Ha fucking ha
Big Andy
- Thread starter LeTallecWiz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
When he stays fit and plays regular games you can get these type of performances from him. But he doesn't stay fit and he'll never be a regular under rodgers with our style of play so it's pointless keeping him. Definitely suits teams like West Ham and Stoke. Either way we need to get rid.
If that's the typical service he gets, then that's 99% of the type of goals he'll score. Where has the glorious versatility and intelligence of t.i.k.i t.a.k.a gone, then? Venables recently said of managing England, 'You don't need a Plan B, you also need C, D, E, F and G'. Having options isn't the sign of weakness some seem to think it is, and turning a player with potential into a negative self-fulflling prophesy isn't clever.
I think all this talk of how he fits in and how best to coach him etc kind of misses the point. The real disagreement is between those of us who think he's a good player bursting with potential and those like me who think he's a donkey and a glorified version of Brian Deane.
Emile Heskey also occasionally had brilliant, 'unplayable' performances, but it didn't make him a good player.
Emile Heskey also occasionally had brilliant, 'unplayable' performances, but it didn't make him a good player.
But whats the point of keeping a player that the manager has no interest in using. Rodgers has his way how he wants the team to play and the type of players he wants to play it. Carroll isn't one of them. So keeping someone as expensive on the bench all season is detrimental to both the club and him. Its better for both parties if he leaves.
During the treble year he was on fire though. Some of the goals he scored that year were amazing.
No, he had moments during that season, inbetween periods when he was as infuriating as ever. Maybe Houllier shouldn't have had any interest in working with him.
I think we'd have been better off if he hadn't!!
Quite apart from all that coaching having no positive result.
Quite apart from all that coaching having no positive result.
I believe there is an advantage to having a Plan B. I don't think it can really be a drastic departure from your Plan A though because otherwise it's too difficult for the two to co-exist.
All debates about whether he's good or not to one side, I think the problem with him and Liverpool is that he's doesn't fit in well enough with the other players we have and he is a player that needs to play regularly to get to the point where he's playing to his potential.
There aren't too many players that will sit on the bench and still perform when they get an opportunity - Man Utd have one in Hernandez. We've had 'em in days gone by (Fairclough).
Carroll is not one of those players.
All debates about whether he's good or not to one side, I think the problem with him and Liverpool is that he's doesn't fit in well enough with the other players we have and he is a player that needs to play regularly to get to the point where he's playing to his potential.
There aren't too many players that will sit on the bench and still perform when they get an opportunity - Man Utd have one in Hernandez. We've had 'em in days gone by (Fairclough).
Carroll is not one of those players.
So the same as carroll then really except carroll has had less 'moments' and more infuriating patches.
In his first two seasons he played 68 games and scored 25 goals. And he was a fecking monster in a lot of them.
Carroll in his time at Liverpool played 60 games and scored 11 goals. Apparently he monstered the Chelsea cup game.
Massive difference. Heskey amazingly did a whole lot more for our team than Carroll did.
Emile had some good games but the number of games in which he was a monster were [excuse me while I cut off both hands, as I don't need to count on them, and finish typing with my nose] weere gew ans fat beyween.
Ha!
Never a fan of Heskey's but he was (E)miles better than Carroll is.
I can't be arsed with another saga, he's done very little to show he's good enough and there's nothing to suggest he can stay fit or is at least trying to look after himself. I'm just hopeful at his age he still wants to play football, that and maybe a desire to play for England might get him playing well again or more likely looking for a move elsewhere.
Ha ha you really take the biscuit
So managers bringing on completely different style players when chasing a game in the second half, or Mourinho bringing on Huth to play up front, is in fact a bonafide plan a?
Mentalist
The latter (Huth) wasn't a 'Plan B', it was a desperation move. Fuck all else to do so he lumped some big tube up front in one final act of despair, do you think Mourinho or Chelsea actually made a 'plan' for that move? Did they fuck. And if that's your idea of side's needing a 'plan B' then it kinda reinforces my point.
Re your first point; bringing on subs isn't a 'Plan B', it's bringing on subs. 99% of managers don't have a bona fide 'Plan B', they have a style of play which if it isn't working, they tweak tactically. There's no radical shift in gameplan mid-game, there are nuances, tweaks, etc. But to suggest a side go from playing one way to lumping the cunt out of it the next as some sort of designated Plan B which they've worked on in training is nonsense.
Im convinced Carroll should have been a centre back.
Our tiki-taki got bitch-slapped and bullied twice against West Brom and twice against Stoke, 1 point from 12, we desperately needed a plan B in both those matches, Andy Carroll blew Olsson over to score his first last Saturday, something we couldn't do. Just half of those 12 points would have very much more in contention CL positions which like it or not is a vital step to progress. He is on a big wage but that's part of the devil in having a deep squad.
We're not good enough at Plan A yet, that's where we need to focus energies. Not adopting some rudimentary long-ball bullshit as a default option.
- Status
