much worse. One's at VP from chelsea on loan at the moment in fact. Lorenzo why ask me a question if you're gonna answer yourself?? For your information Crouch missed sitter after sitter for Aston Villa while costing the club millions of pounds we could hardly afford, Cole on the other hand has hardly been on the end of quality chances like Crouch was. In my opinion (and it's only my opinion) Crouch was a complete and utter disaster and the fact that we sold him on with a £3m+ loss on him i think proves my point. I'll also say again that i think Cole will make a very good striker one day, that's why i voted for him, and at the end of the day that's what this thread is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadPirateRoberts Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'm going for Crouch, mainly so I can wheel out this picture again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablopicasso Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 crouch for his effort.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts