West Ham agree fee in region of £15m with Liverpool for Andy Carroll

[Interpolic]

God, the patter in this transfer window is doing my fucking head in.

[ponsaelius]

I'm sorry Sewelly, but to suggest he has no clever movement or composure in front of goal after you've just re-watched all his goals knowing what Jayson has just laid out in front of you (60% of those were not headers) you are just being biased and unwilling to admit you were talking rubbish when you claimed he was fully dependent on crosses in my humble opinion. However, seeing as we're apparently not going to agree even faced with the same facts and footage, let's agree to disagree and hope we bring in the best possible forward we can get to compliment our Demba's, whoever that may be.

 

Just because he scored a goal with his left foot rather than his head doesn't mean it's the result of clever movement or a finish on goal like I have described.

 

His goals for Liverpool that weren't headers include an admittedly good finish from a cross in a 6-1 win over Brighton, the goal in the cup final well taken from a lose ball, a far post tap in from a cross against Wolves, a snapshot from the edge of the box in a 5-1 win vs Oldham, a snapshot vs Man City from the edge of the box, a strike from the edge of the box against Exeter and a finally a finish in on goal vs WBA.

 

Only one I'd say was a finish when he was in on goal was against WBA.

 

He's a fairly static forward with excellent aerial ability and a powerful left foot who is effective from a crossing game. That is the player he was for us and that is the player he still is now, only not utilised anywhere near as well and hasn't shown his best for 18 months. I don't think he's suited to us or worth sacrificing our game that was so successful towards the end of the season for.

[ponsaelius]

Sewelly, the attributes you mention are ones we don't have at all. We have a central midfielder in Cabaye and a winger in Ben Arfa that often out in quality aerial service. Why not give them another target? I think he would be a fantastic option off the bench. We don't need to change or make him our main impetus of our attack.

 

I can barely remember us scoring a headed goal from crosses into the box all season. One near the end from Cisse and one right at the start from Ba. Yes we've put crosses into the box that have been finished by forwards and we've cut balls across the box but I hardly think putting quality aerial service in is the strength of our players and particularly not Ben Arfa's strengths. I certainly don't want to bring in a static forward who thrives on crosses into the box especially when we finally hit on something far more dynamic in our best run all season.

 

Again I see him nothing more as an option from the bench or a squad player who we have to build the side around when he plays, which wouldn't be worth the investment that it would ultimately take to get him (now or at the end of a loan).

[Crayola Kid]

The hat-trick goal against villa at st james'?  Carroll took the ball down, turned away from a challenge near half way, hit a sweeping long pass to the far side of the pitch and beat his marker to the return pass, which he placed past the keeper from the edge of the box.  Outstanding.  The kind of attacking play which Duncan Ferguson occasionally threatened, which made it all the more frustrating that Ferguson never had the career he could have had.  Carroll will be the same when he is retired, just a bunch of stories about what he could have become but never did

[BottledDog]

The hat-trick goal against villa at st james'?  Carroll took the ball down, turned away from a challenge near half way, hit a sweeping long pass to the far side of the pitch and beat his marker to the return pass, which he placed past the keeper from the edge of the box.  Outstanding.  The kind of attacking play which Duncan Ferguson occasionally threatened, which made it all the more frustrating that Ferguson never had the career he could have had.  Carroll will be the same when he is retired, just a bunch of stories about what he could have become but never did

 

And that is why the prodigal son must return to our bosom.

[Interpolic]

BottleDog, are you also Realist by any chance? Just a feeling I've had over the last few days.

[ponsaelius]

Or maybe that is just a rare example that is not particularly indicative of his natural attributes coming as the 6th goal in a game where the opposition were practically in the dressing room. I am not trying to detract from an excellent goal (and good assist from Xisco actually) but that is one of very few examples and certainly not something that I would say is Carroll's natural strength in his game.

[Guest VegasToon]

ALAN PARDEW GOES IN HARD FOR ANDY CARROLL 

 

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/football/view/262773/Alan-Pardew-goes-in-hard-for-Andy-Carroll/

 

The headline made me laugh.

 

[johnnypd]

Sewelly, the attributes you mention are ones we don't have at all. We have a central midfielder in Cabaye and a winger in Ben Arfa that often out in quality aerial service. Why not give them another target? I think he would be a fantastic option off the bench. We don't need to change or make him our main impetus of our attack.

