A) Many times this season our short quick passing game hasn't worked and we've ended up drawing matches we should have won or losing matches we should have at least draw. Carroll gives us "options" as Rafa would say B) That's up to the manager to instill the discipline into the defence that they do NOT just lump it forward, just because we have a tall striker on the pitch. C) A winning philosophy is one that will win games - however we do it. It's not a betrayal by any means. Remember the Peter Crouch days? I don't remember too many complaining about his goals
Of course it means something. A forward is in the side to help the team get goals, whether that be them scoring themselves, getting an assists of creating the space. It is the team that matters, not the individual. Sheringham was superb at creating chances, as was Zola and Bergkamp. Fowler was in the right position to score them, as was Andy Cole and Ian Wright. Look at the Owen and Heskey partnership for Liverpool and England. Heskey's goal scoring record was atrocious but the teams record was much better with him in the side than not. Borini and Carroll are both strikers and ultimately they are there to score goals, but if they create space or assists that helps the team do well, who gives a ****? I personally don't think they are comparable because they are simply different players!
Oh right so Borini is the striker that scores **** all but creates loads of space, so therefore it'd be wrong to judge him on goals scored? I see.
But please bear in mind that he's hardly played this season. I'm not sure if you can comprehend this?
I can fully comprehend that he's made 16 appearances this season & scored 1 goal against the 'might' of FC Gomel
Oh I see, enough intel to pass judgement on a 21 year old at a new club which were getting to grips with a new style of play.
Will do. In the meantime, please stop being so condescending. And also refrain from insulting me - it's uncalled for.
Nice try, but the moral high ground will never be yours on that issue, given your propensity for asking for aural sex from me on here......
You ghastly creature - I would never do such a thing! Going back to an earlier point - who would have been a more effective player? Carroll over Borini. However, in terms of building this team for the future, I rather sell Carroll and use that money to invest in our Plan A. Put it this way (hypothetically speaking) - We could only sign a player like Eriksen if we sold Carroll to fund him (disregard their respective positions) - would you rather keep Carroll as an impact player or would you rather have a player who is capable of playing for the first team week in week out?
That's common sense in fairness (a bit shocked tbh) & I obviously agree with you. I'm no massive fan of Carroll, but I can see that he brings something different to a side, my comparison with Borini was just my subjective opinion, as I'd have Carroll over him all day long, but your manager doesn't share my view. Time will tell who's got the better judgement!
Can't deny Carroll's impact (physically and aerially) and in a perfect world, I would love to have him at the club, sitting on the bench and being the ideal Plan B. Will he be happy sitting on the bench? Will the club be happy spending so much money in wages on a player who is rather one dimensional and will only come on for the last 15 mins a game? Don't get me wrong - we could have spent £10m on a lot better than Borini. However, if we were to keep Carroll, then it means we have Borini and Carroll as the back up strikers. It doesn't fill me with any confidence at all. Both aren't starters IMO and Carroll is 'expensive to run' (wages) and can command a higher fee - thus being able to reinvest more money in a better option up front.
Just flog Borini then and use that money. As stated above the money isn't an issue if you use the Carroll option wisely. It pays for itself if he gets you an extra 5-10 points a season. Borini will never do that, Carroll will. The other question is...do you really trust us to invest that cash wisely? THAT is a far bigger gamble than bringing Carroll back.
Exactly. It cost us this year so why try exactly the same thing again? It's all very well saying "make plan A work" but plan A is never going to be suitable for every Prem, cup and european game. Even if we perfected it there'll be games where a different option is essential. As I said above I can give you five or six games at least where Mandy would have been of benefit and it's exactly those games that have put us out of a CL spot. It's a no brainer for me. Improves the squad with absolutely no transfer outlay. If money's tight we have plenty of other deadwood we can shift. If we've got another realistic target then use Borini as the makeweight instead. Suarez, Sturridge, Carroll and one other gives us excellent options. Throw in the youngsters and that's a really good attacling unit for Prem footy.
Really frustrating that I just spent about 10 minutes replying to Billy only for it to be lost as I clicked post and I'd been logged out. For **** sakes. Anyway, roughly what I posted was, I can't be arsed typing all of it up again, that it would be a betrayal of our style because we'd be throwing a whole year of coaching, transfers and tactics away if we brought Carroll back and started hoofing the ball up to goal everytime we are struggling to break a stubborn defence down after 70 minutes. Half the battle with this style Rodgers is trying to implement is getting the players to believe in it a 100% and that it is the way forward for the club. Short term we might've had better results if we'd played 2 banks of 4 and played on the counter with Suarez & Gerrard (Sturridge later on). But that wouldn't bring us long term success, clubs who play football like this tend to have a good season or two but never consistent success like the legendary Dutch, Spanish, Brazilian, Madrid, Barca teams. It is the same thing with bringing Carroll on in the last 30 minutes, it might win us 4 or 5 extra points in one season but it will not improve us in the long term, it'll simply paper over the cracks that our team just isn't good enough to win games by playing football. If bringing a big man off the bench to win games was something that brought teams long term success then Man Utd, Madrid & others would all have 6ft5 subs waiting to come on if things aren't going their way after 60 minutes. But they don't because sticking to the passing game for 90 minutes is a more succesful option than sticking on Kevin Davies and lumping the ball long to him. I wasn't saying our philosophy is about getting the best passing statistics, its about winning long term. Not just 1-0 wins at home against W.Ham & Stoke, but winning trophies and consistently challenging for the title. Bringing back Carroll wouldn't enable us to do that. Dominating possession and having a team full of excellent technical footballers will.
Totally agree with you Billy He is also, still only 24 - lots of time to hone his development (hopefully )
And then ask yourself which one has played in a Brendan Rodgers team before and knows what is expected of him. Also ask yourself which player is more likely to accept a role on the bench. And to finish off ask yourself which player is on less wages.
My theory. Rodgers doesn't like anyone who is twice his height. Arguments about "Carroll doesn't fit a pass and move philosophy" are flawed. In preseason he looked better than Borini in Rodgers Chicken Tikka Masala team. It reminds me of all the long ball to Crouch arguments. Anyone that watched Crouch in the early days at our club could see he was much better with his feet than his head. He learnt to head later. Yes... Carrol is a big man... but although not great with his feet he is better than Borini. Rodgers is a short man who seems to have a phobia of tall men. Look at who he signs! Would be nice to have someone who can head the ball.... doesn't mean we have to play hoof all just because we have a tall striker. But yes... Carroll is on too much wages to be on the bench and isn't as good as Sturridge. With Cout, Suarez, and Sturridge on the team Mamdy wouldn't start much.
