Whats the point keeping Carroll around as a plan B? A) Our whole team is geared towards short, quick passing. Carroll doesn't suit this type of game B) His presence encourages the defence to play it long instead of keeping it on the floor & playing out the back C) Why betray our whole philosophy for an average striker who has scored a paltry 12 goals in his last 62 league appearances just because he has recently won a few headers & made a nuisance of himself. He's ****ing Kevin Davies with a ponytail. I thought he was going to work out at Liverpool but he didn't have the desire or ability to make it work and thats that.
When Carroll played at Newcastle, most of his goals came from his feet. He has an outstanding first touch, and a rocket. His only downside is his head at times, but if Shelvey can start 5+ games, surely Carroll can play his role in the team.
Whilst I believe his ability with ball at his feet is quite underrated, it's still not good enough. And as Lucas says, when he is in the team, there will be a default mentality of just lumping the ball up to him therefore starting him is almost detrimental to our playing style. I suppose it is ok when we comes on for the last 10-15 mins to force the issue but I maintain that we can find cheaper alternatives who can offer the same physical presence but with more intelligence and guile. Lukaku is an excellent example (not saying that he's a realistic target but he's the type of 'physical' player we should be looking at - Benteke as well).
Quick passing? You're joking right? His presence late on in a game might just encourage us to get it forward quicker rather than spend the 5 minutes of injury time passing it around our own defenders. Why does it betray "our philosophy"? Our philosophy should be about winning games not racking up good ****ing passing statistics. Give me Kevin Davies over Borini anyday. Carroll is miles better than him but even so id love us to have a player who puts the ****s up opposition defenders due to his size and ability to shoot from distance. Would Huth and Collins have been able to spend 90mins roughing up Suarez if Mandy had been there to dish it back. No, he'd have had a bloody field day.
This happened with Crouch too. Everyone under the sun knows the Crouch is (was?) better with the ball at his feet, his heading ability is (was?) poor. However, because of his height our game slowly changed from passing to long ball. I think it is part of the reason we got rid (as well as the obvious reason of funding a move for Torres)
In addition, we don't need a physical, tall, strong man to compete in the air. Torres was excellent at heading and scored quite a few good goals with his head - technique and timing are far more important (and ability to jump is handy!).
Quite few like that, Terry isn't the biggest (6' 1") but how many goals has he got from set-pieces over the years? Kevin Davies (6') used to get quite a lot too. Torres is 6'
Who exactly are we going to find who's is cheaper than free? We already bloody own him. 3 West Ham fans on the radio through the day yesterday said exactly the same thing as I've seen this season...when they've played with Carroll they've actually played a lot less direct and if Big Sam (aka Captain Hoofball) can drill that into his lot why can't Rodgers? We bought Borini and has he suited "our style"? If that style is running into people and giving the ball away constantly then fine, he'll fit in even better than Carroll. We bought Sturridge who's only attribute is pace (certainly not intelligence or guile ffs) and yet surely it's his pace that dictates we should play the ball quickly and DIRECTLY to get the best out of him. The problem isn't Carrolls ability, it's football snobbery that's the issue here. Some of us think having a big fella up front is above LFC even when that snobbery is quite blatantly costing us valuable points throughout a season. Even if it had only been an extra 5 points he'd gained us this year up to this stage, those 5 points would put us right in the mix for a CL place.
Who do you think will have the bigger impact in the PL next season - Carroll or Borini? When you've answered this question, ask yourself who's more likely to be in your squad next season.
Obviously it will be Carroll. Borini is injured more than fit and isn't going to be a first pick when available either whereas Carroll will be first choice at West Ham or Newcastle
That's avoiding the point, ignoring unknown future fitness levels - if both players were playing the same role for the same side, playing the same amount of minutes every week, which one do you think would have the bigger impact over the course of a season?
Don't you start ya meff I've developed a theory over the last five minutes...Jimmy mentioned Benteke and Lukaku and straight away I thought "but they wouldn't fit Rodgers style either"...and I've come to the conclusion that Brenda is going to build a team smaller than himself
I know it was, did intentionally IMO, Carroll is a better and more effective player but also think Borini deserves a chance which he's not yet had. If I had to choose, I'd pick Carroll.
haha, anyone over 5ft 9" isn't getting in. Any manager who wouldn't take Lukaku or Benteke needs to have a think about their 'style' imo
I've seen nothing in Borini to make me think he'll make it at the PL level tbh, albeit I know he's had massive injury problems this year, so it might not be fair to judge - but I can usually look at a player & see a glimpse of something if they're top drawer, but he just looks like a nothing player to me like.
I don't know because I'm not psychic. The two are different types of player so a direct comparison is unfair. I would keep Carroll, but I'm not the manager. I suspect that if we do keep him he won't fit BR's plans and won't get much game time and it's the manager's decision that counts. So the argument boils down to whether we think BR will change his game plan (fat chance) or whether we keep AC as a last 20 minutes impact player. I'd be happy with the latter option but would the club or Andy himself be? I usually agree with Billy's assessment but in this case I don't. He's not free- we have to pay him wages to keep him in food, water and hair gel. If we sold him we'd get rid of his wages and get a tenner to spend elsewhere. As for Borini, we might be being harsh on him- he hasn't had the opportunity to show what he can do. He won't be the same as a player like Carroll, but that doesn't mean he won't be any good.
saint - they're both strikers aren't they? So I think the comparison is completely fair. I doubt Carroll would be happy playing 2nd fiddle off the bench, but it'd surely be up to him to make himself an automatic first choice by producing on the pitch when he got his chance - same as any other player at a top club? Personally I thought Rodgers decision to bin the lad off before even giving him a chance in his fabled 'system' was unfair on the lad himself & left you woefully short up front anyway, so was an odd call all round. Now he's going to get the chance to either sign off a massive loss on him if you cash in, or give him the opportunity to have a go at Anfield next season. However, given his actions last August, I think there's probably too much water flowed under that particular bridge to make that a feasible option tbh.
I think you know full well that that comment is bollox Robbie Fowler and Teddy Sheringham were both forwards but you wouldn't compare them!
How are strikers ultimately judged? Wouldn't be goals scored & assists would it? ergo their 'impact' You'd look back at the history books & compare Fowler & Sheringham on their goal scoring record, the difference in their 'style' ultimately means ****e all.
