dcmk

Tbf Nolan and Smith make Barton look like Zidane.

Lyon to win at 1.51. seems pretty safe.

Well the shocking pace and reaction speed of Nolan and Smith doesn't do the guy any favours tbh. Couldn't quite believe that Nolan contested a drop ball today

We should offer them all to our friend Big Sam. Buy Butt Get Nolan and Smith free. He did more bad things then good in his time here, if he was to do that.. all would be forgiven.

In summer he needs to get rid of Nolan, Smith - i'm sure there are some Premier League clubs who kinda rate these two - thankfully Butt's contract is up .. Hughton should have really got someone in there in January.

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6? Mm that was my argument. Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit: Good, top man. And i will keep laughing at how a player who 'offers nothing' (defended this for 2 hours) and then say he contributes 25% of our goals all season. I'm sure you never meant it and 'you wrote wrong' You have already changed your opinion twice. Why not go for more? I'm out. You can have the last word

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not fucking shit'? in fine form - 5 in 6? Mm that was my argument. Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice. I like the fact you can't actually argue your side of the argument, rather than point out things that has nothing to do with it. Seriously, man. What are you even doing on a debate forum if you don't want to debate something? Sadly, you can't really debate with people who say a striker offers nothing, and then say he is responsible for 25% of our goals. My point has always been that he offers us nothing compared to our other strikers, and that he'd barely be 4th choice for me. You can search all my previous posts regarding Carroll (in all threads) for evidence that it has been my opinion. And he's not responsible for 25% of our goals, since when is 7 out of 48 25%? Ameobi has 7 in 9 as well, by the way. You count the assists as well http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c75/Kaizero/dcscs.jpg I'm out. Let me know when we can have a debate where both sides discuss the same thing, though that will probably be never. ur an idiot. r u claymin u can pridikt da fyootah!?!?!? idiot! You have contradicted yourself so many times, which i have even pointed out on each occasion. You don't actually have an argument. You made a knee-jerk post, which you keep trying to defend.. which has been picked apart. 7 goals and 5 assists = 12 - right? 48/12 = 4 = 25%. Simple math. I'm out. tbf thats typical of you. One, I haven't and two you haven't pointed it out or proved it on any occasion. If you're going to stat it up then Ameobi 7 goals and 1 assist in 8 starts. =100% Carroll 7 goals and 5 assists in 20 starts = 60% Lovenkrands 5 goals and 1 assist in 10 starts = 60% So therefore our other options are as good as or better than Carroll in 10 less games. Deal with your paranoia. Who did i also quote in that post? and then think for a second.. who have i accused of that? for the last 4 pages.

God this tiresome, you have wrote he 'offers us pretty much nothing' in most of your posts.. if you want to look at them! Please do! That was your original point, but then you go on to say he has contributed to 25% of our goals. now you didn't mean 'nothing' in that absolute sense huh?