 

I can barely remember us scoring a headed goal from crosses into the box all season. One near the end from Cisse and one right at the start from Ba. Yes we've put crosses into the box that have been finished by forwards and we've cut balls across the box but I hardly think putting quality aerial service in is the strength of our players and particularly not Ben Arfa's strengths. I certainly don't want to bring in a static forward who thrives on crosses into the box especially when we finally hit on something far more dynamic in our best run all season.

 

Again I see him nothing more as an option from the bench or a squad player who we have to build the side around, which wouldn't be worth the investment that it would ultimately take to get him (now or at the end of a loan).

 

Another thing about Carroll's aerial presence was that many of our crosses were played in from deep - you didnt see Barton sprinting all the way to the byline. it's an inferior type of cross but because we had Nolan arriving from deep and Carroll (and shola) in there to unsettle it worked a treat... for a mid-table side.

[Crayola Kid]

Or maybe that is just a rare example that is not particularly indicative of his natural attributes coming as the 6th goal in a game where the opposition were practically in the dressing room. I am not trying to detract from an excellent goal (and good assist from Xisco actually) but that is one of very few examples and certainly not something that I would say is Carroll's natural strength in his game.

 

agreed, I dont want to see Carroll come back.  But this goal will have done as much to catch the eye of liverpool in the first place, and others, than a dozen headers.  Anyone who gets him to use the ball and the space ahead of him like that will have a player on their hands.  For the record, I doubt he'll have a stellar career, anywhere.  Its the off field stuff that makes me say we shouldnt take him though, why chance it?

[ponsaelius]

Sewelly, the attributes you mention are ones we don't have at all. We have a central midfielder in Cabaye and a winger in Ben Arfa that often out in quality aerial service. Why not give them another target? I think he would be a fantastic option off the bench. We don't need to change or make him our main impetus of our attack.

 

I can barely remember us scoring a headed goal from crosses into the box all season. One near the end from Cisse and one right at the start from Ba. Yes we've put crosses into the box that have been finished by forwards and we've cut balls across the box but I hardly think putting quality aerial service in is the strength of our players and particularly not Ben Arfa's strengths. I certainly don't want to bring in a static forward who thrives on crosses into the box especially when we finally hit on something far more dynamic in our best run all season.

 

Again I see him nothing more as an option from the bench or a squad player who we have to build the side around, which wouldn't be worth the investment that it would ultimately take to get him (now or at the end of a loan).

 

Another thing about Carroll's aerial presence was that many of our crosses were played in from deep - you didnt see Barton sprinting all the way to the byline. it's an inferior type of cross but because we had Nolan arriving from deep and Carroll (and shola) in there to unsettle it worked a treat... for a mid-table side.

 

One of the main things he's been criticised for is when crosses have been put into the box from the byline by whoever at Liverpool he hasn't anticipated or got into the position to meet the cross. Again an example of what I was saying his biggest weakness is, his natural movement and anticipation.

 

Hughton had our system drilled and perfected it has to be said. It worked very well and everybody knew their role and function, including Carroll. He always knew what was happening. Pards' first game against Liverpool is a good example, it was very much still Hughton's team and that first goal in particular was perfect set-piece play. Kevin Nolan will never score as many league goals again and Joey Barton will never get as many assists again. They all benefited off each other in that pattern of play.

 

Our football was certainly not hoofball when it worked with Hughton. We knocked it around very well at times, look at the game against the mackems for example. But while we knocked it around efficiently and effectively the way inwhich we ultimately found the net was often through the same well-drilled pattern of play.

[BottledDog]

BottleDog, are you also Realist by any chance? Just a feeling I've had over the last few days.

 

Oh Lawdy, no. He's a right miserable get.

[Tiresias]

Couldn't agree more really, it's not so much hoof ball or bad football as balls into box, and while Carroll can play with his feet too is that really enough? Our pattern of play does not suit him best, is him going to get a bunch of set piece goals going to justify the expense of bringing him back? I don't mind him as an option, but I'd hate to spend significantly on him.

[eliassenfredrik]

The way some are looking at players is very bizarre to me. At least when you know they have the skill and they aren't completely inefficient technically. We all know Carroll is a very decent player. He's excellent in the air as everyone acknowledges, but he also have other attributes worth paying good money for. We sold him for an insane amount of money. That should be the first indicator. (In before the Henderson-esque comments). Secondly he provides hold-up play which creates movement, again creating goal scoring opportunities. I can see him working well with either Ba or Cissé (or both preferably (yes)). We'll be dangerous on so many levels. Why not play an attacking variety of 4-3-3? Or even if Pardew chooses otherwise and sticks with a more traditional 4-4-2, either Ba or Carroll would accompany Cissé, depending on form and opposition.

