Did'nt Kevin Ratcliffe have a pay as you play deal with Cardiff back in the 92-93 season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
Printable View
Did'nt Kevin Ratcliffe have a pay as you play deal with Cardiff back in the 92-93 season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
No, we do not want a huge centre forward that would encourage us to lump balls forward. A Chopra style forward would be good.
it's sometimes good to have the option on the bench in case plan a isn't workingQuote:
Originally Posted by DubaiDai
There’s more to his game than just lumping it forwardQuote:
Originally Posted by DubaiDai
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XF6ku78t3JU
99% of the time it only exists in the imagination of football message board people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuerto
what footballer would agree to potentially no pay if they had offers elsewhere?
I can remember Andy Carroll himself , at Newcastle had a contract that was publicly described as "pay as you play" , but it was still 20k a week basic pay, but with massive appearance bonuses (35k If a sub and 70k if starting).
Exactly. He’s got far better technique and ability than any striker we have now, or have had probably since Bothroyd.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUETIT
However the bigger problem is his injury record and it seems he’s not coming any way.
If Carroll arrives hoofball will probably return. Not for me.
Can't believe some are saying no to Andy Carroll, a former £35m footballer with England goals to his name, who played well for Reading and West Brom last season. Mental. If he comes to us on wages similar to what he was on at Reading, ie considerably less than what Max Watters and Mark Harris are paid, it is an absolute no-brainer, as he is better than those pair will ever be put together.
Yes he's been injury-prone, no he's not getting any younger, but bloody hell, beggars really can't be choosers.
I'd have no problem with him. He'd only need to play 15mins a game for us. He doesn't need to start. With 5 subs it's a different issue these days too. Just bringing him on would scare the defence which we're not going to do at the moment. It'd be good for the squad and the younger players too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
Completely agree. :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew
He hasn't played more than 19 league games in a season for the last SIX years and in that time only scored 16 league goals. Cant understand why anyone would want to sign that, particularly as we are now trying to play a type of football that just wouldn't suit him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
We've had a Reading fan in this thread saying, and I quote, that Carroll was terrific for them, got stuck in, was hard working, with a great attitude, proved he was fit enough to play and had no injuries whilst with them. Are we sure he wouldn't fit our style of play? It certainly seems like he'd work harder than Watters did on Saturday, and there's no doubting his technical ability is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
He was a £35M footballer almost 12 years ago. At the time the fee was seen as courageous and the move was a bust. He scored 11 goals for Liverpool in 3 seasons. He's scored 6 goals in the last 3 seasons. No thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
And how did Reading do last season?Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
Carroll doesn't have much technical ability - he's more of a battering ram and his style of play probably explains why he is injured so much. He must be better than Watters who, let's face it looks soft, is bullied by opposing defenders and looks out of his depth. Even Harris, when he came on, posed more of a threat by occupying the opposition's defenders and that says something as I'm not a fan of his either. If Carroll is the best we can get then so be it but that's a potential signing that doesn't excite me in the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
Finished just below us having scored 4 goals more than us :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
All this Watters ‘bashing’ is ridiculous. He is a young player with limited Championship experience so far, who is a totally different type of player to people like Keiffer Moore or Andy Carroll. He is mobile and can finish and has potential. He also worked extremely hard on Saturday, so I am not sure what game you were watching. Due to our shortage of forwards at the moment he is being asked to play a different role which he is not totally suited to but with another player up front along side him would flourish in my opinion. How you can say Andy Carroll was terrific last season for Reading is beyond me - they nearly got relegated, he only played 8 times and scored twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
Five of those were scored last season in the Championship. More than Harris and Watters combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
Yes please if on reasonable wages.
Undoubtedly we are looking to play more but we shouldn't get carried away we aren't exactly peak Barca or Swansea. I'm sure Andy Carroll is more than capable of playing any system we will adopt.
