Topic: Andy Carroll

[kennedy81]

No plan B isnt usually seen as a good thing. One dimensional is another phrase for it. But all of a sudden its the soup de jour for the usual suspects.

having a Plan B usually means your Plan A wasn't good enough.
clearly Rodgers thinks it is.
I'd hardly call his style of play one dimensional, if anything it offers lots of options and can doesn't necessarily require just one type of player.
we've heard him speak of making the best of the players he has at his disposal and I think that's what he'll do, whether Carroll is one of those or not.
the proof will be in the pudding at the end of the day.

[dumbo]

Where in the first team is this player going to play?

They'd compete with Borini/Suarez/Downing for a starting place.  (much like happens at City/United etc)

In the case of 'Carroll = plan B', then this would be 'plan B vs plan A' which leads the nightmare of plan B winning (given that Rodger's was signed specifically for plan A that would be an extremely unpleasant outcome).

[QC]

What is this plan B people speak of? I would really appreciate a detailed answer.

[The 5th Benitle]

What is this plan B people speak of? I would really appreciate a detailed answer.

This bloke
 
 

[kennedy81]

What is this plan B people speak of? I would really appreciate a detailed answer.

I think it means flashing Plan B up on a big screen and hoping for the best.



 

[Lenin]

They'd compete with Borini/Suarez/Downing for a starting place.  (much like happens at City/United etc)

In the case of 'Carroll = plan B', then this would be 'plan B vs plan A' which leads the nightmare of plan B winning (given that Rodger's was signed specifically for plan A that would be an extremely unpleasant outcome).

Winning is never a nightmare mate.

[Lenin]

What is this plan B people speak of? I would really appreciate a detailed answer.

Every team in the world has a plan b. Apart from us, apparently.

[QC]

Every team in the world has a plan b. Apart from us, apparently.

Yes, but what is it? And how do you know it involves Andy Carroll?

[liverpooll]

Never understood what more can we do to make Andy "fit" into the system. Last season was all about Andy, we brought those players with Andy as the central focus. Crosses and headers was our idea. But it turned out very differently, plenty of crosses but no one there to head them. So what more can be done? And add to the fact that he is 35M player who cannot do "magic" on his own.


Thus, we seem to have shifted from that approach and now have the likes of Suarez as the key figure. Seems like we learned our lesson and paid the price for that by missing Champs League in 2 seasons all because of this/

[Lenin]

Yes, but what is it? And how do you know it involves Andy Carroll?

A different style of play. (A lot on here saying Brogger has stated he will play one way only, with like for like players, thus, no room for Andy).
I never said it did. Andy would be in my plan a (or starting team as I like to call it).

[The 5th Benitle]

Seems like we learned our lesson and paid the price for that by missing Champs League in 2 seasons all because of this/

What the actual fuck.

Ever heard of Hicks, Gillett, Purslow, Hodgson?

[QC]

A different style of play. (A lot on here saying Brogger has stated he will play one way only, with like for like players, thus, no room for Andy).
I never said it did. Andy would be in my plan a (or starting team as I like to call it).

I'm genuinely curious. I understand plan B would be a different "style of play" to plan A - because they're different plans.

But what exactly does Plan B entail?

[Lenin]

Never understood what more can we do to make Andy "fit" into the system. Last season was all about Andy, we brought those players with Andy as the central focus. Crosses and headers was our idea. But it turned out very differently, plenty of crosses but no one there to head them. So what more can be done? And add to the fact that he is 35M player who cannot do "magic" on his own.


Thus, we seem to have shifted from that approach and now have the likes of Suarez as the key figure. Seems like we learned our lesson and paid the price for that by missing Champs League in 2 seasons all because of this/

All about Andy? he played 21 PL games of 70+ minutes. So in 45% of our league games he played little or no part. How did we get on in those games I wonder? With the likes of Suarez, Kuyt, Bellamy, Maxi etc getting on the end of all that wonderful service after all that wonderful build up play?

[Lenin]

I'm genuinely curious. I understand plan B would be a different "style of play" to plan A - because they're different plans.

But what exactly does Plan B entail?

Not being Plan A?

[geoffstrong]

I'm genuinely curious. I understand plan B would be a different "style of play" to plan A - because they're different plans.

But what exactly does Plan B entail?

a different approach to break down the opposition if the initial plan isn't working, all teams have them well maybe not Barca if they did might have beaten Chelsea last season.
i fully expect Andy to be the cause of global warming next, if he was the reason we are not in the CL last season and this.

[Hinesy]

Bear with me. This thread is about Andy Carroll not the club as a whole. Nor as a Liverpool fan do I want to see lots of posts about subjective opinions about seemingly poor tactics from the past thanks.

[QC]

a different approach to break down the opposition if the initial plan isn't working, all teams have them well maybe not Barca if they did might have beaten Chelsea last season.
i fully expect Andy to be the cause of global warming next, if he was the reason we are not in the CL last season and this.

It's not about having a scapegoat. Personally, i would prefer the transfer fee for Andy Carroll be invested in the first team - preferably in the form of a striker more suited to the alleged 'Brendan Rodgers' system.

