who has had more assists? (yes we have to go here cause for the money they've both been bought for they're disgracing themselves on the goal front)
Performance wise Torres edges out Carroll. Marketing wise is not contest. Nobody likes ponytails
comment by TheChameleonProject (U1847)
posted 14 minutes ago
If Carroll is not scoring, which he isn't, what else does he offer the team ?
=======================
Tea and biscuits....................
Can't believe you're even arguing about this.
Both awful, awful buys.
ruiney 19
I agree, both awful buys as it stands!
All clubs have them...
The funny thing is, if both of them had reproduced even half of their form for their new team as they did for their last then Chelsea would have won the league last year and Liverpool would be 5th this year!
True though!
In the sense of impact at their new club then Carroll is the worst signing. We selected Dirk Kuyt who cant buy a goal rather than our most expensive signing yesterday. We are going to miss out on a top four spot because of a lack of goals.
ARW
Maybe, but I do think that the transfer fee weighs on everyone's mind! At the end of the day Carroll is just a Liverpool player, it doesn't matter how much he cost...if he cost one pence he still wouldn't be scoring! The problem is that Liverpool have not got a player who can put away the chances that they are creating, that's the problem, it is not Carroll's fee! How many games has he started? I would guess less than 20, give him a chance imo!
ARE that should have been!
Torres is the better deal
It sounds like a contradiction, but it was not a real gamble when Chelsea bought Torres - okay it hasn't turned out to be great business, but they paid 50m for a man who has all the attributes and has been a top premier league striker and a top player for the Spanish team.
The only thing Chelsea really did wrong was not wait until he was fully fit. Benitez ran Torres into the ground. There was always pressure for him to play when injured as Liverpool didn't have anybody else.
The other problem Chelsea have, is that they play a system directed towards that battering ram, Didier Drogba. Whilst in his prime, it was worth playing that slow football mixed with long ball and the odd pacey counter to suit Drogba, the strikers form and performances have not been great over the last couple of seasons. Moreover, their reluctance to sacrifice him has led them to send mixed messages to Torres, whose role at the club has been reduced to a series of 10 minute cameos.
In reality, it's time for Chelsea to ditch Drogba and build their team and style around Torres - a policy which was starting to bare fruit at the beginning of the season until Torres got sent off and found himself demoted to the bench on his return. That was not great for his confidence. We all know Torres can be a great striker, you just have to let him.
Carroll on the other hand, who in their right minds would pay so much for an unproven striker? Okay, he had had a good season on the Championship, and was doing well for a Newcastle team set up to play for him. Just look at Newcastle's strikers this season, profiting from a long ball, battling direct style which suits them. However, Liverpool bought him to replace Torres, a fast, technical, counter attacking player. Square pegs and round holes?
It's not surprise that Suarez, who cost half of Carroll, is better suited to Loverpool's game, and what's more, adds so much to their team. Carroll meanwhile, continues to enjoy his nights out on the town, his fame and his fortune.
So while none of the two have set the world on fire, signing Torres was understandable, but 35m for Carroll a little less.
It's funny. I fully believe Carroll would have scored more for Chelsea, due to style of play.
When you consider that Sergio Aguero was available for a similar fee to Carroll then it looks like very poor value but I think given proper service that the dreadful Downing isn't providing and a player in the hole to feed off him,he could still be an asset . Both Torres and Carroll seem to be very low on confidence and that won't return quickly.
I'd still take Aguero as the value against the pair though
Paul
We couldn't afford Agueros wages and he wanted CL football so we were never going to get him.
Good point about Downing, and guess who came off for Carroll yesterday? And it's not the first time that's happened. Carroll has had to live off scraps this season in his defence.
I love the way the idiot comment from capello has nothing to back it up.
Liverpool need to spend this window to get in the top 4 imo
CL is worth roughly 40 million so they could spend that and recoup it
To date, both terrible buys. Who do I think has more potential to turn things round.?
