Swansea City 1 - 1 Newcastle United - 13/02/10 - post match reaction from pg 25

[Kaizero]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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

 

2/9= 0.22222

5/24 = 0.208

[relámpago blanco]

Is Shola knackered again.

[relámpago blanco]

IS Shola knackered again, and whats wrong with Jonas.

[QBG]

Harper 6 - Not alot to do.

Simpson 5 - Struggled.

Coloccini 6 - Fairly solid.

Hall 6 - See Coloccini

Van Aanholt 6 - Looks good going forward and solid most of the time defensively, I'd extend his loan.

Routledge 5 - Was ok. A lot better late on when he just ran at people.

Guthrie 4 - Not one of his better games, still streets ahead of the other two cloggers in the middle.

Smith 3 - Fucking hell man.

Lovenkrands 4 - Poor

Nolan 2 - Smith x100000

Carroll 5 - At least the one header he got direction on went in the net.

 

Subs

 

Best 6 - Beautiful cross for the goal. Should start imo.

 

Also fuck off with this "terrible point" business, a point away from Home is decent, we didn't play well but we got something out of it. That's what wins you promotion, picking up points when you don't play well. There are 16 games left with a fair amount at Home with most away games against teams from the bottom half. Win the next 2 at Home and things will look very good.

[TRon]

Shola has many dimensions such as clumsy and extra clumsy.

 

Clearly Shola clearly was a massive reason why we were so shit the last couple of games. He's fucking up our play with his awful touch and terrible jumping, heading, big lips etc.

[Kaizero]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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.

[Jayson]

He has scored more goals recently than any of our other strikers

[rocksammy]

You do realise this is all planned by shola ? He will come back score a brace in a 3-1 victory and get injured, the end, its all an elabrote conspiracy to get shola a new marquee contract

[dcmk]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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

[Guest firetotheworks]

This entire convo is going massively off track.

 

You dont drop a guy whos scored 5 in 6, this is simple

 

You don't, but we said that about Nolan. It's relevant too, because you know it means that Hughton will play him no matter what his contribution is, despite Lovenkrands and Shola's record being as good.

[Ketsbaia]

Harper 6 - Not alot to do.

Simpson 5 - Struggled.

Coloccini 6 - Fairly solid.

Hall 6 - See Coloccini

Van Aanholt 6 - Looks good going forward and solid most of the time defensively, I'd extend his loan.

Routledge 5 - Was ok. A lot better late on when he just ran at people.

Guthrie 4 - Not one of his better games, still streets ahead of the other two cloggers in the middle.

Smith 3 - Fucking hell man.

Lovenkrands 4 - Poor

Nolan 2 - Smith x100000

Carroll 5 - At least the one header he got direction on went in the net.

 

Subs

 

Best 6 - Beautiful cross for the goal. Should start imo.

 

Also fuck off with this "terrible point" business, a point away from Home is decent, we didn't play well but we got something out of it. That's what wins you promotion, picking up points when you don't play well. There are 16 games left with a fair amount at Home with most away games against teams from the bottom half. Win the next 2 at Home and things will look very good.

 

Erm, I think theres something wrong with the maths there mate 

[Kaizero]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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.

[QBG]

Harper 6 - Not alot to do.

Simpson 5 - Struggled.

Coloccini 6 - Fairly solid.

Hall 6 - See Coloccini

Van Aanholt 6 - Looks good going forward and solid most of the time defensively, I'd extend his loan.

Routledge 5 - Was ok. A lot better late on when he just ran at people.

Guthrie 4 - Not one of his better games, still streets ahead of the other two cloggers in the middle.

Smith 3 - f***ing hell man.

Lovenkrands 4 - Poor

Nolan 2 - Smith x100000

Carroll 5 - At least the one header he got direction on went in the net.

 

Subs

 

Best 6 - Beautiful cross for the goal. Should start imo.