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice. I like the fact you can't actually argue your side of the argument, rather than point out things that has nothing to do with it. Seriously, man. What are you even doing on a debate forum if you don't want to debate something? Sadly, you can't really debate with people who say a striker offers nothing, and then say he is responsible for 25% of our goals. My point has always been that he offers us nothing compared to our other strikers, and that he'd barely be 4th choice for me. You can search all my previous posts regarding Carroll (in all threads) for evidence that it has been my opinion. And he's not responsible for 25% of our goals, since when is 7 out of 48 25%? Ameobi has 7 in 9 as well, by the way. You count the assists as well http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c75/Kaizero/dcscs.jpg I'm out. Let me know when we can have a debate where both sides discuss the same thing, though that will probably be never. ur an idiot. r u claymin u can pridikt da fyootah!?!?!? idiot! You have contradicted yourself so many times, which i have even pointed out on each occasion. You don't actually have an argument. You made a knee-jerk post, which you keep trying to defend.. which has been picked apart. 7 goals and 5 assists = 12 - right? 48/12 = 4 = 25%. Simple math. I'm out. They've not been contradictions anywhere other than in your mind regarding what you think a "good" striker should be like. To others, it's a statistic showing he's not done what we need from one of our strikers. I've based my argument on statistics and facts, which you've dismissed saying they're "contradicting". You're not even trying to defend your side of the story, you're just trying to nitpick on small irrelevant things in my argument. If you believed Carroll deserved a spot in the side, why can't you say so instead of saying "5 in 6" and then go on to do nothing but saying I contradict myself? It's fairly obvious you have no argument for your side of the story, so you just need to focus on something else to try to make it so you're not appearing to lose the argument. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. Your story was - he offers nothing. You then said he has been responsible for 25% of our goals.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice. I like the fact you can't actually argue your side of the argument, rather than point out things that has nothing to do with it. Seriously, man. What are you even doing on a debate forum if you don't want to debate something? Sadly, you can't really debate with people who say a striker offers nothing, and then say he is responsible for 25% of our goals. My point has always been that he offers us nothing compared to our other strikers, and that he'd barely be 4th choice for me. You can search all my previous posts regarding Carroll (in all threads) for evidence that it has been my opinion. And he's not responsible for 25% of our goals, since when is 7 out of 48 25%? Ameobi has 7 in 9 as well, by the way. You count the assists as well http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c75/Kaizero/dcscs.jpg I'm out. Let me know when we can have a debate where both sides discuss the same thing, though that will probably be never. ur an idiot. r u claymin u can pridikt da fyootah!?!?!? idiot! You have contradicted yourself so many times, which i have even pointed out on each occasion. You don't actually have an argument. You made a knee-jerk post, which you keep trying to defend.. which has been picked apart. 7 goals and 5 assists = 12 - right? 48/12 = 4 = 25%. Simple math. I'm out.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice. I like the fact you can't actually argue your side of the argument, rather than point out things that has nothing to do with it. Seriously, man. What are you even doing on a debate forum if you don't want to debate something? Sadly, you can't really debate with people who say a striker offers nothing, and then say he is responsible for 25% of our goals. My point has always been that he offers us nothing compared to our other strikers, and that he'd barely be 4th choice for me. You can search all my previous posts regarding Carroll (in all threads) for evidence that it has been my opinion. And he's not responsible for 25% of our goals, since when is 7 out of 48 25%? Ameobi has 7 in 9 as well, by the way. You count the assists as well

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice. I like the fact you can't actually argue your side of the argument, rather than point out things that has nothing to do with it. Seriously, man. What are you even doing on a debate forum if you don't want to debate something? Sadly, you can't really debate with people who say a striker offers nothing, and then a few posts later say he is responsible for 25% of our goals. I point out the colossus contradiction, and suddenly that's not what you meant - (although you repeatedly that very claim many times prior). I don't care anymore, I'm bored, if you want the last word.. then fine... go ahead..

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once It's also been pointed out that other strikers offer goals too, except a lot of the others offer more than that. Shola, Lovenkrands, even Ranger offer more than just goals. And before you say 'just goals!?' think about Nolan. Shola doesn't offer anything except goals, in fact Carroll offers more than him, Ameobi is a better goalscorer - that i would agree on. So then surely your point is moot if you're basing your argument to have Carroll in the team is based around goals? Carroll is easily the most one dimensional striker we have. Not at all, Shola is the most one dimensional striker we have. Carroll actually lays on goals for his team-mates. Ameobi has a better assist rate per appeareance than Carroll has, your point is moot. Mm that requires some proof, don't believe that at all

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored. Amazing, I'd be tempted to say something about your intelligence, but I won't, so I'll bold it out for you, my point is THAT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR A STRIKER STARTING AS MANY GAMES AS CARROLL FOR THE TEAM CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP AND THAT IS WHY HE OFFERS US NOTHING THAT SAY AMEOBI COULDN'T. There, get it? I like it how you have managed to change your argument completely . I also like the fact you must edit your posts at least twice.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once It's also been pointed out that other strikers offer goals too, except a lot of the others offer more than that. Shola, Lovenkrands, even Ranger offer more than just goals. And before you say 'just goals!?' think about Nolan. Shola doesn't offer anything except goals, in fact Carroll offers more than him, Ameobi is a better goalscorer - that i would agree on. So then surely your point is moot if you're basing your argument to have Carroll in the team is based around goals? Carroll is easily the most one dimensional striker we have. Not at all, Shola is the most one dimensional striker we have. Carroll actually lays on goals for his team-mates.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once If there are contradictions, they're there because I'm not a native speaker of English and have probably constructed sentences wrong. Your dissection is pretty bad as well, mind. As you've bolded statistical facts regarding him this season were I say it doesn't sound to bad, before I go into describing why it still is bad. Then you've bolded that I say we're s*** at getting balls through to him, which we are, which in turn I mentioned to describe how our midfield is not good and that we need a striker that can do more with the delievery they do get. Then you've highlighted where I've said he basically offers us nothing, which he doesn't, as we could easily play Ameobi instead and have a better striker on the pitch. Even Ranger, as I've mentioned before, has better hold up play. That said, I'll give you that Ranger has yet to develop the finishing skills needed to score the goals we need, so he's not a better choice as long as Carroll keeps getting lucky. Once Carroll starts to dry out, though, he'd be a better choice as he can keep the ball up and get it around to others better than Carroll can. You said he offered nothing.. then pointed out his contribution has resulted in 12 goals in 48. That he doesn't have many chances a match, and he provides assists to his team-mates. Stop it now, i'm bored.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once It's also been pointed out that other strikers offer goals too, except a lot of the others offer more than that. Shola, Lovenkrands, even Ranger offer more than just goals. And before you say 'just goals!?' think about Nolan. Shola doesn't offer anything except goals, in fact Carroll offers more than him, Ameobi is a better goalscorer - that i would agree on.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. You're. If you don't want to have an actual debate about something to defend your opinion, I'll resort to childlike petty replies as well. Actually, i dissected your massive post - just up above. Where you contradicted yourself more than once