Not relevant. He was only with us a short time and scored a crucial winner against Swansea, scored another elsewhere, had two worldies disallowed, held the ball up really well, defended well and worked his arse off. I would gladly take him back and we didn’t play long ball with him in the side. He was a cut above.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
I seriously beg to differ. Technically Carroll is excellent.I was against him signing for us and completely changed my opinion of him by the time he left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vindec
If Carroll does come here then I will support him and clap him on and off the pitch as usual but I was just hoping that we would get someone rather different/better to play with players such as Watters and bring them on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey3
the occasional signing like this is fine tbh.
as long as we aren't relying on him to play 30+ matches and aren't paying him a king's ransom.
the problem comes when too many of our players are of that kind of age profile, then you get into problems where half the squad suddenly declines rapidly. as it is, we have enough younger / pre peak age players to be able to tolerate one or two like this
I still don't think he's the kind of signing we should be making right now unless we're desperate, but he did "score" these 2 last season https://youtu.be/8v6KGSJzb-I
Exactly. I do think the game has moved on with 5 subs too. I think it will prolong the playing time of players (Bale) and management strategy comes into play. We all know how bad we were with our contracts and wages. Sometimes I think there's ageism too, which is strange considering players should be playing longer and be fitter than ever before. As always, it'll be a gamble but as long as a player has a good ROI and we're not reliant then older players have got a part to play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
I didn't say he was terrific- an actual Reading fan did. Not convinced he will be terrific, but he'll certainly be better than what we've got and be a handful for defences if nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by dml1954
I must have watched a different game to you, as Watters for me was completely anonymous until about 5 minutes before he went off. That being said, it was not a game which lent itself well to the strikers of either side.
I would take Pearcey's assessment over most others on here. At least he has watched him recently, and more than just a few highlights clips on Quest.
If Carroll was available on the same basis (fitness, pay etc) as for Reading last season it would be madness not to take him. With five subs having the skill, experience and presence of Andy Carroll as a second half impact sub would be excellent. If on the same limited pay as at Reading it shouldn't block the signing of two other strikers either - the plan for one on a fee and one on loan as confirmed by Mehmet Dalman.
But it's all pointless speculation isn't it? Nathan Blake was probably foolish to do his ITK 'reveal' after the Norwich match and is probably embarrassed now. The club and Carroll's agent (or 'sources close to him') have denied the story.
We lost that won 7-0. We left at 4-0. I was out of my seat when he “scored” those two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
I absolutely love that second "goal"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearcey3
No chance, Cariff pub team is is level, he wouldn't even get in Cardiff Ladies if he had a sex change.Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Oddie
scored more championship goals than Watters or Harris last seasonQuote:
Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue
They weren't playing and are crap ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
We want a striker not an ex lunatic injury prone waste of wages, we've had quite a few of them already ?
3 in 15 for WBA is still rubbish!
So we should sign him?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
That would depend on a lot of factors including wages, length and terms of contract and, perhaps most importantly, whether or not there are other signings that are genuinely in the pipeline.Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCBlue
Personally, I'll be amazed if either Watters or Harris ever prove to be good enough for this division. Their Championship stats are:
Harris - 24 (+29) appearances, 6 goals
Watters - 7 (+5) appearances, 1 goal
Carroll's Championship stats last season were:
17 (+6) appearances, 5 goals
And we know he's far more of a handful for defenders than either Watters or Harris. The former looked like a fish out of water on Saturday. Frankly, he was effectively useless. Is he likely to improve significantly on what we've seen from him so far? It would be good if he could, but I doubt it.
Carroll can play, he's got a great touch.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
The unfortunate truth that a lot of City fans seem loathed to admit; well put TLG.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
I've read this thread and not sure anyone sensible is advocating Harris and Watters as the answer or saying they are better than Carroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin'sReversibleHat
How anyone can write off and insult a young player after only 7 (+5) Championship appearances is beyond me. Plus the whole team deserve praise for the performance last Saturday, including Watters. They all put in a shift and neutralised a midfield and attack that is supposed to be the best in the Championship. Watters had little or no service up front anyway but thats hardly surprising bearing in mind the amount of work the whole team had to do to control what Norwich did. But what do we get - the usual suspects nit picking, moaning, insulting and making out they know better than the manager and other staff. We won the game when most people said we would lose heavily.
I note that Watters was hooked after just 52 minutes yesterday. It was 60 minutes last week. Don’t anyone dare suggest he’s not good enough, though.
It appears to be be he is now the latest scapegoat. In all fairness to the guy Harry Houdini could be up front and not do any better, service and support to whoever is supposed to be leading the line is pretty abysmal.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Watters up front,Nelson in defence, they are the targets.