Cronky

Carroll has been attracting a lot of attention this season, and there's a lot of interest in how he progresses after this move. The interest isn't confined to the two clubs by any means. It was noticeable last night that the commentator's voice went up by 50 decibels every time Carroll went near the ball. The national media would love to see a Liverpool / Dalglish revival, if only because they don't like Fergie. The story they want is for AC to be the new sensation who's going to get Liverpool and England back on the trophy hunt. Newcastle screwing up again is another theme that they love to get their teeth into. There's been a certain amount of hype based on the suddenness of his arrival to national attention. Yes he's good and should get better, but his lack of pace and mobility is always going to limit how he can be used. So I think it's okay for us to take this interest. We saw him first.

He did play reasonably well, but the performance of the team was poor. It was like the team had to slow down to suit Carroll's pace and style. Against Man U, their movement was much better.

Carroll is a very good option if the opposition are being ultra-defensive and just packing their own last third, or if your team is chasing the game in the closing minutes and you end up in that similar attack v defence situation. When it’s difficult to play through a defence, Carroll gives you the option of going over the top of it. When Barca were trying unsuccessfully to break Inter Milan down last season, they could have done with the Carroll option for the last 15 minutes. Obviously that’s nothing to do with how his overall quality compares with his team mates, it’s a matter of the right man for the situation. At a top club, Carroll could well end up as an impact sub, or as a second choice starter.

Watching Carroll last night made me think that we have seriously got the best end of the deal. He's dangerous all right but he does limit the way a top team can play. Once fans start blaming 'the service' you know there's a real problem.

Bill Shankly changed the Liverpool strip to all red to make his team look bigger, and it works with Carroll. He looks like a giant. However, he moved like a giant as well.

Braga were completely knackered for the last 20 minutes and should have been put away. I don't think they can play Kuyt and Carroll together. It means they seriously lack pace up front.

Terry is damaged goods as far as the England captaincy is concerned. I think many of the squad are uncomfortable with him in that role. It's not just the issue with Wayne Bridge. There's a story which I reckon is credible that he wasn't supportive to Gerrard during the World Cup, and that episode where he went to the papers and said how he was going to speak up in a team meeting about what was going wrong, was just a part of that. We can't be doing with a power struggle within the team. Terry doesn't understand why he was stripped of the captaincy and hasn't come to terms with it. If the senior players won't accept him as captain, and he won't accept being in a more junior role, then it's best to leave him out altogether.

Fergie would argue black was white, if it suited him. It's the flipside of this amazing willpower that has him, at the age of nearly 70, still at the top of his profession. This season Man U have been badly hit by injuries and Rooney's loss of form, they're in a rebuilding phase, he's been playing geriatrics in midfield, but he still has them top of the league, in the semi-finals of the Cup and the quarter-finals of the European Cup. It's amazing.

I'm not confident about my understanding of it all, but I think the veiled accusation in those articles is as follows - Harrison, Carroll's contracted agent, somehow got muscled out of the deal by Bromley and Curtis, who seem to be partners in a company. However, to make it look above board, Carroll officially represented himself, with Bromley representing Liverpool, and taking the agent's cut in that way. If a player sacks an agent, it looks like they can't be represented by anyone else for a certain period. It looks like Curtis was around and had some contact with Carroll when the deal got done, but not in any official capacity. They also get round the rule about an agent not being allowed to represent both a club and a player during a deal. Harrison is taking the whole thing to arbitration, and may be the source of this story. It would presumably be in his interests to create as big a stink as possible. Allegedly.

I don't think Barton's been quite the same player since the Carroll sale. There's not been any dramatic loss of form, he's just not quite at his best. If a player's commitment becomes a bit uncertain, unless they're quite a strong character, it can affect their focus.

I'd agree. The whole Bridge / Terry situation was mishandled in the first place. It was impossible for the two players to be part of the same squad without disharmony, but it ended up with Bridge being the one who had to back down. Terry's a great player but Capello should have bitten the bullet and axed him from the squad. By all accounts, there were problems of morale during the World Cup, with divisions amongst the players. If Gerrard loses the captaincy, then that's set to continue.

When Pardew took over, he said that he wanted to communicate with the fans, but that all has to be balanced with respect for other people's privacy. I think he went too far in his comment about Joey's performance against Fulham. If you can't say why Joey was 'upset', then it's not worth mentioning it at all.

The complaint seems to be that this is just propaganda on the part of the club to fool the fans into thinking that something positive is going to happen. I can't see that there's anything in Carr's statement to warrant that conclusion. He's not promising the earth. He's outlining the club's recruitment strategy and it all seemed realistic and sensible. The cynicism just strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. On a related subject, in terms of the club's long-term financial strategy, the club have been quite open about it. (ie the statement about breaking even by a certain year) We've had more information than many other clubs give on that subject. Yet people still complain that the club won't communicate. Whingeing can become a habit. Ah, so you're referring to my suggestion then. It was only my opinion on the question binnsy asked, and I didn't actually mention that I thought it a negative thing. The club want everyone to believe that they know what they're doing, why wouldn't they? Everyone is aware Man Utd etc know what they're doing through their success. Our owners have understandably got a lot of outstanding cynicism and they want the fans (amongst others) to know they're going to use the Carroll money wisely. Tiote has been a huge success so it's completely fair that they want to point to that as proof of their policies being correct, including the ability of the scout that apparently spotted him. I can't see where I made this out to be a negative. If anything you're the one reading into my post wrongly and assuming I'm complaining. I never mentioned propaganda, never said he was promising the earth and never complained about communication. If you look at the first post I made in this thread you'll find I enjoyed the interview and wasn't negative about it in the slightest. You're whinging about my 'whinging'. I wasn't directing my comment at you exclusively, Dave. Yours wasn't the only comment that seemed over sceptical. You said that the club were taking advantage of Tiote's popularity to 'try to claim that they know what they are doing'. I think I can be forgiven for hearing that as sarcastic, especially given that you are not one of Ashley's biggest fans. Maybe I was a bit jumpy here. Often statements from the club get treated on this board with scepticism bordering on paranoia, whereas statements from Keegan or Shearer are regarded as unquestionable, given how much they lurve the club.

