Andy Carroll
Moderator: Gnome
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
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.DDHammer wrote:Carroll last 10 years Prem goals:
06/07 - 0
07/08 - 0
08/09 - 3
09/10 - Championship
10/11 - 13
11/12 - 4
12/13 - 7
13/14 - 2
14/15 - 5
15/16 - 9
16/17 - 7
Dreadful return.
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.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:05 pm
Re: Andy Carroll
Bellamy, Ashton, Cole, Zamora.
Makes you wonder how we could now have the trainwreck of a striker situation in comparison despite playing in a ground twice as big.
Only Westham
Makes you wonder how we could now have the trainwreck of a striker situation in comparison despite playing in a ground twice as big.
Only Westham
- Ozza
- Posts: 28289
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: Here, there, every f****** where
- Has liked: 943 likes
- Total likes: 2392 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
Trust me it certainly DOES NOT affect our chance to sign a quality striker, what a ridiculous thing to sayIfebbubbles wrote:Makes no odds anyway. The fact of the matter is, no other team in the prem will pay him anywhere close to 75 grand. So its irrelevant. The sad part is that it affects our ability to fund a quality striker who can play/score regularly in his absence.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:05 pm
Re: Andy Carroll
The last 3 transfer windows says differently.Ozza wrote:
Trust me it certainly DOES NOT affect our chance to sign a quality striker, what a ridiculous thing to say
Show me evidence supporting your argument.
Re: Andy Carroll
His minutes per goal is good for us, but for a striker so highly regarded to not hit double figures in over 6 years is a dreadful return for me.
He hasn't scored a cup goal in 6 years either.
He hasn't scored a cup goal in 6 years either.
- Jumby
- Posts: 12066
- Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:53 pm
- Location: Sparring with Michail Antonio
- Has liked: 17 likes
- Total likes: 36 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
As injury prone a quartet as you're likely to find during their time with us, there was a period where three of those were on our books at the same time, never all fully fit at the same time.Ifebbubbles wrote:Bellamy, Ashton, Cole, Zamora.
- Ozza
- Posts: 28289
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: Here, there, every f****** where
- Has liked: 943 likes
- Total likes: 2392 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
Behave life, do you think our owners would be raising their skirts at the likes of batshit etc last summer if there was a problem, what were we going to pay them, peanuts?
"show me facts" give it a rest,
"show me facts" give it a rest,
- Turns to Stone
- Posts: 15529
- Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am
- Location: Tony Almeida
- Has liked: 234 likes
- Total likes: 1520 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
I don't think it does. No more that the fact that we also pay Adrian's wages (whilst it appears that he is unpickable for whatever reason) or Sakho's wages (who refuses to play for us).Ifebbubbles wrote:Makes no odds anyway. The fact of the matter is, no other team in the prem will pay him anywhere close to 75 grand. So its irrelevant. The sad part is that it affects our ability to fund a quality striker who can play/score regularly in his absence.
Andy Carroll's wages have nothing to do with this. If we don't have the budget for another striker, then we probably shouldn't have signed Snodgrass. Again, this is not Andy Carroll's fault. And frankly he's someone who has always given his all for West Ham and I think is actually worth his wages....as opposed to someone like say Sakho or Arbeloa.
-
- Posts: 1360
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 7:05 pm
Re: Andy Carroll
I suppose you also believe we were going to sign Neymar?Ozza wrote:Behave life, do you think our owners would be raising their skirts at the likes of batshit etc last summer if there was a problem, what were we going to pay them, peanuts?
"show me facts" give it a rest,
- Ozza
- Posts: 28289
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 4:41 pm
- Location: Here, there, every f****** where
- Has liked: 943 likes
- Total likes: 2392 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
Wages aint the problem about our signings, otherwise we wouldnt have paid Fonte and Snodgrass kings wages, or Zaza or given le sulk a nice rise.
