The case for keeping 35Million Carroll

[Red Astaire]

After watching yesterdays game there surely has to be a case for keeping Andy Carroll. OK so he 'doesn't fit into our style of play'.... Great! That's two games on the trot we haven't scored. He's a striker that offers a different type of goal threat and to be honest we could have done with him in both games. He would be a great plan B type sub at least. He's scored 5 goals in his last 6 games and while that doesn't tell the whole story consider this - Utd have Rooney, Welbeck, Van Persie and Hernandez. All of whom get a good run out and contribute to their team. We have Sturridge, Suarez and maybe Coutinho. I say keep him.

 

[Fabio]

If we don't keep him, another striker has to be high on our list of priorities this summer. If a decent option comes in I still think we should sell, BUT I wouldn't sell for the sake of it

 

[keniget]

It's a pretty thin argument.

By your rationale we don't really need Andy Carroll per se.... any other striker will do.

That 35M will always be the sticking point and create pressure where it shouldn't necessarily exist. Neither the club nor Andy Carroll I imagine would want to end up in a scenario where he's a squad player sitting on the bench and waiting for us to be struggling in the 70th minute before getting a go.

 

[Hansern]

80k a week on the bench. When Carroll needs to play to be effective and he needs the team to play tohis strengths, no thanks.

Get a new striker in that has the plan b qualities but who is also comfortable playing in our system, and who is on a lot lower wages.

Carroll has been shite for 4/5 of the season anyway.

 

[juniormember]

We as a club just can't afford to have 90k per week sitting on the bench, unfortunately. If WH really want him, and offer 15m, we could use the money to bring in a young talented lad from the continent or south america for a fee much less than that and on less than half Carroll's wage.
It's the only way, unless Carroll wants to renegotiate his contract.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

From what I saw under Kenny's tenure, Carroll seemed to improve once he was getting a consistent run of games. He just seems to be the type of player who has to build up his form. Sitting on the bench isn't going to help him or us.

 

[Judge Jules]

Got to say I'm not convinced Rodgers approached the question of Carroll's suitability with an open mind in the first place, and I'd have liked him to have taken a closer look at Carroll before making his mind up that Carroll won't fit the system. Given that the decision's apparently been made, though, IMO the best option for all concerned would now be to sell (if we get an offer that's sensible in the circs) and have done with it. As long as Carroll's on LFC's books while Rodgers is manager he'll be lucky even to get a place on the bench, let alone a starting spot.

 

[Fabio]

I think that had Carroll ripped shit up this season we would have kept him.

He hasn't. He's been average at best.

Sad that it's panned out this way but hey Ho. Move on

 

[Ryan]

He scored in one league game at Anfield in 18 months.

There is no case for keeping him. He's completely fucking shite.

 

[hamstrung_pigeon]

I found a case for keeping Carroll:

I hope he goes on to scores a dozen more for West Ham in the remaining games so we can get a much better selling price.

 

[gkmacca]

80k a week on the bench. When Carroll needs to play to be effective and he needs the team to play tohis strengths, no thanks.
.

If you think Newcastle, Liverpool, West Ham and England all needed to play to his strengths in exactly the same kind of slavish way, you're blind as well as nuts. If you think the mere idea of a team playing to its own strikers' strengths is in some sense a bad thing, take a look around at, well, any decent club - they ALL play to the strengths of whatever strikers they have. Pfft.

 

[cloggypop]

Sell him and buy Wilfried Bony who gives a different option but is also fit to play and scores lots of goals .

 

[mark1975]

Scored a few goals, which he did with us aswell, so now people are debating whether to keep him? He's a perma-crock and he cost us £35m, it's already been made clear he doesn't fit our system, do people really think we're going to have a £35m striker on the bench?

 

[Frogfish]

He would be a great plan B type sub at least. He's scored 5 goals in his last 6 games and while that doesn't tell the whole story consider this - Utd have Rooney, Welbeck, Van Persie and Hernandez. All of whom get a good run out and contribute to their team. We have Sturridge, Suarez and maybe Coutinho. I say keep him.

The United strikers are all, in one way or another, similar or can play in a similar fashion to that required. Carroll is nothing like our other strikers and can not play the way the team is set up to play, meaning we have to alter our style every time he's on the pitch.

Didn't we spend 35M on him last time he scored a few ? And just because he's got 5 in 6 or whatever we are going to get suckered again ?

 

[Le Chacal]

We didnt score a goal against West Ham and Reading with our 'system'.
Id like to know what 'system' Carroll doesnt fit
We need 3-4 good strikers for a whole season if we want to get a top 4 finish.
Id keep Carroll, he could be very useful

 

[Leo]

He'd never fit into our great system.
The fingering without fucking system.

 

[FoxForceFive]

He'd never fit into our great system.
The fingering without fucking system.

Ha. I got some funny looks for screaming 'stop the fucking foreplay & stick it in for fuck sake!' in the pub yesterday after a particularly annoying spell of passing around their box led to nothing.

 

[juniormember]

If you think Newcastle, Liverpool, West Ham and England all needed to play to his strengths in exactly the same kind of slavish way, you're blind as well as nuts. If you think the mere idea of a team playing to its own strikers' strengths is in some sense a bad thing, take a look around at, well, any decent club - they ALL play to the strengths of whatever strikers they have. Pfft.

You'd have to agree though Macca that it's not exactly Ibrahimovic on our books. There's not one top club in Europe, never mind England, that have put in a bid for him.
I think that's more than a tiny bit of evidence that we shouldn't be basing our system around him. We're doing exactly what you're saying clubs do anyway... Basing our system around Suarez.
Doing it for Carroll is a different matter all together.

