Carroll value or not?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Archers Road said:
Doesn't matter how **** he is if he scores goals, or stirs up the opposition defence enough to enable someone else to score..
Click to expand...

That's the issue though Archers. I don't think this type of player can make a difference at the top of international football. If you play with someone like Carroll, the team will keep knocking long balls to him and thus giving the ball back. We will then wait for 15 minutes until we get it back and then the first thing we'll do is knock it long to him again and give it back to the other team (again)!

It happened at the Euros. Joe hart to Carroll, Carroll to Mellberg and we made him look like Beckenbauer. In the end, we were very lucky to beat a poor Sweden team.

If we really want to hang our hat on an Andy Carroll for a national team, then we've no hope.
 
I take your point fatlestiss, and I certainly don't think we should hang our hat on Andy Carroll. But it's not his fault if our defenders take the easy option and keep knocking it up to him every time they're under pressure. I do think he gives us an option up front, and we don't have many of those. It would be great if we had a squad of players who could keep the ball and tie our opponents in knots with neat fast passing movements. But we're not Spain, or Italy, we're England, and we have to play to our strengths at least in the short term. One of our strengths is the physicality and tempo of the game in England, and there's nothing wrong in my eyes in bringing on an old fashioned battering ram of a centre forward.

Incidentally, when Italy knock the ball long to Mario Ballotelli, no one complains. ;)
 
Anyone who remembers Bebo (the main social networking site before Facebook), take a look at this gem. Andy Carroll's Bebo page. Quotes include:
"well am usualy happiest when im ... spending sum time with me gf if ive got 1"
"ive got a big fear for spiders i absolute hate them, also hate stuff like snakes n that (not my snake tho ;) )"
"my favourite film has to be the jungle book its an unreal movie. Look for the bare necessities The simple bare necessities Forget about your worries and your strife"

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=4957197631&TUUID=d28128a3-1238-4391-8ab9-ac813c0bb9e7

:emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
Archers Road said:
I take your point fatlestiss, and I certainly don't think we should hang our hat on Andy Carroll. But it's not his fault if our defenders take the easy option and keep knocking it up to him every time they're under pressure. I do think he gives us an option up front, and we don't have many of those. It would be great if we had a squad of players who could keep the ball and tie our opponents in knots with neat fast passing movements. But we're not Spain, or Italy, we're England, and we have to play to our strengths at least in the short term. One of our strengths is the physicality and tempo of the game in England, and there's nothing wrong in my eyes in bringing on an old fashioned battering ram of a centre forward.

Incidentally, when Italy knock the ball long to Mario Ballotelli, no one complains. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you have written here Archers, with the exception of the sentence in bold, and here I may stand alone... English football has lived in the short-term for 20 years and so will never progress until we change our mentality. Forget playing to our strengths, I would rather we wrote off tournaments and started to play players that have more of a chance to play in a more technical style. Forget the results. Start again. It will take time, but I believe it's the only way.

the Germans did it and it worked for them.

As for Italy, they not it long to Balotelli's feet, or into the space he is entering unmarked. We knocked 50:50 to the space above someone's head.
 
Sounds like big Sam is the new redknapp. 100k a week is a terrible bit of business for a player who is injury prone, but it's true we are not the ones paying it and if west ham think that this is value for money then that's there problem.
 
15 million, 100k per week on a six year deal, for a player that spends 85mins per game on the floor, BARGAIN.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
Yep as people have said 15m isn't that bad for Carroll, but 100k a week is just crazy.
 
When I am in charge of the universe the headline will be "Liverpool striker Andy Carroll has passed his medical at West Ham prior to a £100k/week move." The £15m will just go to Liverpool and won't be "lost" out of the game; that's not the bit that is damaging football and why upset at our comparatively high transfer spend last season was misplaced.
 
I think he probably is worth £15m just about, but £100k a week on wages seems a bit steep.

I know Carroll gets a lot of stick on here, but I think he is a very good footballer with the curse of a £35m transfer around his neck (which isn't his fault). Centre forwards like him are not of use to many EPL sides nowadays, but if you like to play it early to a target man (as West ham do) there are probably few better. His ability to hang in the air is incredible, I've never seen anything like it, he's strong, his first touch is excellent and he can shoot from both feet. I doubt many defenders relish palying against him, he's a real handful and he gave Hooiveld all sorts of trouble at St Mary's.

You might not like the way West Ham play which is fair enough, but football is not a game of aesthetics and anyway that point is irrelevant to this question.
 
The contract is ridiculous; the fee is just about right if not possibly a little steep. I'd personally value Carroll at around £10m and £40k a week.
 
Nobody gets paid what they deserve. They simply get paid as much as they can. Forget the weekly wage, is he worth £15m? Not in my book. No throwback to the 70's is!
 
KillerCephalopod said:
I think plenty would disagree, I certainly do. If Saints played West Ham or Stoke style frootball, I wouldn't pay to watch them every other week even if we were winning. But because we play attractive football I was happy to watch us even in League 1.
Click to expand...

West Ham don't play anything like Stoke. They might be direct, but they're quite entertaining to watch. Last season they had plenty of quality, they got forward quickly and created opportunities, and whilst it might not suit the purists who prefer to drool over Barca, it is exciting. Fat Sam's a gambler, Pullis on the other hand is very risk averse.
 
Archers Road said:
West Ham don't play anything like Stoke. They might be direct, but they're quite entertaining to watch. Last season they had plenty of quality, they got forward quickly and created opportunities, and whilst it might not suit the purists who prefer to drool over Barca, it is exciting. Fat Sam's a gambler, Pullis on the other hand is very risk averse.
Click to expand...

We don't praise West Ham on this board, remember? ;) They play hoofball and that's that
 
hotbovril said:
Nobody gets paid what they deserve. They simply get paid as much as they can. Forget the weekly wage, is he worth £15m? Not in my book. No throwback to the 70's is!
Click to expand...

Unless he's Kenny Dalglish or Kevin Keegan or, well, you get my drift!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back