typical lob some **** at Carroll as it all his fault mentality, pathetic
typical lob some **** at Carroll as it all his fault mentality, pathetic
-
- Posts: 26538
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 144 likes
- Total likes: 2406 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
The trouble with keeping Carroll as Plan A is that whoever is 'back-up' needs to be a similar style of player and there are not many of them about
No point having a Carroll and a Defoe type and then rotating them or whatever, as both would dictate our style of play differently and there would be no consistency
If the club still see Ccarroll as the main man, then you need buy another Gestede or a Llorente etc to compete with him
Personally would prefer a different type of striker leading the line at West Ham so if we can off load then that would be ideal, not so much in terms of the monetary savings, more we can then build a consistent style of play and squad to suit a striker who is more likely to play 30+ games
No point having a Carroll and a Defoe type and then rotating them or whatever, as both would dictate our style of play differently and there would be no consistency
If the club still see Ccarroll as the main man, then you need buy another Gestede or a Llorente etc to compete with him
Personally would prefer a different type of striker leading the line at West Ham so if we can off load then that would be ideal, not so much in terms of the monetary savings, more we can then build a consistent style of play and squad to suit a striker who is more likely to play 30+ games
-
- Posts: 9590
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 4:03 pm
- Has liked: 383 likes
- Total likes: 1415 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
The most frustrating thing about Carroll is that if he could stay fit and play every game in a season, he'd easily be a 15-20 league goal a season striker over the last three years:
16/17: 7 goals in 1314 minutes converts to 16 goals in 2970 minutes
15/16: 9 goals in 1431 minutes converts to 21 goals in 3420 minutes
14/15: 5 goals in 1026 minutes converts to 17 goals in 3420 minutes
Much as he might be a slight financial issue for the club, I'd sure hate to see us lining up against him.
16/17: 7 goals in 1314 minutes converts to 16 goals in 2970 minutes
15/16: 9 goals in 1431 minutes converts to 21 goals in 3420 minutes
14/15: 5 goals in 1026 minutes converts to 17 goals in 3420 minutes
Much as he might be a slight financial issue for the club, I'd sure hate to see us lining up against him.
- Cockneyboy311
- Posts: 11514
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:23 pm
- Location: Fascination Street
- Has liked: 540 likes
- Total likes: 424 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
Ive said this quite a few times but i'll say it again. Carroll should not be our No1 striker purely because he cant keep fit for long enough. We should get somebody in to be that man and then we can use him sparingly, which hopefully in turn will mean he actually gets through a whole season or at least most of it without breaking down.
new striker
Carroll
Sakho/new striker
Fletcher
I'd love Incheceo or whatever is name is from Man City, even if it was just a seasons loan. I wouldnt mind Son from Spurs either although i think that might also be wishful thinking. Then either sort out Sakho or get rid and replace him. Fletcher is perfectly suitable as a fourth striker. I actually feel sorry for him that Calleri has been given more game time.
new striker
Carroll
Sakho/new striker
Fletcher
I'd love Incheceo or whatever is name is from Man City, even if it was just a seasons loan. I wouldnt mind Son from Spurs either although i think that might also be wishful thinking. Then either sort out Sakho or get rid and replace him. Fletcher is perfectly suitable as a fourth striker. I actually feel sorry for him that Calleri has been given more game time.
- the celestial insect
- Posts: 4941
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 10:06 am
- Location: working on a sex farm
Re: Andy Carroll
Sometimes I wonder whether the Carroll signing, and what happened since, was the tipping point that made the board revert to type with their signings.
- Beavis Danzig
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:12 pm
- Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 782 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
none of the strikers slav wanted in the summer were anything like carroll and the one big number 9 who was available he by all accounts wasn't interested in.Crouchend_Hammer wrote:Personally would prefer a different type of striker leading the line at West Ham so if we can off load then that would be ideal, not so much in terms of the monetary savings, more we can then build a consistent style of play and squad to suit a striker who is more likely to play 30+ games
he's had to make do, but slav having to set up his team week in week out with a big target man because he doesn't have anyone who can run in behind is like like fat sam being forced to play a false 9 who can't head a ball all season.
-
- Posts: 26538
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 144 likes
- Total likes: 2406 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
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?
What is the point of keeping Carroll (as first choice), if Bilic doesn't really want to play with that type of striker?
- kitthehammer
- Posts: 12351
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 1:11 am
- Location: way out west in Egham
- Has liked: 74 likes
- Total likes: 302 likes
Re: Andy Carroll
Difference being, Cole was on about a third of the salarySimilar 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.