 

[Hansern]

If you think Newcastle, Liverpool, West Ham and England all needed to play to his strengths in exactly the same kind of slavish way, you're blind as well as nuts. If you think the mere idea of a team playing to its own strikers' strengths is in some sense a bad thing, take a look around at, well, any decent club - they ALL play to the strengths of whatever strikers they have. Pfft.

I think you're missing the point Macca.
When Carroll was at his best for Newcastle, they played a very directe type of football.
Why you're mentioning Liverpool is beyond me, as he scored 6 league goals in 44 games. There were centre backs that contributed more for christ sake.
Andy Carroll is yet another example of a player getting better and better the longer time goes without him actually playing a game for us again. The truth is, he was shocking and this coming from one of his biggest fans last season. I desperatly wanted him to do well, but the truth is he miles from being anything other than average bar a couple of cup games and a few league games.

West Ham plays an extremely direct type of football, and he is not surprisingly getting into some good form.

Regarding playing to their strenghts. Its obvious that you do with the strikers available.
Suarez is our main man along with Sturridge. Carroll would be a 10 mins lump it long and hope for the best player in games were we need a goal. Thats just a waste of 90k a week and we all know his goalscoring record.

I'd rather sell him, free up the wages and sign a striker that can step in for Suarez/Sturridge. A player that easily can spear head a fluent attacking side with pace and skill, but also has a bit of height on him that we actually can kick it long and play a bit more direct if needed.

The truth is, Carroll isnt the player we need nor is he good enough. He'll play for Newcastle, Stoke or West Ham and be effective if they play to his strenghts.
Sadly he isnt good enough, he certainly doesnt score enough goals and the transfer has been horrendous since we accepted the 35 mill deal.

 

[Red Mullet]

After watching yesterdays game there surely has to be a case for keeping Andy Carroll. OK so he 'doesn't fit into our style of play'.... Great! That's two games on the trot we haven't scored. He's a striker that offers a different type of goal threat and to be honest we could have done with him in both games. He would be a great plan B type sub at least. He's scored 5 goals in his last 6 games and while that doesn't tell the whole story consider this - Utd have Rooney, Welbeck, Van Persie and Hernandez. All of whom get a good run out and contribute to their team. We have Sturridge, Suarez and maybe Coutinho. I say keep him.

What about Borini?

 

[Red Astaire]

What about Borini?

Who's that?.....

 

[Fabio]

BOOOOOO

 

[Red Astaire]

BOOOOOO

😀

 

[6TimesaRed]

Sell him and promote Ngoo to the first team..

 

[Red Astaire]

Scored a few goals, which he did with us aswell, so now people are debating whether to keep him? He's a perma-crock and he cost us £35m, it's already been made clear he doesn't fit our system, do people really think we're going to have a £35m striker on the bench?

To me it's clear the guy has quality. I can't see what all this bollocks about not fitting into our system is about. That is rubbish. He can be used quite easily as a target man with Suarez, Sturridge or Coutinho behind him. I'm not saying this is an ideal plan A - What it does offer though is an option. Whether having a 35million 'option' is open to debate but for the moment he's ours and I just think it wouldn't hurt to try him out for a season. I'm convinced Suarez would benefit from him being there.

I agree with most that selling him would probably be best though - Especially in light of how Rodgers has treated him. I think we'd be lucky to get 14mill for him though.

 

[gkmacca]

His agent should offer to renegotiate the contract and take a big pay cut. If they called his bluff Caroll would still be on a decent enough wage before being moved on, but if, as is likely, the club rebuffed the offer Carroll would have the moral high ground, Rodgers' pathetic excuses about price tags to justify every comment about the player would be ruined and we'd finally get a bit of honesty back into the whole wretched saga.

 

[Red Astaire]

His agent should offer to renegotiate the contract and take a big pay cut. If they called his bluff Caroll would still be on a decent enough wage before being moved on, but if, as is likely, the club rebuffed the offer Carroll would have the moral high ground, Rodgers' pathetic excuses about price tags to justify every comment about the player would be ruined and we'd finally get a bit of honesty back into the whole wretched saga.

Perfectly put. Indeed it is a 'wretched saga' - I suppose the sooner it ends the better it will be for everyone. 35Million! - It still makes me want to vomit.

 

[StevieM]

His agent should offer to renegotiate the contract and take a big pay cut. If they called his bluff Caroll would still be on a decent enough wage before being moved on, but if, as is likely, the club rebuffed the offer Carroll would have the moral high ground, Rodgers' pathetic excuses about price tags to justify every comment about the player would be ruined and we'd finally get a bit of honesty back into the whole wretched saga.

What?

 

[cloggypop]

We could get Bony for about the same price we sell Carroll but on half the wage . He is a professional who scores a lot of goals . He can also move about a bit and play AM if needed . I don't dislike Carroll at all but he does not suit us and his fitness record is atrocious .

 

[Red Mullet]

His agent should offer to renegotiate the contract and take a big pay cut. If they called his bluff Caroll would still be on a decent enough wage before being moved on, but if, as is likely, the club rebuffed the offer Carroll would have the moral high ground, Rodgers' pathetic excuses about price tags to justify every comment about the player would be ruined and we'd finally get a bit of honesty back into the whole wretched saga.

Er, why?

And, surely, if the agent was successful and renegotiated a big pay cut then Carroll won't be on a decent enough wage (when compared to other PL players)?