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

[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.

[Groo]

 

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

 

 

I'll be interested to see how this shit defender does against Rooney when he's playing for his Country in the next European Championship qualifiers.

[Guest firetotheworks]

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.

 

It is when football is based on results and not grooming. I'm all for bringing players through, but not when we're playing like shit and desperately need more than one dimension to the way we play.

[dcmk]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not fucking shit'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

[Amir_9]

 

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

 

 

I'll be interested to see how this s*** defender does against Rooney when he's playing for his Country in the next European Championship qualifiers.

 

Im talking about defenders in this league in general, all bulk, no skill or technique.

[Kaizero]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not fucking shit'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: fuck me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. Fucking hell, fuck me :lol: :spit:

 

You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. Fucking hell, fucking hell. :lol:   

[Kaizero]

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.

 

It is when football is based on results and not grooming. I'm all for bringing players through, but not when we're playing like shit and desperately need more than one dimension to the way we play.

 

Carroll is already 21, while he can still improve (and by all means prove me wrong) I don't think he'll ever make it on the top level and he's close to his peak of ability as he's been looking rather the same skill wise ever since he debuted for the first team, he feels like a tall Chopra to me for some reason. I'd rather we were grooming Ranger if we were to be grooming a "youngster", which I don't think we should as we need to get back up this season.

[Mistle17]

Obviously I want us to get promoted- I'll be devastated if we don't- but after watching today it makes me feel sick thinking what could happen to us if we don't heavily invest in our team.

 

Our defence could probably just about hold their own (Simpson, Talys, Colo, Jose), but our midfield will just get dicked all over. And with Hughton as manager it doesn't bode well. I really fear for us next season (should we go up).

[Guest firetotheworks]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

So your argument for Carroll is thinking someone else is wrong because of statistics? And yet using stats Carroll is the least effective striker from Shola, and Lovenkrands? Doesn't that make you exactly wrong?

[Amir_9]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit:

 

You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. f***ing hell, f***ing hell. :lol:   

 

To be fair, statistics will get you nowhere, goals will, Carroll has been scoring recently, and no matter how s*** he played today, he scored and got us a point, which means he is most likely going to start against Coventry. Its all about recent form, not form over a season for me, Unless we have a really prolific striker who is consistently scoring over the length of this season, which we dont, because all of our strikers this season had a run of good scoring form, and shite patches of form, which is the main reason we dont have an established 2 striker partnership week in week out, you can never tell who is going to start in terms of strikers this season.

[dcmk]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit:

 

Good, top man.

 

And i will keep laughing at how a player who 'offers nothing' (defended this for 2 hours) and then say he contributes 25% of our goals all season.    I'm sure you never meant it and 'you wrote wrong' You have already changed your opinion twice.  Why not go for more?

 

I'm out.  You can have the last word

[LoveItIfWeBeatU]

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

We are awful to watch the majority of the time. I thought getting relegated might mean we'd be better to watch against less skilled opponents but no. We had 1 shot on target for the whole game wasn't it? Sky named us 'The Entertainers' under Keegan in the 90's. How about 'The Un-Entertainers', 'The Turgids' or 'The Diabolicals' for this current team?

 

Having said all that, I'm glad we got a point because playing that badly and getting a point is some achievement. I got the distinct impression that if they hadn't scored there's no way we would have tried to.

[Kaizero]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit:

 

Good, top man.

 

And i will keep laughing at how a player who 'offers nothing' (defended this for 2 hours) and then say he contributes 25% of our goals all season.    I'm sure you never meant it and 'you wrote wrong' You have already changed your opinion twice.  Why not go for more?

 

I'm out.  You can have the last word

 

:lol:

 

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

[Guest firetotheworks]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit:

 

You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. f***ing hell, f***ing hell. :lol:   

 

To be fair, statistics will get you nowhere, goals will, Carroll has been scoring recently, and no matter how s*** he played today, he scored and got us a point, which means he is most likely going to start against Coventry. Its all about recent form, not form over a season for me, Unless we have a really prolific striker who is consistently scoring over the length of this season, which we dont, because all of our strikers this season had a run of good scoring form, and s**** patches of form, which is the main reason we dont have an established 2 striker partnership week in week out, you can never tell who is going to start in terms of strikers this season.

 

Good post, I agree. The problem lies in the fact that Carroll has started when he wasn't in form, just as Nolan is.

[Mistle17]

fuckin s**** 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

We are awful to watch the majority of the time. I thought getting relegated might mean we'd be better to watch against less skilled opponents but no. We had 1 shot on target for the whole game wasn't it? Sky named us 'The Entertainers' under Keegan in the 90's. How about 'The Un-Entertainers', 'The Turgids' or 'The Diabolicals' for this current team?

 

Having said all that, I'm glad we got a point because playing that badly and getting a point is some achievement. I got the distinct impression that if they hadn't scored there's no way we would have tried to.

 

I like that.

[Jill]

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

We are awful to watch the majority of the time. I thought getting relegated might mean we'd be better to watch against less skilled opponents but no. We had 1 shot on target for the whole game wasn't it? Sky named us 'The Entertainers' under Keegan in the 90's. How about 'The Un-Entertainers', 'The Turgids' or 'The Diabolicals' for this current team?

 

[Kaizero]

f*** 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.

 

You mean my side of the argument that Carroll is 'not f***ing s***'? in fine form - 5 in 6?  Mm that was my argument. 

Also by deconstructing all your posts to prove how ridiculous your claims are.. yea your guessed it that was also to benefit my argument. 

 

Keep telling yourself that :lol: f*** me man, I'm actually laughing out loud at that post. f***ing hell, f*** me :lol: :spit:

 

You never had an argument man, and my posts were rooted in facts. f***ing hell, f***ing hell. :lol:   

 

To be fair, statistics will get you nowhere, goals will, Carroll has been scoring recently, and no matter how s*** he played today, he scored and got us a point, which means he is most likely going to start against Coventry. Its all about recent form, not form over a season for me, Unless we have a really prolific striker who is consistently scoring over the length of this season, which we dont, because all of our strikers this season had a run of good scoring form, and s**** patches of form, which is the main reason we dont have an established 2 striker partnership week in week out, you can never tell who is going to start in terms of strikers this season.

 

Good post, I agree. The problem lies in the fact that Carroll has started when he wasn't in form, just as Nolan is.

 

[Joe_F]

Carroll isn't the main problem FFS. We could have any one of our strikers up front and they'd struggle.

 

Centre mid consisting of any combination of Nolan, Smith and Guthrie is piss poor, slow as fuck and clueless.

[ChrisMcQuillan]

Carroll isn't the main problem FFS. We could have any one of our strikers up front and they'd struggle.

 

Centre mid consisting of any combination of Nolan, Smith and Guthrie is piss poor, slow as f*** and clueless.

 

Curious that Nolan/Guthrie dominated Cardiff, yet throw Smith in behind them and it falls to shit.