 

It's so conservative to take the easy route and say this will only lead to hoof ball and breaking of the Barcelona football some think we're playing.  As some said before, the reasons we went for hoof ball last season was either because of the lesser technical players such as Williamson and Simpson, or Pardew's tactics/instructions. We moved away from it though, and it won't come back just because we might bring Carroll back. The team is still rebuilding, that's why we're looking to shift Williamson and Simpson out of the starting line up, and that's why the board sees Carroll as a steal at this point. He's not of the same caliber as them two. I'm not saying he should definitely be a starter if he comes, but he will provide a hell of a lot more than people here give him credit for.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not blaming Carroll really, I just don't think footballers can resist playing the long ball to him when he's on the pitch.

 

Bypassing this midfield we've got would be criminal.

[Guest hydeous]

They train every day of the year to play the way the manager wants them to. Surely they can resist that temptation!

 

I'd like to see him back. Not bothered about formations, etc. Let Pardew handle that. He's a good striker and we need one. It's obvious we're looking at getting him if the fee can be agreed upon. So, like Pards says, if it happens, it happens. I'll be glad if it does.

[BottledDog]

I'm not blaming Carroll really, I just don't think footballers can resist playing the long ball to him when he's on the pitch.

 

Bypassing this midfield we've got would be criminal.

 

Seeing Cabaye and Ben Arfa utilising Carrolls hold up play and knock downs to pile through and decimate the tightest of defenses, would be a thing of glorious beauty.

[alpal78]

The way some are looking at players is very bizarre to me. At least when you know they have the skill and they aren't completely inefficient technically. We all know Carroll is a very decent player. He's excellent in the air as everyone acknowledges, but he also have other attributes worth paying good money for. We sold him for an insane amount of money. That should be the first indicator. (In before the Henderson-esque comments). Secondly he provides hold-up play which creates movement, again creating goal scoring opportunities. I can see him working well with either Ba or Cissé (or both preferably (yes)). We'll be dangerous on so many levels. Why not play an attacking variety of 4-3-3? Or even if Pardew chooses otherwise and sticks with a more traditional 4-4-2, either Ba or Carroll would accompany Cissé, depending on form and opposition.

 

It's so conservative to take the easy route and say this will only lead to hoof ball and breaking of the Barcelona football some think we're playing.  As some said before, the reasons we went for hoof ball last season was either because of the lesser technical players such as Williamson and Simpson, or Pardew's tactics/instructions. We moved away from it though, and it won't come back just because we might bring Carroll back. The team is still rebuilding, that's why we're looking to shift Williamson and Simpson out of the starting line up, and that's why the board sees Carroll as a steal at this point. He's not of the same caliber as them two. I'm not saying he should definitely be a starter if he comes, but he will provide a hell of a lot more than people here give him credit for.

 

And where do you see HBA, our most skilfull player in the front 3 fitting into all this? You alluded to the point yourself, if Carroll is going to be on the bench for the trio of Cisse, Ba and HBA, then I've got no problem. But should we be paying in excess of 15M for what is in principal a sub player (regardless of the oh we have so many games because we're in Europe argument)? That's not even getting into the point that we can get better options fom Europe for 15M. No I don't have the names for you because I've not spoken to Car yet but given our previous record nd the inflated price of Enlish players, it's not unreasonable to suggest that we can do better for 15M

[Tiresias]

I can see Cisse scoring a fair few from balls knocked down from Carroll

 

the question then is should we spend much money on a part time heskey?

 

(ok harsh, think he'd be alright when on, I just don't think he's worth extra money for romanticism, and think he's an awkward fit. I'd take him cheap / on loan)

[Mole_Toonfan]

The way some are looking at players is very bizarre to me. At least when you know they have the skill and they aren't completely inefficient technically. We all know Carroll is a very decent player. He's excellent in the air as everyone acknowledges, but he also have other attributes worth paying good money for. We sold him for an insane amount of money. That should be the first indicator. (In before the Henderson-esque comments). Secondly he provides hold-up play which creates movement, again creating goal scoring opportunities. I can see him working well with either Ba or Cissé (or both preferably (yes)). We'll be dangerous on so many levels. Why not play an attacking variety of 4-3-3? Or even if Pardew chooses otherwise and sticks with a more traditional 4-4-2, either Ba or Carroll would accompany Cissé, depending on form and opposition.

