Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Andy Carroll, what does he do?


Code
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know, it's far more agricultural than that, you get to do all that by virtue of being tall. Talent rarely comes into it.

 

So your point is that Garcia's headers are technically better than Carroll. I don't really care for an argument on that point to be honest because it's not really that relevant to the point I am making about Carroll being an asset to a direct team and being "unplayable" by winning almost everything that gets thrown up to him.

 

It's nice to know that on the rare occasion that all the players who, by chance, are bigger than Garcia allow him to get a rare header in he will do well with it. It's not quite as handy an asset as knowing that every single long pass you launch in Carroll's direction he will either win it or cause a dangerous second ball and will probably drag two players over to him to try and stop him winning it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what I've been trying to say. Carroll gets his head on balls because he's tall, but this idea he's some brilliant player with his head is absurd. As an attacker who want billeting headers at goal for fun and scoring loads of them, he's bang average.

You could stick Robert Wadlow in the team and he'll win every header, but if the ball goes no where good, then I'll be sayng he's not very good either.

Repped forr Robert Wadlow reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keegan and David Speedie are two short arses who were great headers of the ball, I'm sure there are loads more. I take Stus' point with regard to the difference he's pointing out. Carrol is a big threat with direct football for the reasons he states, bit of a moot point though cos he's never ever fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought Carroll was a great header of the ball, but only from a very specific angle.

 

Most players get much better power if the wide player gets to the byline and then cuts it back, or at least gets level with them and then crosses it in.  That allows them to put the ball back in the direction it came from and guide it - Luis Garcia who is being mentioned here was very good at this.

 

Carroll, however, is good at heading diagonal balls.  He is actually quite poor at getting power and accuracy on a cross that comes from near the byline, but I've never seen anyone who came close to him at accuracy for glancing headers (and the ability to win them, as well).  It allows you to cross from much deeper on the pitch, and makes him incredibly dangerous in that one specific instance.  

 

Most of the time a fullback is taught to keep the opposing winger in front of him and not let the cross in, but if he can cross from 20 yards off the byline and it be dangerous that's almost impossible to defend against.  No fullback in the world can shut down crosses that are that far up the pitch - it's not really his job and it's almost impossible to do.  Usually, though, crosses from that position aren't a threat.  It's just that Andy Carroll has a specific talent that makes them a threat, and that makes him hard to defend against.

 

The problem with Carroll is that the rest of his game is very average.  He has this one unique talent that blinds managers and scouts because they think "Ooh, what could we do if we could start producing dangerous crosses from deep - we could completely pull the defense apart!" and forget that 1)he'll spend 2/3 of his time on the training table and 2)he's rubbish at everything else, meaning whatever advantage you get from that is completely wiped out by his deficiencies in other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Carroll is out for the season then that will be a total of 54 games in all competitions over 3 seasons.

 

In fees and wages he has cost West Ham around £30 million. That's hardly great value for 18 games a year. 

 

Not sure where £30m comes from? I get it to a £15m fee, a loan fee and £4m a year in wages for two seasons? I'd hardly say they've been ripped off either. They've probably still got an asset of around the £10m mark, so they've lost £8m in wages (dependent on how much he gets paid whilst injured and their insurance) and £5m in depreciation/amortisation over two seasons. During which they've stayed in the Premier League, of which Carroll has been a decent part of those efforts, and finished a fair few places above where they might have been expected to (at nearly £1m a position).

 

Even knowing I was only going to get the games out of him that they have I'd still sign off on that transfer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where £30m comes from? I get it to a £15m fee, a loan fee and £4m a year in wages for two seasons? I'd hardly say they've been ripped off either. They've probably still got an asset of around the £10m mark, so they've lost £8m in wages (dependent on how much he gets paid whilst injured and their insurance) and £5m in depreciation/amortisation over two seasons. During which they've stayed in the Premier League, of which Carroll has been a decent part of those efforts, and finished a fair few places above where they might have been expected to (at nearly £1m a position).

 

Even knowing I was only going to get the games out of him that they have I'd still sign off on that transfer.

Yeah who wouldn't spend the best part of 25 million on an unreliable, out of shape, inconsistent, rarely fit footballer with limited ability who doesn't score much..

 

Teams are just queuing up for those kind of attributes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah who wouldn't spend the best part of 25 million on an unreliable, out of shape, inconsistent, rarely fit footballer with limited ability who doesn't score much..

 

Teams are just queuing up for those kind of attributes.

 

Statistically, they are actually, football is littered with them and they still get moves. Not that it matters a jot to my assessment.

 

A team who, despite his availability, he's still second top scorer for in mid February probably think he's doing something useful for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 23/09/2011 at 23:22, andrejwout said:

first off, he must remove the very gay pony tail. I feel that tail-less he would be a better footballer. Not a very technical comment, but i feel it has merit

 

On 24/09/2011 at 01:50, andrejwout said:

i do plymouth

 

On 27/11/2011 at 22:21, Guest LFD said:

My initial fears and concerns have proved right, thus far.

 

Will all the people who negged me then for starting a topic stating my fears about him return me with reps? Probably not.

 

On 30/11/2011 at 21:59, Guest LFD said:

Is he still living with Nolans mum?

A great thread, in full.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...