 

Also f*** off with this "terrible point" business, a point away from Home is decent, we didn't play well but we got something out of it. That's what wins you promotion, picking up points when you don't play well. There are 16 games left with a fair amount at Home with most away games against teams from the bottom half. Win the next 2 at Home and things will look very good.

 

Erm, I think theres something wrong with the maths there mate 

 

I meant he's a thousand times worse.

[Guest Phil K]

 

2/9= 0.22222

5/24 = 0.208

 

Got here late - who is what here ?

 

I see Nolan continues his slide going by comments.

[The Prophet]

Harper 6 - Not a lot he could do for the goal.

 

Simposin 7 - Personally thought he was our best player, got no cover from Routledge what so ever but put some great challanges in and generally defended well.

Colo 6 - Alright.

Hall 6 - Not bad.

Van Aanholt 6 - Great going forward, not the best at defending.

 

Routledge 5 - Not his best performance but oner of the better attacking outlets.

Nolan 4 - Invisible

Smith 4 - See Nolan

Guthrie 4 - See Nolan and Smith

Lovenkrads 4 - See See Nolan, Smith and Guthrie

 

Carroll 5 - Good header, that's about it.

 

Best 6 - Great ball in, looked a bit of a handful when he came on.

 

All in all, no effort, no imagination but a bloody good point.

[Beezeri]

What Hughton said in the post match interview? If he found anything postive from today's performance he should be sacked right away

[Kaizero]

 

2/9= 0.22222

5/24 = 0.208

 

Got here late - who is what here ?

 

It's who has the best assist rate out of Ameobi and Carroll this season. Ameobi = 0.2222 and Carroll = 0.208 per appereance.

[Big Geordie]

As has been said, a completely undeserved point for us. Infact, it's as bad as I've seen us play all season - reminds me very much of the side that went down without a whimper during 08/09. We've got real problems in the middle of midfield and it was only too evident today despite having the extra man. There's no pace whatsoever which is why Swansea were able to pass around us with ease today (and not for the first time this season) Whatever happens in the summer whether we go up or not, we have to move on Smith and Nolan. I can run faster than the pair of them and that's saying something.

 

Was really impressed with how Swansea moved the ball around. Put our so called 'stars' to shame.

[Guest Phil K]

 

2/9= 0.22222

5/24 = 0.208

 

Got here late - who is what here ?

 

It's who has the best assist rate out of Ameobi and Carroll this season. Ameobi = 0.2222 and Carroll = 0.208 per appereance.

 

About what I'd surmised.

Good working out. Always handy.

[Benwell Lad]

On the surface a draw away from home against one of the league's better teams who are bang in form looks like a decent result.

However the performance was woeful with a midfield so pedestrian it was unbelievable.

That said I can't agree with some who say Swansea should have hammered us or even beaten us - you can play good football all day but if you've got no killer instinct you don't deserve to win.

Positives ?  Colo is a class apart in this division and Carroll despite his shortcomings can certainly head a ball if a decent cross is provided.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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!

[S.S.R.]

Valuable point.

 

Back on top and Forest are getting beat.

 

That'll do.

[Guest Phil K]

As has been said, a completely undeserved point for us. Infact, it's as bad as I've seen us play all season

Funny how often we are saying this after away games. Too many players go missing.

And they seem to be the ones on big bucks, too.

Its getting worse, worryingly.

[Kaizero]

Waaaah waaah waaaaaah Carrol is the worst player we have! 

 

 

Yeeeeah yeeeeah yeeeeeah Carrol we love you! 

 

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!

 

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00384/mystic-meg-horoscop_384331a.jpg

[Guest Phil K]

This entire convo is going massively off track.

 

You dont drop a guy whos scored 5 in 6, this is simple

 

You don't, but we said that about Nolan. It's relevant too, because you know it means that Hughton will play him no matter what his contribution is, despite Lovenkrands and Shola's record being as good.

Nolan has retained his place solely on early season goals which have dried up.

Maybe he needs a boot up the backside by being dropped to the bench.