Metro, just a thought but did you get torres for free? No. Therefore you could say you swapped torres for carroll and paid a fee million on top.
In reality, it's time for Chelsea to ditch Drogba and build their team and style around Torres - a policy which was starting to bare fruit at the beginning of the season until Torres got sent off and found himself demoted to the bench on his return. That was not great for his confidence. We all know Torres can be a great striker, you just have to let him.
Who cares?! It's like arguing which is better out of the only way is Essex and desperate scousewives.
The fact is they are both terrible and will both go down as two of the worst signings ever.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/70175
You shouldn't really be comparing Torres to Carroll IMO.
The thing with Torres is, we all know he is going to come good some day. Chelsea will need to adapt their style of play, but it can still happen.
With Carroll, the only time he has looked good for Liverpool, is when he's been banging them in from range (which has been about 3 times), or when Gerrard has provided near-perfect service. A good striker shouldn't need perfect service to flourish IMO.
Another idiot who thinks he can get away with creating a second account to WUM Liverpool fans. Well done. Imbecile.
I think Torres can get it back as he was superb,and his overhead kick yesterday and all round game was good,He deserved 2 penalties,but his luck is out and instead he got booked by a sad ref,who also missed a Sunderland stonewall pen.
Carroll was the main man at NUFC and needs supply,but at Liverpool he is just another striker imo.
Don't think it's a wum tbh and some good comments made.
Maybe the OP is but the articles isn't that bad.
Nothing Carroll has done EVER makes him worth 35m.
He showed great potential at Newcastle and everyone, including those across the park & those down the Lancs saw him as a bright prospect for English football. But not worth £35m.
So why pay it? Well, its transfer deadline day mid season and Liverpools only real recognised CF leaves the club a short time after having a transfer request rejected. Torres wanted out and Chelsea were willing to pay £50m for him, he had to go. But that meant we had only hours to find a replacement. Its far to late in the day for most clubs to let a player go - they in turn would need to replace.
Carroll, injured but having received critical aclaim, fitted the bill; and the club he plays for is one we can target. Newcastle were known as a selling club; with its revenue seemingly keeping the owners sports retail store afloat and rumours rife around Cheick Tiotes potential £20m move to Chelsea. Mike Ashleys decision to sell the club changed more times than his socks; he was desperate to see are return on his investment.
Secondly Carroll was British; an ethos Kenny was keen to reinstall at the club, coupled with the fact he was young and therefore investable. Keegan describes him as "[one of] the top three headers of a ball [he] had ever seen in football"; along with Buffon stating he has a "big future" in football and Ian Holloway defining him as "the best striker in the Premier League".
Furthermore Carroll has heart and determination; he signed a contract extension with Newcastle weeks before they went down. His inspired form seen him fire in 19 goals to help NUFC to promotion the very next season, earning a place in the PFA Championship Team of the Year & picking up the no.9 shirt at Newcastle too. Carroll netted a hattrick 8 days into their return to the PL & was called up by Capello a few months later. He was proven in English football at both Championship and Premier League.
All these things made Carroll the man Kenny wanted; potential, proven, performing and passionate. The snagging point? We need him; he isn't simply a desire for the club, he is a necessity. That, and our bank balance had been boosted to the sum of £50m. The Newcastle board knew this and had us over a barrel. Its a matter of hours before the window closes & Newcastle know they don't need to sell; hence the rejection of a £30m offer. We had no option but to pay it. The fee was dictated by Newcastle on the following:
- Promise of the player
- His value to the club
- Liverpools need for a striker
- Liverpools transfer kitty (which was all over the sports section)
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
Sign in if you want to comment
Carroll v Torres
Page 2 of 4
posted on 15/1/12
who has had more assists? (yes we have to go here cause for the money they've both been bought for they're disgracing themselves on the goal front)
posted on 15/1/12
Performance wise Torres edges out Carroll. Marketing wise is not contest. Nobody likes ponytails
posted on 15/1/12
comment by TheChameleonProject (U1847)
posted 14 minutes ago
If Carroll is not scoring, which he isn't, what else does he offer the team ?