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable. What? The actual statistics of Andy Carroll this season? I know. That's funny, your funny. 12 goals from a team total of 48 means he 'offers nothing'. Good stuff.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument. Andy Carroll has 7 in 24 apps and 5 assists. We have 48 goals, which means he's been involved in 12 of them, which in itself doesn't sound bad. Though, when you look at all the chances he's had to set people up and to put more away, it starts to get more shocking. You can't waste that many chances, if we'd not have Nolan around fluking one in here and there earlier in the season, those errors would be much more apparent and could single-handedly be a reason for us being around mid-table rather than at the top of the table. He has 65 shots (headers included), whearas 20 have been on goal. We're s*** at getting the balls to him though, but you'd imagine a player like the one you're describing would be able to produce more than statistically 2.7 shots a match, wouldn't you? I mean, after all, he has "5 in 6". But wait, 5 in 6? What happened before those 6? Oh, yeah, he did almost nothing. I can't find his completed pass percentage, but I'm fairly certain that when and if I do find it, it will be less than 30%. He's not a good striker, we're not a good team. It's not a good match when we need ability up front to make up for the shitness of the rest of the team, especially in midfield. If he can only get 56 shots fired in the Championship, what would he do in the Premiership? He's not good, the numbers speak for themselves. What he does on the pitch speaks for itself. I'm not blinded by one lucky scoring run. Basically, he offers us pretty much nothing. I'm fairly certain even Ameobi would be banging some of the headers Carroll has missed straight in. Unbelieveable.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you. I don't need to look, as I'm well aware. He's still not good enough to be first choice striker for us, I'd be concerned if he was our 4th choice striker, even. He'll never make it at the top level, and while he'll be good enough until we (hopefully) get promoted, we need rid of him in the summer and bring in someone that's actually a footballer. Well it's not 'offering nothing' than is it, when he is scoring and assisting. How about you put some logic into your next argument.

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny. Where was Carroll prior to his scoring run? If we had a target man that could actually steer his headers towards other players, and use his feet as well, we'd easily be a much better side. I'm not saying a target man needs to score, but Carroll offers nothing besides being lucky a few times in recent games. Ranger for instance, whilst still being very raw, shows sign of being a decent target man in that he can hold up the ball and actually aim headers. It's a shame he can't put them away. Carroll is just a young Tore Andre Flo tbh. You should look at how many assists Carroll has, it might just surprise you.

Looked alright to me, got involved at least. Due in part to us actually starting to try like. The thing about Loven is he doesn't drop off to pick up the ball and then look to link our play. Ever. He is constantly looking to get in behind, and to be fair he does make some lovely runs, however we are so incapable of spotting them never mind actually playing a decent ball to him that it is all pointless. On a team like West Brom or Cardiff Loven would score 50 in this league. Oddly enough he is a liability to us unless he is coming on late. Imagine what how many he would score if he was playing at Arsenal

Carroll is still f***ing s***, it's only statistics that with all the headers he f***s up one or two will sometimes be good. That's 5 goals in 6. So? If our target man was any decent it'd be more than that with our long ball tactics tbh. If your being serious that is even funnier! Of course I'm serious, anyone not wearing "He's a local lad, he's teh best since Shearahhhh lolz!!!11!1one!!1" glasses sees that. Our target man should be getting a goal every game Your funny.