The complaint seems to be that this is just propaganda on the part of the club to fool the fans into thinking that something positive is going to happen. I can't see that there's anything in Carr's statement to warrant that conclusion. He's not promising the earth. He's outlining the club's recruitment strategy and it all seemed realistic and sensible. The cynicism just strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction. On a related subject, in terms of the club's long-term financial strategy, the club have been quite open about it. (ie the statement about breaking even by a certain year) We've had more information than many other clubs give on that subject. Yet people still complain that the club won't communicate. Whingeing can become a habit.

A frequent criticism of the club is that it doesn't communicate with the fans. So why complain when they do?

There may well be some interest. Providing we stay up, we're a much better prospect than when Ashley was trying to sell before. A lot depends on how effective the financial fair play rules turn out to be. Previously, I can imagine a lot of the more cautious businessmen would have been wary of getting involved in Premiership football when you have to compete with clubs that are being subsidised by huge amounts of oil money. If the new rules are effective, it should be easier to compete and still at least break even. I don't think Liverpool's new owners would have got involved if the fair play rules weren't in the pipeline.

Forest were unlucky to miss out last season, so I hope they make it this time.

Wasn't Souness's appointment also a symptom of the way that the club was being run at the time? After him came Roeder. Following Sir Bob's sacking and the circumstances around it, we became a very dodgy proposition for any manager whose reputation was decent and intact. (Souness was supposed to be sixth choice) You had to be a bit desperate to accept working under Freddie, and with Shearer lurking in the wings as your likely successor (as was believed at the time).

To be fair to the slut, he did say publicly the week before that he did not want to join us on anything but a loan basis, and that Liverpool was his choice for a proper transfer. We responded by putting in a ridiculously inflated offer to Real which made it impossible for them to consider selling him to Liverpool, and then overcame Owen's clear reluctance by offering him a ridiculous amount in wages. So we ended up paying huge amounts of money that we didn't really have, for a player who was past his best and who didn't want to come. Freddie's daftest move ever, and the competition for that accolade is fierce.

Definitely one of the maddest, most badly thought-out transfers ever.

Barton's ability has been apparent for quite a few years now. I think his best position would be one of the wider players in a midfield three. Ideally, a wider player in a 4-4-2 should have a bit more pace and be better at tracking back to help out his full back. He tends to drift inside a lot, which is good in a way, because you get the full range of his passing, but then the shape of the side is affected.

He tends to look more wary of making a mistake than keen to assert himself.

The player looks like he gives his all during the match where it matters. Should Alan Smith get a game every week if he's our best trainer but shit during games or is this another double standard? If I’m hearing you right, your point is that it’s performances during the game, not performances during training, that count. What Pardew seems to be saying is that Ranger’s poor attitude to training is an issue for the rest of the team. He is isolating himself from the senior players in particular. The inevitable inference from that is that it would have an effect on the overall team morale and unity if he was to pick Ranger for a starting place in the current situation. The other issue here is whether an individual can mess about in training and expect to perform at their peak during a match. Perhaps Ranger himself thinks that he can. I’d agree that Ranger puts in a good effort during his sub appearances and has an impact, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he would have the same effect over 90 minutes. I’d say that a good trainer is more inclined to maintain their concentration and effort over the course of a match, and not get discouraged when things go badly or get over-excited when things are going well. In other words, if you’re disciplined during training, you’re more likely to be disciplined during the match. On a slightly different point, Pardew talked about Ranger drifting offside against Bolton, with the implication that if he worked harder on his game during training, the right habits would be there and that would be less inclined to happen. I’m not sure that that’s the best or fairest example, but in another context Ranger often snatches at the chances that come his way and you wonder whether that lack of composure is the by-product of poor concentration during preparation and training. Perhaps people need to re-visit Pardew’s comments and make their own sense of it, and disagree or agree with his approach as they see fit. Incidentally, we could debate how Ranger compares with Best, but it’s not just Best that’s been starting ahead of Ranger. As for how Ranger would do given a starting place, that’s speculative, but the interesting thing is that we’re not finding out for ourselves because Pardew isn’t giving him the chance, despite his good cameo performances. I think Pardew’s comments are his explanation of why he’s not getting the chance.

Football's a strange game though. Despite being thoroughly outplayed, if it had been Van Persie rather than Bendtner on the end of that chance in the final few minutes, he'd have probably scored and Barca would have gone out.

I think Song was a significant loss tonight. He's actually quite good at holding on to the ball. Barca found it quite easy to dispossess them. Very probably would have ended up with the same result though.