Plan B seems like a myth used to rationalise the keeping the Andy Carroll.

Lets be fair and say he is 'unproven' rather than 'poor' -notwithstanding that,  do you really want to hinge the concept of a plan B on an unproven player?

[kennedy81]

a different approach to break down the opposition if the initial plan isn't working, all teams have them well maybe not Barca if they did might have beaten Chelsea last season.
i fully expect Andy to be the cause of global warming next, if he was the reason we are not in the CL last season and this.

Barca didn't beat chelsea because they didn't have a plan B, they created lots of chances (including missing a pen) and failed to put the ball in the net often enough.
it was a freak result.

[Camarero25]

Is our only possible chance of having a "plan B" using Andy Carroll?

[Melbred]

Is our only possible chance of having a "plan B" using Andy Carroll?

Really irks me, this. There are many different ways to implement a plan B, some where it takes just a minor tweak on your plan A.

Andy would change the way we play significantly, and I don't see being more direct and pinging early balls in as effective. It certainly didn't work last season.

[Camarero25]

Barca didn't beat chelsea because they didn't have a plan B, they created lots of chances (including missing a pen) and failed to put the ball in the net often enough.
it was a freak result.

It's also one result. How about we look at all the games where they didn't need a plan B. Oh, what a surprise, it's most of them!

Are people really advocating keeping a player we could get £12m-£15m for (and not have to pay his 80k wages) just so we can bring him off the bench the few times we need to start launching crosses at a big man? How about we use that £15m + wages to sign a player that would improve our plan A. I think that would probably yield more results and more use out of that player.

[kennedy81]

It's also one result. How about we look at all the games where they didn't need a plan B. Oh, what a surprise, it's most of them!

Are people really advocating keeping a player we could get £12m-£15m for (and not have to pay his 80k wages) just so we can bring him off the bench the few times we need to start launching crosses at a big man? How about we use that £15m + wages to sign a player that would improve our plan A. I think that would probably yield more results and more use out of that player.

agreed.

[Waka]

Exactly, people think because we are losing or looking frustrating Rodgers is going to jump up and scream "Quickly to the 442 and bring Andy on!".

Rodgers seems alright to keep him here and fight for his place, although i still think he won't make it here, i'm happy for him to do so.

[Lenin]

It's not about having a scapegoat. Personally, i would prefer the transfer fee for Andy Carroll be invested in the first team - preferably in the form of a striker more suited to the alleged 'Brendan Rodgers' system.

Plan B seems like a myth used to rationalise the keeping the Andy Carroll.

Lets be fair and say he is 'unproven' rather than 'poor' -notwithstanding that,  do you really want to hinge the concept of a plan B on an unproven player?

Yes, but likewise  'Andy Carroll' doesnt fit 'the system' is also flung around like confetti.
I think the plan b stuff can just be translated as having options. Some people would rather have Andy Carroll as an option than not have him. Of course the boss might bring in a cracking player to replace Andy who is either a great option or a great first team player in his own right. and then we will all be happy.

[geoffstrong]

i think people are confusing different options with a  totally different style, do United change their whole game to accomodate Berba? (before the wums start i am not comparing Andy to Berbatov as a player just an option)

Lets say we face a team and we are not playing effectively but it has a back four that any big guy could mess up and bully, is it better to have that option on the bench (forget his fee that is gone) or not?

It about giving yourself lots of options to change a game and a big guy coming on is one of them but not the only one.

[henry]

It's also one result. How about we look at all the games where they didn't need a plan B. Oh, what a surprise, it's most of them!

Are people really advocating keeping a player we could get £12m-£15m for (and not have to pay his 80k wages) just so we can bring him off the bench the few times we need to start launching crosses at a big man? How about we use that £15m + wages to sign a player that would improve our plan A. I think that would probably yield more results and more use out of that player.

Are people really advocating selling a player for £12m-£15m (make a lost of £20+m) based on assumption that he win not fit in the "system" which we haven't even see it for real yet and assume he will only come off the bench the few times our "wonderful plan A" not working? How about we keep him for at least a season or half a season to see if RB can fit him in and we see if it's actually not working for Carroll before shipping him? he is still young and his price won't fall even further. Also by signing the "right type of player" doesn't mean he will improve the team or "plan A" as players need time to settle and some just doesn't work for real and only look good on paper. Downing and Adam were signed so it will fit in to Kenny's plan to work with Carroll, on paper and from the previous season record it looked the business but we now all know how that turned out.

[kennedy81]

Also by signing the "right type of player" doesn't mean he will improve the team or "plan A" as players need time to settle and some just doesn't work for real and only look good on paper.

you could be talking about Carroll there.
surely using the money we could get from selling Carroll to buy a player which improves our philosophy even more, is a better option than trying to make do with a player who simply offers us 'something different'?
it's not about putting all our eggs in one basket, it's about getting a better basket.

[Lenin]

you could be talking about Carroll there.
surely using the money we could get from selling Carroll to buy a player which improves our philosophy even more, is a better option than trying to make do with a player who simply offers us 'something different'?
it's not about putting all our eggs in one basket, it's about getting a better basket.

