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

[Jayson]

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.

 

If Nolan was still scoring itd still be right about Nolan also.

 

I dont think Carrolls contribution is that bad atall for what hes expected to do on his own. I think our style of play is rubbish though and very unlikely to be getting the best out of him or our team. He's learning as he goes and scoring more than anyone else at the moment.

[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

 

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. 

 

[steve_69]

Fucking pitiful performance although I thought Van Armpit, Fitz Hall and Colo had decent games.

 

One thing about us that consistently irritates the fuck out of me is why none of our players shout 'man on'. Surely we haven't, by coincidence, managed to cobble together a group of players who have never heard 'man on'.

The number of times our midfielders get robbed of possession while playing with their clackers is fucking infuriating - yes Danny Guthrie, i'm mostly talking about you.

 

SORT IT OUT!!

[Mistle17]

Really cant believe how overrated we are by Sky. Its embarrassing, tbh.

[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!

 

 

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.

[M4]

Really cant believe how overrated we are by Sky. Its embarrassing, tbh.

 

Indeed, I wish they would stop having us on. Can't imagine many neutral fans lasting more than 10 minutes with our recent games.

[Guest Phil K]

f***ing pitiful performance although I thought Van Armpit, Fitz Hall and Colo had decent games.

 

One thing about us that consistently irritates the f*** out of me is why none of our players shout 'man on'. Surely we haven't, by coincidence, managed to cobble together a group of players who have never heard 'man on'.

The number of times our midfielders get robbed of possession while playing with their clackers is f***ing infuriating - yes Danny Guthrie, i'm mostly talking about you.

 

SORT IT OUT!!

That has been shown a shocking number of times, and recently, just schoolboy errors in the cup game against WBA (as if playing a game refereed by Frank Skinner and Adrian Childs as linesman wasnt bad enough) and the appalling example v. Derby

Yet Hughton and Calderwood don't seem to have noticed, do they ?

[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

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.

 

I agree. Our away form and performances seem to be getting worse with every game. And yet Hughton leaves the engine room the same every week and that's where the problem is.

[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

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Your story was - he offers nothing.  You then said he has been responsible for 25% of our goals.

 

[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!

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Kaizero]

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. 

[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!

 

 

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.

 

 

[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!

 

 

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.

[Amir_9]

Harper 6.5 - Did what he could really, a solid performance, couldnt do anything about their goal.

Simpson 5 - Hardly went forward, and didnt pressure their players much.

Hall 7.5 - Cleared the ball well at more than one occasion, a very decent backup to have.

Collo 8 - Accurate short/long passing and solid defending, found his confidence this season, albeit in a s*** league.

Van Aanholt 6 - Looks a threat when going forward, but was hardly supported, always did everything by himself.

Guthrie 4.5 - Not a player to be played on the flanks, we said this more than once.

Nolan 3 - So painfully average and unfit, needs to get dropped, he'll be the first to blabber and make a "rallying call".

Smith 4 - Offers nothing in attack, nothing at all.

Routledge 6 - The only member of our midfield who tried to make things happen.

Lovenkrands 3 - Anonymous

Carroll 5 - Really needs to stop getting bullied around by these s*** defenders from other teams, should do better against these teams.

 

Best 6 - Held the ball well, and a mint cross for Carroll's header.

[Karjala]

fuckin shite yet again. shows how crap this league is when weve been top all season. Apart from Ipswich, we havent performed away from home all season

[Jayson]

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!

 

 

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

[dcmk]

God this tiresome, you have wrote he 'offers us pretty much nothing' in most of your posts.. if you want to look at them!  Please do!

 

 

That was your original point, but then you go on to say he has contributed to 25% of our goals. 

 

now you didn't mean 'nothing' in that absolute sense huh? 

 

 

[Kaizero]

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.

[TRon]

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!

 

 

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.

[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!

 

 

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.

[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

 

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c75/Kaizero/dcscs.jpg

 

 

I'm out. Let me know when we can have a debate where both sides discuss the same thing, though that will probably be never.

 

 

ur an idiot. r u claymin u can pridikt da fyootah!?!?!? idiot!

 

 

You have contradicted yourself so many times, which i have even pointed out on each occasion.  You don't actually have an argument.  You made a knee-jerk post, which you keep trying to defend.. which has been picked apart.

 

7 goals and 5 assists = 12 - right?  48/12 = 4 = 25%.  Simple math.  I'm out.   

 

 

tbf thats typical of you. One, I haven't and two you haven't pointed it out or proved it on any occasion.

 

If you're going to stat it up then

 

Ameobi 7 goals and 1 assist in 8 starts. =100%

Carroll 7 goals and 5 assists in 20 starts = 60%

Lovenkrands 5 goals  and 1 assist in 10 starts = 60%

 

So therefore our other options are as good as or better than Carroll in 10 less games.

 

 

 

Deal with your paranoia.  Who did i also quote in that post?  and then think for a second.. who have i accused of that? for the last 4 pages.

[Guest firetotheworks]

No, what I'm saying is that goals don't tell the whole story, and even if you want them to then both Shola and Lovenkrands both have a better record.

[Jayson]

I dont think it makes sense to compare entire seasons worth of form for both young and old players.

 

Young players are learning the game as they go. Based on an entire seasons worth of form, Carroll wouldnt have just scored 5 in 6 but he did. Its not a useful argument.

[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!

 

 

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.

[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!

 

 

You have contradicted yourself so many times, which i have even pointed out on each occasion.  You don't actually have an argument.  You made a knee-jerk post, which you keep trying to defend.. which has been picked apart.

 

7 goals and 5 assists = 12 - right?  48/12 = 4 = 25%.  Simple math.  I'm out.   

 

 

tbf thats typical of you. One, I haven't and two you haven't pointed it out or proved it on any occasion.

 

If you're going to stat it up then

 

Ameobi 7 goals and 1 assist in 8 starts. =100%

Carroll 7 goals and 5 assists in 20 starts = 60%

Lovenkrands 5 goals  and 1 assist in 10 starts = 60%

 

So therefore our other options are as good as or better than Carroll in 10 less games.

 

 

 

Deal with your paranoia.

 

Nah, I'll deal with these facts cheers.