Andy Carroll

Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.

Moderators: bristolhammerfc, sicknote, -DL-, Rio, Gnome, chalks, the pink palermo

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby kitthehammer on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:12 pm

Similar to Carlton Cole....who was also a striker we relied upon and never really bothered buying any support for. As I've said many times, the last time we had a group of strikers capable of coping with the rigours of a Premier League season was Bellamy, Ashton, Zamora and Cole. As you can see, that included a couple of sicknotes, but it didn't matter because we had good enough support. We then ended up keeping the 4th choice of those as our main striker for the next 5 years.

We now have one Premier League standard striker who's only capable of around 15 - 20 starts per season, we have one Premier League standard striker who has the hump and refuses to play for us and we have 3 youngsters who may or may not be up to it.

That's not Andy Carroll's fault. Just as it wasn't Carlton Cole's fault that he was the only striker we had for 3 years.

Difference being, Cole was on about a third of the salary
User avatar
kitthehammer
 
Posts: 9830
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 2:11 am
Location: way out west in Egham

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby Ozza on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:15 pm

I really don't get this salary noise, hardly the blokes issue what he gets paid and it's not as if he's gone on strike, or doesn't give a **** when he does play, it's all very bizarre
User avatar
Ozza
 
Posts: 11926
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Stringfellows

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby HammerAl on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:29 pm

Love Big AC and when he's on form I think he's unplayable. Having said that, his body just isn't up to the rigours of PL football, especially as a starter. A signing like Sakho (but an upgrade on him) so we can play on the counter and stretch the opposition's defence would be perfect for us, with AC coming off the bench if and when we need him. He could be so useful whether we're chasing or defending a win, throwing balls into the box or defending corners. If he's happy to be that player then for me it's a no-brainer to keep him.

A problem with hitmen strikers is that they could be fantastic for one team and not so for another, the same with scoring loads of goals one season and none the next - it all depends on how the team is set up and whether they play to their strengths. Last season we played our best football with Sakho / Valencia playing up top and counter attacking, but we can't play that game with AC.
HammerAl
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 1:30 pm

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby TheHandOfDog on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:32 pm

I'd sell Carroll as fast as I could If I was in charge if he is to be our first choice striker. He should be a super sub at best. Make no mistake, when we were amazing last year against teams away from home, Carroll didn't feature in them games on the whole. Arsenal away, City away, Liverpool away. Those are the games that I watched when I realised what our team could have been capable of. We were amazing in those games especially due to having a striker like Sakho who gives defenders a much harder time. Keep Carroll as a backup if we must but even then, he is just injured way too much and we need someone with his wages to be available a lot more.
User avatar
TheHandOfDog
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:08 pm

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby HoustonHammer24 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:55 pm

Agree with Cockneyboy above. I keep saying that Andy Carroll would easily be the best plan B in the country. Given his injury record, I believe that he would be okay with coming off the bench or occasionally starting some games in the cup, a few league games, etc. We need to bring in strikers to take the burden off him, both physically and psychologically.

Get rid of Sakho and Calleri, bring in players similar to Batshuayi and Defoe. Batshuayi will be the starting striker, potentially alongside Defoe. Carroll to come off the bench for 30-45 mins per match.

Strikers: Batshuayi, Defoe, Carroll, possibly Ayew, Martinez, Fletcher.
HoustonHammer24
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:20 pm

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby Turns to Stone on Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:06 pm

Crouchend_Hammer wrote:Yes, which is my point
What is the point of keeping Carroll (as first choice), if Bilic doesn't really want to play with that type of striker?


I agree Crouch, but I think I'd want to keep him anyway, we just ned two options of different sorts of players. There has obviously been a lot of talk abotu Defoe coming (which I would be very happy with), but we do also need to bring in a striker of the sort that Bilic seems to be looking for. I'd like to see Carroll as an option for certain games though and off the bench. I personally think that if we get the right players playing off/behind him, then we wouldn't need to change the focus too much game to game.

And I think he could a smiliar job to someone like Llorente at Swansea with quick players getting beyond him.

The bottom line is though that West Ham should be playing at least 40 - 45 games per season. We need 3 strikers to be able to cope with that and I think all of them should be of a high level. If Carroll can play for 10 - 15 of those and be a supersub in others, then I think he is worth his salary, especially over the last 4 or 5 years.

Let's be honest, he's earning less that Keiron Dyer was and he's already played 40 more games for us than Kieron managed.

This has to be about squad balance, and for me, I would rather have expensive players available to come in and do a job up front for us, and utilise some of our younger players such as Burke, Oxford and Fernandes to cover other positions in order to maintain budget management.
User avatar
Turns to Stone
 
Posts: 7702
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Tony Almeida

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby iLoveLasagne on Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:02 pm

I'd have preferred Crouch to AC over the years IF it meant the savings on wages could have gone into acquiring an additional striker. Plus Crouch's adaptability i.e better technical ability, would have been a plus point no doubt. All that dough for a handful of good performances a year is a bad return. Funny how the board love getting value yet in splashing out on AC we did the opposite. I am sure there are many similar players who could have done the same job with less injuries. But I do wonder if anyone would have made a serious bid which AC himself would have gone for over the years anyway considering his injury record. China may be interested but would he go? Ain't gonna find many good pubs and lad banter out there.
User avatar
iLoveLasagne
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby warp on Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:13 pm

Ozza wrote:I really don't get this salary noise, hardly the blokes issue what he gets paid and it's not as if he's gone on strike, or doesn't give a **** when he does play, it's all very bizarre

an issue may be a player of similar ability and better fitness asking for double the wage :D
User avatar
warp
 
Posts: 10831
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:13 am
Location: I am everything about this site which is wrong... i don't give a toss about WHUFC.

Re: Andy Carroll

Postby thejackhammer on Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:27 pm

Bilic has always maintained it is important to have Carroll on the pitch at the end of the game, both defensively and against tired defences.

If i were the owners I would get Defoe on a free, and a young high profile younger striker as a loan with a view to buy. Iheanacho, Batshuayi, Tammy Abraham, or depending if Mourinho has his Matic, Lukaku, De Bruyne goggles on then Rashford.

That would give us three top strikers, the ability to rotate, and instantly change games when we're chasing a game or looking to close or finish a game off.
User avatar
thejackhammer
 
Posts: 5516
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 11:49 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests