Joe Allen
- Thread starter King Binny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
If Andy Carroll played for Norwich it'd be a lot better for both parties.
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
Let's say we (perhaps by use of a time machine) created a perfect team around Andy Carroll. Then we play any one of a number of teams who can physically man handle him out of a game. What the fuck does this single purposed machine do then? Watch as Andy Carroll's pony tail becomes a rein used to break him in over the course of 90 minutes? I've already enjoyed that experience.
Let's say, and this is a big stretch, our "finisher" ends up having a year long stretch of being fairly shit. What then?
Look at Torres, he's been completely fucking shit, but he still has offered more overall than Carroll in several games, because even after we gelded him and handed him off to Chelsea, there's residual overall attacking quality and characteristics there, not just the ability to be the last part of a move.
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
Let's say we (perhaps by use of a time machine) created a perfect team around Andy Carroll. Then we play any one of a number of teams who can physically man handle him out of a game. What the fuck does this single purposed machine do then? Watch as Andy Carroll's pony tail becomes a rein used to break him in over the course of 90 minutes? I've already enjoyed that experience.
Let's say, and this is a big stretch, our "finisher" ends up having a year long stretch of being fairly shit. What then?
Look at Torres, he's been completely fucking shit, but he still has offered more overall than Carroll in several games, because even after we gelded him and handed him off to Chelsea, there's residual overall attacking quality and characteristics there, not just the ability to be the last part of a move.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48341.msg1466413#msg1466413 date=1326962727]
If Andy Carroll played for Norwich it'd be a lot better for both parties.
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
Let's say we (perhaps by use of a time machine) created a perfect team around Andy Carroll. Then we play any one of a number of teams who can physically man handle him out of a game. What the fuck does this single purposed machine do then? Watch as Andy Carroll's pony tail becomes a rein used to break him in over the course of 90 minutes? I've already enjoyed that experience.
Let's say, and this is a big stretch, our "finisher" ends up having a year long stretch of being fairly shit. What then?
Look at Torres, he's been completely fucking shit, but he still has offered more overall than Carroll in several games, because even after we gelded him and handed him off to Chelsea, there's residual overall attacking quality and characteristics there, not just the ability to be the last part of a move.
[/quote]
Ah right, gotcha.
Don't agree though, Robbie Fowler couldn't really make & take chances and neither could Shearer they were just ace goalscorers and played in teams set-up to create those chances. Carroll will never be in their league but he's good enough that he'd score 20+ a season for us if we gave him decent service.
If Andy Carroll played for Norwich it'd be a lot better for both parties.
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
Let's say we (perhaps by use of a time machine) created a perfect team around Andy Carroll. Then we play any one of a number of teams who can physically man handle him out of a game. What the fuck does this single purposed machine do then? Watch as Andy Carroll's pony tail becomes a rein used to break him in over the course of 90 minutes? I've already enjoyed that experience.
Let's say, and this is a big stretch, our "finisher" ends up having a year long stretch of being fairly shit. What then?
Look at Torres, he's been completely fucking shit, but he still has offered more overall than Carroll in several games, because even after we gelded him and handed him off to Chelsea, there's residual overall attacking quality and characteristics there, not just the ability to be the last part of a move.
[/quote]
Ah right, gotcha.
Don't agree though, Robbie Fowler couldn't really make & take chances and neither could Shearer they were just ace goalscorers and played in teams set-up to create those chances. Carroll will never be in their league but he's good enough that he'd score 20+ a season for us if we gave him decent service.
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48341.msg1466413#msg1466413 date=1326962727]
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
[/quote]
^^^
that said andy could prove useful if he were winning thr ball high up the pitch/in the box to allow others to latch onto the second ball and score (ala drogba) which also has value but he isn't even doing that.
I think you totally missed the point. I don't want players who exist to finish chances, I want players who can finish and create chances. I don't want pure finishers, unless they represent tremendous value.
[/quote]
^^^
that said andy could prove useful if he were winning thr ball high up the pitch/in the box to allow others to latch onto the second ball and score (ala drogba) which also has value but he isn't even doing that.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=48341.msg1466214#msg1466214 date=1326905922]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48341.msg1466035#msg1466035 date=1326867968]
What Fark said.
[/quote]
In which case both you and Fark miss the point.
I could just say "what Del said", but that would probably over play the point.
We all know - or should know - that we want better attacking players; attackers who interact with each other, are on the same wavelength, understand how to break defenses down and have the capacity to do it. Will this lead to more goals? Almost certainly. Is it achievable in this window? Just as certainly not.
As I said in my original post, we've been wanting better attacking players; players with guile and creativity for a number of years. We've called it a number of things; a spark, unpredictability, creativity etc. That hasn't changed.
What we're talking about now is what can we do in this current transfer window which will give us the best chance at the improvement necessary to make 4th spot? For me - and anyone else watching the plethora of chances created and missed thus far this season - that means getting someone who knows where the net is and can finish the chances that come his way.
The point of the original post seemed to be implying that 20+ goal a season strikers aren't used by the teams ahead of us whereas the truth is they're used by at least 4 of the 6 and maybe (Chavs) 5 of the 6. The idea that we don't need such an animal seems like an overcomplication to me - regardless of the respect I have for Ryans opinions in general.
[/quote]
Bang on.
Regards the teams above us 'not having 20 goals a season men in the TEAM', well we haven't got anyone close to being a 15 right now, so the point still stands. And that's us not having ONE player who you could say will definitely hit 15, most of the teams above us have at least on player capable of 20 (I wouldn't rule Adebayor out of that either) and players around them or on the bench who will hit between 12-18.
I agree we need creativity and in general, just a higher tier of attacking players, that's a no brainer, but in the here and now a 'goalscorer' in the old fashioned sense, (and to suggest they're extinct or a commodity because of the fashion of the game is laughable), would do wonders for us.
I don't necessarily agree we're ripping teams apart, we have a lot of possession in many games without creating anything close to a clear chance, but when you see chances like the one's Carroll and Downing had in the last two games again City, then you'd have to say that that's where a higher quality of player or a finisher would have made the margin of the result greater.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48341.msg1466035#msg1466035 date=1326867968]
What Fark said.
[/quote]
In which case both you and Fark miss the point.
I could just say "what Del said", but that would probably over play the point.
We all know - or should know - that we want better attacking players; attackers who interact with each other, are on the same wavelength, understand how to break defenses down and have the capacity to do it. Will this lead to more goals? Almost certainly. Is it achievable in this window? Just as certainly not.
As I said in my original post, we've been wanting better attacking players; players with guile and creativity for a number of years. We've called it a number of things; a spark, unpredictability, creativity etc. That hasn't changed.
What we're talking about now is what can we do in this current transfer window which will give us the best chance at the improvement necessary to make 4th spot? For me - and anyone else watching the plethora of chances created and missed thus far this season - that means getting someone who knows where the net is and can finish the chances that come his way.
The point of the original post seemed to be implying that 20+ goal a season strikers aren't used by the teams ahead of us whereas the truth is they're used by at least 4 of the 6 and maybe (Chavs) 5 of the 6. The idea that we don't need such an animal seems like an overcomplication to me - regardless of the respect I have for Ryans opinions in general.
[/quote]
Bang on.
Regards the teams above us 'not having 20 goals a season men in the TEAM', well we haven't got anyone close to being a 15 right now, so the point still stands. And that's us not having ONE player who you could say will definitely hit 15, most of the teams above us have at least on player capable of 20 (I wouldn't rule Adebayor out of that either) and players around them or on the bench who will hit between 12-18.
I agree we need creativity and in general, just a higher tier of attacking players, that's a no brainer, but in the here and now a 'goalscorer' in the old fashioned sense, (and to suggest they're extinct or a commodity because of the fashion of the game is laughable), would do wonders for us.
I don't necessarily agree we're ripping teams apart, we have a lot of possession in many games without creating anything close to a clear chance, but when you see chances like the one's Carroll and Downing had in the last two games again City, then you'd have to say that that's where a higher quality of player or a finisher would have made the margin of the result greater.
I'm willing to broker a compromise, as this argument grows stale.
I will take any attacking player that we purchase that is good. Given recent transfer history, perhaps I shouldn't be picky. Good will do.
I will take any attacking player that we purchase that is good. Given recent transfer history, perhaps I shouldn't be picky. Good will do.
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=48341.msg1466416#msg1466416 date=1326962975]
Don't agree though, Robbie Fowler couldn't really make & take chances and neither could Shearer they were just ace goalscorers and played in teams set-up to create those chances. Carroll will never be in their league but he's good enough that he'd score 20+ a season for us if we gave him decent service.
[/quote]
This ^^^
Traditionally Liverpool like strikers who can tackle back and generally help in midfield, as Dalglish did, but Carroll isn't that type of player. Much of the criticism directed at Carroll relates to his alleged midfield deficiencies, but in my opinion he stands or falls by goals scored. If Kenny wanted to play one up front against Stoke it should have been Carroll not Dirk.
Don't agree though, Robbie Fowler couldn't really make & take chances and neither could Shearer they were just ace goalscorers and played in teams set-up to create those chances. Carroll will never be in their league but he's good enough that he'd score 20+ a season for us if we gave him decent service.
[/quote]
This ^^^
Traditionally Liverpool like strikers who can tackle back and generally help in midfield, as Dalglish did, but Carroll isn't that type of player. Much of the criticism directed at Carroll relates to his alleged midfield deficiencies, but in my opinion he stands or falls by goals scored. If Kenny wanted to play one up front against Stoke it should have been Carroll not Dirk.
The problem is, against City I was screaming for Kuyt to replace Carroll because he couldn't keep hold of the ball. Against Stoke I was asking for the opposite. I know it's horses for courses, but the point is, we shouldn't be in a position where we are playing slow centre forwards with a non existant first touch as lone strikers against anyone.
Are we buying this bloke or what?
Robbie Savage:
- Status