=======================
Tea and biscuits....................
posted on 15/1/12
Can't believe you're even arguing about this.
Both awful, awful buys.
posted on 15/1/12
ruiney 19
I agree, both awful buys as it stands!
All clubs have them...
The funny thing is, if both of them had reproduced even half of their form for their new team as they did for their last then Chelsea would have won the league last year and Liverpool would be 5th this year!
True though!
posted on 15/1/12
In the sense of impact at their new club then Carroll is the worst signing. We selected Dirk Kuyt who cant buy a goal rather than our most expensive signing yesterday. We are going to miss out on a top four spot because of a lack of goals.
posted on 15/1/12
ARW
Maybe, but I do think that the transfer fee weighs on everyone's mind! At the end of the day Carroll is just a Liverpool player, it doesn't matter how much he cost...if he cost one pence he still wouldn't be scoring! The problem is that Liverpool have not got a player who can put away the chances that they are creating, that's the problem, it is not Carroll's fee! How many games has he started? I would guess less than 20, give him a chance imo!
posted on 15/1/12
ARE that should have been!
posted on 15/1/12
Torres is the better deal
posted on 15/1/12
It sounds like a contradiction, but it was not a real gamble when Chelsea bought Torres - okay it hasn't turned out to be great business, but they paid 50m for a man who has all the attributes and has been a top premier league striker and a top player for the Spanish team.
The only thing Chelsea really did wrong was not wait until he was fully fit. Benitez ran Torres into the ground. There was always pressure for him to play when injured as Liverpool didn't have anybody else.
The other problem Chelsea have, is that they play a system directed towards that battering ram, Didier Drogba. Whilst in his prime, it was worth playing that slow football mixed with long ball and the odd pacey counter to suit Drogba, the strikers form and performances have not been great over the last couple of seasons. Moreover, their reluctance to sacrifice him has led them to send mixed messages to Torres, whose role at the club has been reduced to a series of 10 minute cameos.
In reality, it's time for Chelsea to ditch Drogba and build their team and style around Torres - a policy which was starting to bare fruit at the beginning of the season until Torres got sent off and found himself demoted to the bench on his return. That was not great for his confidence. We all know Torres can be a great striker, you just have to let him.
Carroll on the other hand, who in their right minds would pay so much for an unproven striker? Okay, he had had a good season on the Championship, and was doing well for a Newcastle team set up to play for him. Just look at Newcastle's strikers this season, profiting from a long ball, battling direct style which suits them. However, Liverpool bought him to replace Torres, a fast, technical, counter attacking player. Square pegs and round holes?
It's not surprise that Suarez, who cost half of Carroll, is better suited to Loverpool's game, and what's more, adds so much to their team. Carroll meanwhile, continues to enjoy his nights out on the town, his fame and his fortune.
So while none of the two have set the world on fire, signing Torres was understandable, but 35m for Carroll a little less.
posted on 15/1/12
It's funny. I fully believe Carroll would have scored more for Chelsea, due to style of play.
posted on 15/1/12
When you consider that Sergio Aguero was available for a similar fee to Carroll then it looks like very poor value but I think given proper service that the dreadful Downing isn't providing and a player in the hole to feed off him,he could still be an asset . Both Torres and Carroll seem to be very low on confidence and that won't return quickly.
I'd still take Aguero as the value against the pair though
posted on 15/1/12
Paul
We couldn't afford Agueros wages and he wanted CL football so we were never going to get him.
Good point about Downing, and guess who came off for Carroll yesterday? And it's not the first time that's happened. Carroll has had to live off scraps this season in his defence.
posted on 15/1/12
I love the way the idiot comment from capello has nothing to back it up.
posted on 15/1/12
Liverpool need to spend this window to get in the top 4 imo
CL is worth roughly 40 million so they could spend that and recoup it
posted on 15/1/12
To date, both terrible buys. Who do I think has more potential to turn things round.?
