Liverpool Message Board
you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Loki Dave...u know Im no stats fan and with regard to goals scored in second half of season as opposed to first half...Ive mentioned this before....better u spread those goals scored out across the season than concentrate them into 15 games in the better half of our season. 5 v Norwich 4 v Sunderland right there that if spread about could account for seven more 1.0 wins and each of those is 3pts more...how many 1.0 wins have UniTURD ground out this season...thats why they are top and we are not.
OK right now Im deviating from the thread topic but have u read looks like Andy C is going to get a 2nd chance ? Evidently he and BR are due to meet and talk ,so probably when we play WHU this weekend..the conditions being that he submit to personal medical and fitness programme throughout the season and he resign himself to being an impact sub.One of the things I always noted about Andy was he covered a lot of ground in 90mins for me he had a very good work rate evidenced by all the times u would see him race back to defend corners and free kicks . Some on the board inc myself have been calling for the introduction of a hardman in the midfield someone who can be a ball winner and yet can attack the ball from set pieces either offensively or defensively....can anyone see Carrol given the role of "utility-player" in the midfield in a slightly advanced position, is it possible he could suit BR's play style if given such a role?Certainly he wouldnt be some big target man up front that was simply there to chase balls hoofed up the middle from deep defensive positions ? However even in such a utility role he could be in a sense that Plan B we have been missing all season ? Certainly we could look fw to reaping dividends from all the corners and free kicks we seem to be winning were Andy there to "put himself about" and create a bit of chaos in opposition defenses.
Colin, I take your point that it would have been better to spread those goals out over the entire season, and if we could have taken one or two of those goals scored against Norwich or Wigan and applied them elsewhere we would be in a much better position. But actually I think that is part of my point here.
If you look at the results first half versus second half we just were not finding the net in the first half as freely as we have in the second half. First half we were unable to score against WBA, Arsenal, and Stoke, and manage only one against the likes of Sunderland, Newcastle, Chelsea and Spurs, all resulting in draws or a loss. But second half only WBA were able to keep a clean sheet against us. Now that tells me something is going right, or progressing.
On the AC front I'm of two minds. I did always like him as a player and do agree he'd make a good impact player, but under BR's system not sure he would do much more than be an impact player. So the question for me is not just would we be better if AC came back, but what is the opportunity cost of him coming back. That is, how much would we get for him if we sold him, and how does that translate in terms of the player coming in those funds (plus Andy's wages) pay for.
Put this way, we don't know the budget, but if it came down keeping AC but having less to spend on a CB meaning we took Williams, versus selling AC and putting the raised money toward a bigger name CB, which would you go for?
- 1 Reply to dsteer_lfc_68
Dave the point I was making about Andy is that the lad is a pro and can and will adapt to any gameplan the coach requires him to adapt to...with the need for a hardman ball winner in the midfield why not consider Andy for a similar role but in a slightly advanced midfield role as I said he always covered a lot of ground and we would see the benefit of having him way back defending set pieces and way forward attacking set pieces as he put himself about in the box. I mean we paid 20 mill for Downing most everyone was saying lets get this guy down the road asap ...me included...then suddenly BR has requested him to play LEFT BACK ??, and...he did so and did so VERY well and I think this utility use of his talents fired his confidence and inspired him to be more of the type of player we thought we were getting when he was bought in. Why not look at alternative use for Andy rather than just consider him as a big target man in the middle up field that we just hoof high balls to...that seems just too simplistic and quite frankly a little stupid when u consider how he COULD be used by the coach. Also u mention his wages and how they would be saved but what do u think do u think anyone u buy in to replace Andy is going to be donating his services to the club gratuit ? Depends how much u think Andy would fetch in the transfer market and how much u think a suitable replacement would cost us but whoever u bring in u can bet hes going to want a similar salary to what Andy's is .
Yes hes been told that if he returns to the club end of season his future is as an impact sub but Im advocating here being more imaginative and just seing if he might fill a different role for us potentially as a starter ...I mean BR has the whole of the pre season training programme to try this and see if it would work well...whats to lose ?