Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Colin, I take your point that it would have been better to spread those goals out over the entire season, and if we could have taken one or two of those goals scored against Norwich or Wigan and applied them elsewhere we would be in a much better position. But actually I think that is part of my point here.
If you look at the results first half versus second half we just were not finding the net in the first half as freely as we have in the second half. First half we were unable to score against WBA, Arsenal, and Stoke, and manage only one against the likes of Sunderland, Newcastle, Chelsea and Spurs, all resulting in draws or a loss. But second half only WBA were able to keep a clean sheet against us. Now that tells me something is going right, or progressing.
On the AC front I'm of two minds. I did always like him as a player and do agree he'd make a good impact player, but under BR's system not sure he would do much more than be an impact player. So the question for me is not just would we be better if AC came back, but what is the opportunity cost of him coming back. That is, how much would we get for him if we sold him, and how does that translate in terms of the player coming in those funds (plus Andy's wages) pay for.
Put this way, we don't know the budget, but if it came down keeping AC but having less to spend on a CB meaning we took Williams, versus selling AC and putting the raised money toward a bigger name CB, which would you go for?
Dave the point I was making about Andy is that the lad is a pro and can and will adapt to any gameplan the coach requires him to adapt to...with the need for a hardman ball winner in the midfield why not consider Andy for a similar role but in a slightly advanced midfield role as I said he always covered a lot of ground and we would see the benefit of having him way back defending set pieces and way forward attacking set pieces as he put himself about in the box. I mean we paid 20 mill for Downing most everyone was saying lets get this guy down the road asap ...me included...then suddenly BR has requested him to play LEFT BACK ??, and...he did so and did so VERY well and I think this utility use of his talents fired his confidence and inspired him to be more of the type of player we thought we were getting when he was bought in. Why not look at alternative use for Andy rather than just consider him as a big target man in the middle up field that we just hoof high balls to...that seems just too simplistic and quite frankly a little stupid when u consider how he COULD be used by the coach. Also u mention his wages and how they would be saved but what do u think do u think anyone u buy in to replace Andy is going to be donating his services to the club gratuit ? Depends how much u think Andy would fetch in the transfer market and how much u think a suitable replacement would cost us but whoever u bring in u can bet hes going to want a similar salary to what Andy's is .
Yes hes been told that if he returns to the club end of season his future is as an impact sub but Im advocating here being more imaginative and just seing if he might fill a different role for us potentially as a starter ...I mean BR has the whole of the pre season training programme to try this and see if it would work well...whats to lose ?
- 2 Replies to colin
I'm not against using players in different roles, if I remember correctly we debated this issue about other players like Kuyt who was brought to the club as an out and out striker but ended spending most of his time out on the wing.
So if those who know more about player coaching/development see this as possibility with AC I'd not on the face of it be against it, but I do have to say I'm not sure I see it as an easy conversion process. Yes he's a professional and I'm sure would be willing to try a different role if it meant he got more playing time, but if the attributes are not there for a new role, I'm just not sure you can create them from will.
You mention Downing where he was given the LB role, but I think having played myself as both a LB (my preferred position) and a left winger that the transition between them is not that vast, especially in a system that encourages full backs to be more wing backs than stay at home defenders.
But converting from a traditional centre forward to a central midfielder, even an attacking one I think might be a bit harder. Yes AC can win the ball, and is willing to put himself about, but not sure he's the best tackler, or quick paced passer of the ball which are also critical elements for those in the middle of the park.
Colin - are you actually serious about converting Carroll to a midfielder or are you taking the p!ss? I hope it's the latter because that boy is no Ray Kennedy fella!
If that happened I would show my #$%$ in Lewis's window!
Carroll is a striker and does not have the technical ability nor mobility to be a midfielder, and I would be worried about the mountain of cards he would accumulate. I can't believe I am trying to persuade you against the idea because that 35 mil we threw off the Pier Head for him would look an even greater waste of money if we moved him in the middle. If you will forgive me as well, I have not really heard of an advanced ball winning midfielder before. I haven't got a clue how that would work. Xabi is our man, or the lad from West Ham for the middle.
I don't have anything against Carroll, I just think he doesn't fit into our system. I know he has England on his mind, and getting 15 minutes a week at most as an impact player isn't going to get him many caps is it? Rather than have an unhappy player, I would rather sell him and buy somebody who fits the 'plan A' philosophy. That in my humble would be better for the team.