Carroll

In fact I think he gets less stick because people are always trying to justify the fee, so look or the tiniest little sign of progress from him.
--------

This also applies to poor old Nando...

Bit of an enigma. I've seen him be unplayable at times. Needs to be super fit and have his strengths played to. Not started game and playing tika-taka ain't going to do either. I'd stil keep him though.

Can I actually say to the OP that Chelsea paid Newcastle 35 million and gave Liverpool £15 million cash

For £10 mill, I'd take him at Chelsea. Will scare the carp out of Torres.......
Maybe.

Simply, Yes. If he was say £10m, we would say, he's young and a great option for such a standard fee. However, he wasn't and it is only obvious that us Liverpool fans compare him to players who have gone to clubs for half of that who are technically way superior.

Imagine Rodgers had what Kenny had to spend, £80m on Henderson, Adam, Downing and Carroll. Rodgers would have a very, very talanted group of players had he had that chance.

boys ...some of your points are very valid about andy..

but you cant blame us for not wanting to sell him without at least trying to recoup some of the money we paid ...

11 goals in 56 games, he would be getting stick with that record even if he were a free transfer.

--------------------

That stat is a bit decieving. Quite a lot of those appeareances have been 5/10 minuites at the end of games, and substitutions.

If you look at playing time in minutes and then put that into matches, ie, blocks of 90 minutes, he's played the equivalent of 38 games since he's been with us. He's scored 11 goals and 4 assists. Thats a goals/assist rate of 1 every 2.5 games which isn't that bad too be honest.

To getthe best out of him he needs to be played regularly.

In repsosne to the OP's questions, it everythign to do with the transfer fee. If he'd only cost £15-20m there wouldn't be a critical word about him.

If he'd only cost £15-20m there wouldn't be a critical word about him.

------

Sorry Fatjan but that is utter delusion.

Carroll was awful for his first year, apart from 1 game against Man City. He would be still be getting major criticism and labelled a flop.

However you dress it up, 11 goals in 18 months for a striker is a poor return. He looked decent for a couple of months at the end of last season, that is it.

The fact he picks up so many injuries and only seems to play well when he is super fit is also a big problem for any footballer, whether they were free or £100m. A player only fit enough to play well once every 3 or 4 games is not worth having.

We can't afford to carry passengers if we are going to get back to where we want to be.

You are missing the point.


Without the ridiculous price tag he'd probably have performed much better and wouldn't have such a poor return as 11 goals in 18 months.

Sorry Fatjan but that is utter delusion.

------------------

do you even know what delusion means.

If we hadn't paid the British transfer record for him and bought him for a reasonable price for a young player with potential then there wouldn't be the level of criticism he gets. That's hardly a delusion is it?

You candress it up in many ways, 11 goals in 56 games, 11 goals in 18 months but the fact remains that in terms of actual playing minutes he has played the equivalent of 38 games, and he has scored 11 goals. Thats not a great return admitedly, but if he was cheaper he wouldn't get criticised so much.

Lets put it this way, Welbeck scored 12 goals in all competitions and 4 assists. He got plaudits. Carroll scored 9 and 4 assists, only 3 goals less than Welbeck and he gets criticised. The reason is that Welbeck cost nothing. He's considered a young lad with potential with lots to learn. Carroll wasn't and isn't given that luxury because of his price tag.