Metro, just a thought but did you get torres for free? No. Therefore you could say you swapped torres for carroll and paid a fee million on top.
posted on 15/1/12
In reality, it's time for Chelsea to ditch Drogba and build their team and style around Torres - a policy which was starting to bare fruit at the beginning of the season until Torres got sent off and found himself demoted to the bench on his return. That was not great for his confidence. We all know Torres can be a great striker, you just have to let him.
posted on 15/1/12
Who cares?! It's like arguing which is better out of the only way is Essex and desperate scousewives.
The fact is they are both terrible and will both go down as two of the worst signings ever.
posted on 15/1/12
http://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/70175
You shouldn't really be comparing Torres to Carroll IMO.
posted on 15/1/12
The thing with Torres is, we all know he is going to come good some day. Chelsea will need to adapt their style of play, but it can still happen.
With Carroll, the only time he has looked good for Liverpool, is when he's been banging them in from range (which has been about 3 times), or when Gerrard has provided near-perfect service. A good striker shouldn't need perfect service to flourish IMO.
posted on 15/1/12
Another idiot who thinks he can get away with creating a second account to WUM Liverpool fans. Well done. Imbecile.
posted on 15/1/12
I think Torres can get it back as he was superb,and his overhead kick yesterday and all round game was good,He deserved 2 penalties,but his luck is out and instead he got booked by a sad ref,who also missed a Sunderland stonewall pen.
Carroll was the main man at NUFC and needs supply,but at Liverpool he is just another striker imo.
posted on 15/1/12
Don't think it's a wum tbh and some good comments made.
posted on 15/1/12
Maybe the OP is but the articles isn't that bad.
posted on 15/1/12
Nothing Carroll has done EVER makes him worth 35m.
He showed great potential at Newcastle and everyone, including those across the park & those down the Lancs saw him as a bright prospect for English football. But not worth £35m.
So why pay it? Well, its transfer deadline day mid season and Liverpools only real recognised CF leaves the club a short time after having a transfer request rejected. Torres wanted out and Chelsea were willing to pay £50m for him, he had to go. But that meant we had only hours to find a replacement. Its far to late in the day for most clubs to let a player go - they in turn would need to replace.
Carroll, injured but having received critical aclaim, fitted the bill; and the club he plays for is one we can target. Newcastle were known as a selling club; with its revenue seemingly keeping the owners sports retail store afloat and rumours rife around Cheick Tiotes potential £20m move to Chelsea. Mike Ashleys decision to sell the club changed more times than his socks; he was desperate to see are return on his investment.
Secondly Carroll was British; an ethos Kenny was keen to reinstall at the club, coupled with the fact he was young and therefore investable. Keegan describes him as "[one of] the top three headers of a ball [he] had ever seen in football"; along with Buffon stating he has a "big future" in football and Ian Holloway defining him as "the best striker in the Premier League".
Furthermore Carroll has heart and determination; he signed a contract extension with Newcastle weeks before they went down. His inspired form seen him fire in 19 goals to help NUFC to promotion the very next season, earning a place in the PFA Championship Team of the Year & picking up the no.9 shirt at Newcastle too. Carroll netted a hattrick 8 days into their return to the PL & was called up by Capello a few months later. He was proven in English football at both Championship and Premier League.
All these things made Carroll the man Kenny wanted; potential, proven, performing and passionate. The snagging point? We need him; he isn't simply a desire for the club, he is a necessity. That, and our bank balance had been boosted to the sum of £50m. The Newcastle board knew this and had us over a barrel. Its a matter of hours before the window closes & Newcastle know they don't need to sell; hence the rejection of a £30m offer. We had no option but to pay it. The fee was dictated by Newcastle on the following:
- Promise of the player
- His value to the club
- Liverpools need for a striker
- Liverpools transfer kitty (which was all over the sports section)
Of course, you could always say we sold a goalless striker for £50m, replacing him with another goalless striker for £35m. Thats £15m & we are no better or worse off
Page 2 of 4