 

It's so conservative to take the easy route and say this will only lead to hoof ball and breaking of the Barcelona football some think we're playing.  As some said before, the reasons we went for hoof ball last season was either because of the lesser technical players such as Williamson and Simpson, or Pardew's tactics/instructions. We moved away from it though, and it won't come back just because we might bring Carroll back. The team is still rebuilding, that's why we're looking to shift Williamson and Simpson out of the starting line up, and that's why the board sees Carroll as a steal at this point. He's not of the same caliber as them two. I'm not saying he should definitely be a starter if he comes, but he will provide a hell of a lot more than people here give him credit for.

 

And where do you see HBA, our most skilfull player in the front 3 fitting into all this? You alluded to the point yourself, if Carroll is going to be on the bench for the trio of Cisse, Ba and HBA, then I've got no problem. But should we be paying in excess of 15M for what is in principal a sub player (regardless of the oh we have so many games because we're in Europe argument)? That's not even getting into the point that we can get better options fom Europe for 15M. No I don't have the names for you because I've not spoken to Car yet but given our previous record nd the inflated price of Enlish players, it's not unreasonable to suggest that we can do better for 15M

 

Hell we got Cisse for 8m

[eliassenfredrik]

The way some are looking at players is very bizarre to me. At least when you know they have the skill and they aren't completely inefficient technically. We all know Carroll is a very decent player. He's excellent in the air as everyone acknowledges, but he also have other attributes worth paying good money for. We sold him for an insane amount of money. That should be the first indicator. (In before the Henderson-esque comments). Secondly he provides hold-up play which creates movement, again creating goal scoring opportunities. I can see him working well with either Ba or Cissé (or both preferably (yes)). We'll be dangerous on so many levels. Why not play an attacking variety of 4-3-3? Or even if Pardew chooses otherwise and sticks with a more traditional 4-4-2, either Ba or Carroll would accompany Cissé, depending on form and opposition.

 

It's so conservative to take the easy route and say this will only lead to hoof ball and breaking of the Barcelona football some think we're playing.  As some said before, the reasons we went for hoof ball last season was either because of the lesser technical players such as Williamson and Simpson, or Pardew's tactics/instructions. We moved away from it though, and it won't come back just because we might bring Carroll back. The team is still rebuilding, that's why we're looking to shift Williamson and Simpson out of the starting line up, and that's why the board sees Carroll as a steal at this point. He's not of the same caliber as them two. I'm not saying he should definitely be a starter if he comes, but he will provide a hell of a lot more than people here give him credit for.

 

And where do you see HBA, our most skilfull player in the front 3 fitting into all this? You alluded to the point yourself, if Carroll is going to be on the bench for the trio of Cisse, Ba and HBA, then I've got no problem. But should we be paying in excess of 15M for what is in principal a sub player (regardless of the oh we have so many games because we're in Europe argument)? That's not even getting into the point that we can get better options fom Europe for 15M. No I don't have the names for you because I've not spoken to Car yet but given our previous record nd the inflated price of Enlish players, it's not unreasonable to suggest that we can do better for 15M

 

Well if we're going 4-3-3 which is unlikely, HBA would play in stead of Carroll or in a midfield trio with Cabaye and Tiote. He often tends to pick up the ball deep and then do his magic. I'm gonna get slaughtered for even suggesting 4 attacking players in a team, but it's an opinion. If we're playing 4-4-2 he'll play on either wing. Also, we don't know if it would be £15m, we don't know if we're buying him in the end and he's not even here on loan yet. I'm only saying I would very much welcome the addition, and I don't think it's a step backwards. Quite the opposite in fact (if Ba is staying which seems likely).

[Dyeyzzon]

Think the real plan is to get him on loan first then Debuchy, Anita and Douglas on transfers. We'd solve all depth problems and improve our starting eleven while staying within our budget this season. Next summer I could foresee us needing strikers, and that's when we would probably take up the option of buying Carroll for A) A much cheaper fee, B) when he has indeed proven himself to be what we need and C) when we have a fresh new transfer kitty to work with at the start of next season, which could be boosted if we perform in the league and have a long cup or European run.

[nobby_solano]

can't be arsed trawling back through the pages but does the thread title refer to our former manager who would have relegated us in 07-08 or newcastle adoring journalist martin samuel?

[Guest johnson293]

Sorry if its Giggs, but SSN (sources) saying Carroll not interested in leaving on a permanent deal, and will only go on loan.

 

Coincidence that, considering we only want him on loan (initially) which Liverpool have rejected so far.

 

[BeloEmre]

And here we go!

 

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/9821616.Reds_interest_in_Ba_could_lead_to_Carroll_deal/