Kaizero

"Oh no! Liverpool might not finish fourth? What can we do? :frantic:" Is what it reads to me.

Correct, he plays for FC Entchiles in the Swiss third tier. Wrong, he plays for FC Echichens in the Swiss fifth tier.

Schumacher plays for a fifth division side in Switzerland iirc, so it can't be him.

This thread

I miss you

Hopefully Barton will be on the bench for this.

I'll always respect and like Given for the service he's given us, but naturally he went somewhat down in my estimation because of the way he left. But that won't discount the actual service he's given, as we were shit for quite some time before he left, but he sticked with us. At the time it seemed like he knew where we were going, and I don't blame him for being disillusioned at staying here the way we were heading. I wish him well, even if the way he left made my heart crack a bit not waiting until the summer. I'm just grateful he stayed as long as he did, all things considering. One of the few players in the latter part of the 00s to wear our shirt and actually have real talent. He didn't owe us anything, we, on the other hand, owed him the chance to win something with us, but we never paid up and went more and more downhill as Given became older and older. I, for one, believe he has actual feelings for the club and the region.

Riise looks like he's having a new spring at Roma these days.

fuck.

£20 on Anders Jacobsen to win Normal Hill Ski Jumping in Vancouver returns £160.

According to reports regarding his fitness Barton is meant to be back for Coventry, probably will be starting on the bench if he is mind.

He's very happy it seems

tbf to him he probably did not have a big budget, so he put his focus on the places where we needed back-up and so on. Midfield we have loads of players to cover should one of them get injured, not so much elsewhere. not disputing we need better CMs, mind.

I agree, but Carroll is the discussion that we're having now. No doubt it'll rightly turn into talk of how shit a midfield we have though. My main point would be that we play it long, Carroll isn't effective as a target man, and we dont have the players to pick up any knock downs anyway. We play so, so much better when he knock it about and get the full backs forward. In fact that's just about our only effective tactic. The long ball on every level does not work. You can also look at how effective Loven is when we play it on the ground, he's not a physical player so he needs to rely on technique, which is hard to do when you get balls kicked at you that you need to wrestle with opposition defenders to win.

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: You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. f***ing hell, f***ing hell. :lol: To be fair, statistics will get you nowhere, goals will, Carroll has been scoring recently, and no matter how s*** he played today, he scored and got us a point, which means he is most likely going to start against Coventry. Its all about recent form, not form over a season for me, Unless we have a really prolific striker who is consistently scoring over the length of this season, which we dont, because all of our strikers this season had a run of good scoring form, and s**** patches of form, which is the main reason we dont have an established 2 striker partnership week in week out, you can never tell who is going to start in terms of strikers this season. Good post, I agree. The problem lies in the fact that Carroll has started when he wasn't in form, just as Nolan is.

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 :lol: Have you even read my posts as any sane person would? I doubt it. I've been serious and un-personal all through this "discussion", proving my opinion and view through facts, but fuck that, you're deluded man. There's no point arguing with you, would be easier convincing Ronaldo that Colo isn't god tbh. You've yet to post one reason why you think Carroll is good bar "5 in 6" and "you contradict yourself!", pathetic man.

It is when football is based on results and not grooming. I'm all for bringing players through, but not when we're playing like shit and desperately need more than one dimension to the way we play. Carroll is already 21, while he can still improve (and by all means prove me wrong) I don't think he'll ever make it on the top level and he's close to his peak of ability as he's been looking rather the same skill wise ever since he debuted for the first team, he feels like a tall Chopra to me for some reason. I'd rather we were grooming Ranger if we were to be grooming a "youngster", which I don't think we should as we need to get back up this season.

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. Keep telling yourself that :lol: fuck me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. Fucking hell, fuck me :lol: :spit: You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. Fucking hell, fucking hell. :lol:

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. I love you fttw, man. I felt like I was the only sane person left. You both think an unfit Ameobi whos not scored in the last 5 games he's played is a better option than Carroll whos scored 5 in his last 6? Doesnt seem that sane to me I'm not disputing Hughton has no choice in the matter as I know you can't bench a striker with 5 in 6, I'm just saying I think we have better options and hopefully they will be playing up top instead of Carroll sooner rather than later.

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. I love you fttw, man. I felt like I was the only sane person left. No it's not that, it's just most of us have given up on getting into useless debates with dmck. He thinks the sun shines out of Owen's arse if that's not enough of a clue to his retarded thinking I don't know what is. I had a feeling there had to be a reason nobody was jumping into the discussion I've not read that many of dcmk's posts tbf, but the fact he has Owen as his avatar speaks acres.

Fuck that, he just posted. Anyways, it doesn't take much intelligence to know that when someone says "nothing" in that sense, following a post such as the one posted before, it doesn't mean "nothing" as in the absolute version of the word. Feel free to track back to my earlier posts, as far back as 2008 and I'm sure you'll find the same opinion as before. What's tiresome is how you can't lead an argument for your side of the 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. I love you fttw, man. I felt like I was the only sane person left.

He offers nothing is not me saying nothing in the absolute way of the word. It's in terms of offering much less than the other options we have, which I have explained later on. You still seem set on the "you're contradicting yourself, your argument makes no sense!!11!! " approach though, for some reason rather than explaining why Carroll is a good choice in your eyes.

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 point is? :lol: Sure, I've misspoken in terms of saying that to your 5 in 6 comment rather than 6 in 23, and that's my bad, but still. It's what my entire argument has been about, how if we'd have someone else up there better than Carroll we'd have more 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. 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.