Your presuming the philosophy works from day one and continues to work. And it also depends who the player is. Would you be happy, for instance, if we got a £2 million loan fee from West Ham for Andy and signed Danny Graham?

[kennedy81]

Your presuming the philosophy works from day one and continues to work. And it also depends who the player is. Would you be happy, for instance, if we got a £2 million loan fee from West Ham for Andy and signed Danny Graham?

you have to believe your philosophy works, otherwise it's not really a philosophy, it's just a hunch.
Rodgers believes this philosophy works.
maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the point is, if you believe in it, then you've got to use every available resource in giving that philosophy every chance to succeed.

if people are saying that all Carroll offers us is a big fella we can use to ruffle defenders when things aren't going our way, then that's a pretty expensive option to just have sitting on the bench for most of the season.
we could easily spend 4 or 5mil on a player that could give us that option, it doesn't take 15m worth.

as for the west ham loan thing, that would depend on how much we ultimately got for him and what we spent it on.

[firing squad]

A different style of play. (A lot on here saying Brogger has stated he will play one way only, with like for like players, thus, no room for Andy).
I never said it did. Andy would be in my plan a (or starting team as I like to call it).

[dotheoffski]

I don't post much on the player threads on the main board any more and I've just remembered why. Nobody bloody reads anything, they just post.

FITNESS. Fit at the end of the season, not before. Jesus wept.

So it was fitness? He was free of injury, so who's faulty was it that it took a season for him to get fit?  The excuses people make for underperforming players is a joke

[The 5th Benitle]

So it was fitness? He was free of injury, so who's faulty was it that it took a season for him to get fit?  The excuses people make for underperforming players is a joke

I don't know do I? But you could perhaps ask our fitness and conditioning coaches. Sometimes it takes a while to find the right regimes and routines for a player to get them up to peak fitness. It obviously took time to find what was right for him and when we did, he looked leaner, fitter, better.
Your eagerness to blame the player is far more of a 'joke' by the way.

[Lenin]

So it was fitness? He was free of injury, so who's faulty was it that it took a season for him to get fit?  The excuses people make for underperforming players is a joke

Yeah, the supporting of one of our players against the constant whining is a joke. And the constant (mostly agenda driven) criticism of one of our players is great. Lets all do it. About all our players.

[The 5th Benitle]

Yeah, the supporting of one of our players against the constant whining is a joke. And the constant (mostly agenda driven) criticism of one of our players is great. Lets all do it. About all our players.

He's just taking a break from doing it in the Henderson topic.

[falkirk_red]

Why? Untwist your knockers, this thread hardly affects you that much that you are demanding it locked.

Sorry, just realised how bitchy that post must sound. Still though, poor thread.

[hugoboss]

Chelsea used to change from passing it short in midfield to bypassing midfield hitting Drogba and getting off him an awful lot.

I remember being at Anfield when we couldn't head a ball at centre half (Kvarme and Matteo -wince) and a very good United team just boxed it onto Sheringham's head and they bullied us and bullied us in the air.

Good sides win games however it is done.

Yes, it's not impossible but should we be looking to do that? Drogba was one of the best strikers in the world who could do alot of things and play in different ways. He did pretty well in the short passing and long game, my point has been we need players who can fit into several strategies the manager may wish to employ.

Whoever they choose to bring on to change the way they are playing if things are not going to plan. For instance,Hernandez, Berbatov, Welbeck, Rooney (and now ) Van Persie. None of them are like for like replacements.

I don't see Mancs changing their style to fit in any of those players if anything Berbatov was dropped to the bench for similar reasons.



Same arguments used for Carroll can actually be used for Adam as well. He may not be quick and tactically sound but those long range passes and a wonderful left foot may come in handy when we get tired of seeing Allen, Lucas and Gerrard making all those sort passes but you forget that Lucas and co can make those long passes as well if the manager needs them to which makes them more valuable to the squad

[Carolina Red]

You're saying under Kenny we just hoofed it to Carroll all day? Ridiculous

Well, we attempted more crosses than any other PL team last season, so...

[Lenin]

Well, we attempted more crosses than any other PL team last season, so...

Wait, a cross is hoofing it now?

[geoffstrong]

Well, we attempted more crosses than any other PL team last season, so...

google is your god.

so that would include the many games Andy didnt play in as well. Hardly relevant but nice try.

[GrkStav]

I personally think Carroll is a fantastic option to have from the bench against teams that defend deep/park the bus. The combination of wingers who get down the wing and load crosses into the box. Carroll can either win the first ball for Gerrard/Suarez etc or he can score himself. If it's a choice of Carroll or Agger for funds then obviously it's Carroll I want to make way but if it isn't a case of sell to buy I'd rather keep him.

He's not a "fantastic option". It's like me buying one of the most expensive pick-up truck on the market to have for the two or three times a year I actually need to haul something really sizable to and from a store. It would certainly be awesome if I could have such a vehicle at my disposal for just those two-three occasions; but why should I have bought one at top dollar; and why should I keep hold of it, maintain it, pay its insurance, etc. etc. if I could easily get practically the same effect by either renting a truck for a day, or buying a much smaller, much less expensive truck?