Summer Transfer Thread: Speculation, Lies, Absolute Cr*p and Bosman Rumours

[Monty]

Andy Carroll would be a huge step back. People who bemoaned the boofy rubbish of last year are now proposing we sign a forward who has no uses other than being boofed to? We have to move on from this kind of retrogressive football. Lambert, according to El Ahmadi, is very Dutch and possession-exercise-based in training. We need more of that, and less hopeful long-ball smacking please. ONE out and out centre forward and no more would be a start - if we play two forwards, we need one who is going to come back and help out in midfield, not two who will be competing to see who can stand closest to the goal all the time.

[paul_e]

I don't normally disagree with you monty but On that 1 I'll have to.  It's very english to use a big striker as a target man but they aren't used that way in the rest of europe.  I'd hope we'd see him used much more like Bielsa uses Llorente at bilbao, one of the best sides to watch in spain last year.

I'm convinced we'll get a big guy up front, but with the purpose of having balls aimed at him from the wings, rather than balls aimed at him from his own half.

[Toronto Villa]

If we play hoofball to Carroll then it is a step backwards. If we play to win and he is an option providing us with versatility either as a lone forward or in combination with Bent then it is a big step forward. We're not going to turn into Spain and just because Rodgers wants shot of him doesn't say anything to me. I want to win games, and if we can knock it about when we need to or put good crosses in, high or low to players who can convert (from midfield and strikers) then really that's all I care about. Carroll has lost his way but if you look back at some of the goals he was scoring (see exhibit A - hattrick versus Aston Villa) he shows he can score in a number of different ways. I want us to be flexible and not be tied to one system or formation. Carroll could help offer us that.

[cdbearsfan]

Just because you have a target man, doesn't mean you have to play like Stoke. Did we not play some decent stuff when we won the European Cup?

[eastie]

Would be great if carroll and bent was our frontline , maybe a long shot but worth asking the question, for similar wages to heskey andy carroll woild be a huge improvement.

[Monty]

The comparison of Carroll with Llorente is almost certainly an inaccurate one. Llorente is technicaly excellent, his movement is top notch, and last season proved how good he is playing facing goal. Carroll is none of these things. If we were getting Dzeko or Adebayor (or, indeed, Llorente), it would be a different matter. Carroll is not those guys.

Also, the idea of just aiming a ball in constantly from the wings as a fundamental tactic is doomed to limitation. If you're playing a ball in, it has to be the best option available to you, or you're just wasting the ball. We saw what this looked like under MON, even with £200m behind it - the glass ceiling was, in fact, painfully visible. I don't care if a guy is big or small - only if he's good.

ToLambo, I understand the need for versatility but, fundamentally, playing a striker of this sort means we cannot play him and Bent and expect to be able to keep the ball. It is just that simple - two forwards, out-and-out, cannot be expected to do anything other than, at best, defend and counter. And there's having versatility between various options which work, and choosing between one good option and one worse option.

Just because you have a target man, doesn't mean you have to play like Stoke. Did we not play some decent stuff when we won the European Cup?

30 years ago. Football changes. If you want to play possession-based football these days you cannot play two out-and-out up front.

[Jimsta]

Don't understand why people think having a big striker up front means we going to play hoof football, When Dublin was here we played some good football it's all about mixing it up.

[Monty]

Don't understand why people think having a big striker up front means we going to play hoof football, When Dublin was here we played some good football it's all about mixing it up.

Again - the game changes and you cannot play two pure forwards and expect to keep the ball (I should say, without sacrificing something else - you could play a diamond in midfield, but then you're sacrificing width for the forwards and run the risk of becoming very narrow).

[old man villa fan]

I cannot see Bent and Carroll being able to play together.  Neither of them are particularly good on the ground with the ball.  With the two of them you would be almost committed to play 4-3-3, with the wide player being able to come inside as well.  4-4-2 with two wide players would leave them isolated up front, with a tendency to start playing the long ball.  Also, it leaves us open to being over run in the centre of the park.

The times of two big players hitting it off together are drifting off into the distant past.  The modern game is about playing football all over the pitch.

[Monty]

I cannot see Bent and Carroll being able to play together.  Neither of them are particularly good on the ground with the ball.  With the two of them you would be almost committed to play 4-3-3, with the wide player being able to come inside as well.  4-4-2 with two wide players would leave them isolated up front, with a tendency to start playing the long ball.  Also, it leaves us open to being over run in the centre of the park.

The times of two big players hitting it off together are drifting off into the distant past.  The modern game is about playing football all over the pitch.

100% agreement. You see the problem in such 4-4-2s straight away - two central midfield players with nobody to pass to, unable to make too much ground forward because of the danger of being overrun on the counter-attack. Two pure forwards now belongs to the counter-attacking mindset - the two midfielders can largely sit deep and will have two outballs, which is very useful. To be proactive in games, however, only one will really do in almost any system.

[villadelph]

I'd rather see Weimann shine than waste money on Carroll. If we get some sort of favorable deal that allows us to sign him up while 'The Mighty Reds YNWA' pay his wages, okay.. but I don't think he'd be successful at the Villa. Carroll is not dynamic enough and I feel that is the type of forward villa are in need of. I think we need to fill other positions and focus on defense before we bring in a player like Andy Carroll. I honestly just don't think he can hack it week in week out.

[cdbearsfan]

There are loads of teams who play two up front and still gain success without resorting to anti-football. Indeed, pretty much all the Stokey teams tend to play 4-5-1. I agree that just having wingers who cross the ball all game is limiting. So is the idea of having loads of teeny midfielders cutting through the middle of the opposition... unless you are lucky enough to have midfielders of the quality of Barcelona/Spain.

To be successful, we need to be able to have more than option for creating chances. We have been over-reliant on wingers but I'm not keen on disregarding them altogether.

I believe Bent works better as part of a front two. When he plays on his up front he ends up retreating too far and we limit the number of chances he's likely to get.

Bent and Carroll together would be a dream partnership, and I see no reason why it would herald a dark era in which Villa can only play hoofball. If there's any chance of us getting him, we should do everything we can to get him, whether it's a loan or a permanent deal.

[Monty]

CD, I agree that we can't disregard wide play - quite apart from their own merits, the presence of wingers can drag the oppo out of position and make space in the centre. But we can't do this AND play two pure strikers, it's just not possible. There isn't a midfield two in the world who could make that happen feasibly. The best system for this is a 4-3-3 cum* 4-2-3-1, where Bent has licence to make his excellent runs (which make space for him and team-mates), where we have at least one midfielder who can go forward from the centre and link the lines, and where we have wide players who can make an impact on the game. It seems so obviously preferable to two out-and-out strikers with a midfield two stranded between under-committing and over-committing, and our only attacking option being to knock it wide then knock it back in again.

*_Tee-hee.

[cdbearsfan]

Don't agree. There's no reason why you can't play 4-4-2, just because it's gone out of fashion a bit. I think a 4-3-3, or 4-2-3-1, would leave us way too exposed. Especially as we are likely to continue playing a number of youngsters in midfield. 4-4-2 gives us a better balance, in my book, and would make us more likely to score. Carroll would also give us a better option as a lone forward if we were holding on to a lead or if Bent gets injured.

[nigel]

If we do sign a big centre forward
WE WON'T BE PLAYING 'HOOFBALL' !!!
It's not Lamberts way, so stop worrying.