Liverpool FC Forum

by **76-1115222408** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:56 pm

I think the signing of Peter Crouch has turned out to be quite ironic, for two reasons.

The first and IMO, the more important of the two is to do with 'away' games in the Premier League.
Now I was under the impression and I assume the majority of you here were also under the same illusion, that one of the MAIN reasons that we bought Peter Crouch, was for those hard away games that we struggled so much in last season.

Now for starters, he DIDNT start yesterday in a game I was sure was the EXACT type of game he was bought for, I had expected it to be Crouch/Cisse up front, but as we all know it was Morientes that got the nod.
So I just find it funny, that one of the apparent reasons he was signed (away games!) and he didnt play, and then when he does come on, we take off one of the only players that was really getting into positions to cross the ball for Crouch (apart from Cisse) and that was Kewell.
Now I was at the game yesterday, and before he cameon, we were getting wide, mainly with Cisse but at times with Kewell too, and they were providing the type of service you would hope Crouch was love to get on the end of, then when he comes on, instead of doing the same things, we end up just pumping long balls into him.

Now dont get me wrong, I understand the concept of the long ball and Crouch knocking it down for runners etc; but its just that if we had kept getting crosses in, then he might have actually been able to use his head to score,instead of just knocking it down or on for runners!
I mean, was he really brought on to score, or was he brought on JUST to knock the ball down and change our style of play a bit?
I mean surely, he needs to bring a scoring threat to the team too, considering he was brought on as a sub, when we were behind and chasing an equaliser?

The second reason is sort of linked to the first.
Personally, I have seen Peter do his best work for us, when we have been playing Europe. His touch has looked even better, considering it is decent already, that is great (for us).
Also, he has looked more like getting a goal, and has also created a lot more problems for the defenders in Europe, than he has back home!
Now, I know what the reasons are for this (slower pace in CL etc;) but I am not concerned with that, because after all, it is is good for Crouch and the team as a whole if he is doing well in Europe, that is all well and good.

But this is what I feel is ironic, that we seemingly bought this guy, at a reasonable outlay of dosh too I may add, to help us perform better in the league, and more specifically,those chilly December nights in Sunderland or wherever, and people like Garcia (better in Europe!) could maybe be rested, as they may not perform as they do in Europe in such games (that in itself is another issue altogether).

Yet, not only did he not play yesterday (away game) but he has done his best work in Europe, and thus really, has not justified his signing, because its not as if we are struggling in Europe at the moment is it?

So as I say, I just have found the whole signing quite ironic in the end (well up to now), and wondered if anyone else had the same feeling about things?

Now this is not a dig at Crouch, or even at Rafa (for buying him), and hope it is not seen as such, though I expect people may be swayed in any replies by their like, or dislike of Mr. Crouch.

YNWA

by **Espionage** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:46 am

I agree with basically everything that you have said, quite an insightful post...
I was one of the first that was jumping for joy when i heard the news that Rafa was interested (and i know that there were not many of us) and i think that Crouch has hada decent start to his career.
But there is one other thing that you have to take into account, you are completely right that he has looked better in the CL, but could that be because everyone else is playing better in the CL that he gets more opportunities?

I think that Crouch needs a few more games under his belt, i think that he will turn out to be a great signing, i just hope that its sooner rather than later

YNWA

by **hobbes** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:25 am

Sorry I am not fond of him. U can give him as many matches as you want, he is not a scorer. He supports a striker. Thats all. Look at all his shots.. er..how many are they in total.....

by **The_Rock** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:33 am

yeah....i was also of the opinion that crouch was bought for those away games.......

But rafa knows best

by **redsince2001** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:24 am

crouch suuuuuuuuuccccccc**************

by **kazza** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:01 am

To be fair, since the England matches (when he was treated like sh1t) he has not looked as good.

by **red or dead** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:05 am

if a team like soton can get 16 goals out of him then surley we must be able to the same or better

by **Anfield rapper** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:13 am

na he just looked good in a :censored:

team.

by **KOPMATT** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:35 am

Well i really feel that i must go with what seems to me to be the majority on this one, I feel that Crouch is an average player that well suits an average side and without nasty to the guy is not what i would regard a Liverpool player eventhough technically i know he is! I couldn't understand the £7 we paid for him and i hope to be proved wrong like the rest of but I just can't see it happening. Yes he does seem to have a good touch especially for a big chap but how many shots has he had at goal? This really i feel is where a striker is judged, shots at goal, on target and mostly scored, as was said before 16 goals for southampton in the prem was very good therefore we should be able to get more from him but was that a fluke? Just as the Blue noses positional finish in the Prem last season? Well i rest my case....................... i think?
Matt
YNWA

by **Chrissy** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:50 am

KOPMATT wrote:I couldn't understand the £7 we paid for him

Is that all we paid, £7 ?!?!

Well worth the money

by **Dundalk** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:10 pm

£7 million is looking a bit much, hopefully he when he scores his first the rest will flow, play him against palace tomorrow night

by **neil** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:28 pm

so hes got a good touch for a big man has he? why should'nt he? d'you think his eyes are that far from the deck that it should be difficult to make out a casey bobbing about down there? sheesh

by **76-1115222408** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:12 pm

Sarcasm thread Neil

by **akumaface** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:08 pm

Dundalk wrote:£7 million is looking a bit much, hopefully he when he scores his first the rest will flow, play him against palace tomorrow night

Well, its not the first time we pay way over for a player like this (Diouf and Heskdy). If we didn't have them before, I'm sure we will even jump more over Crouchy. But you know we actually paid 6 million for Nando and do you think Nando is worth his 6 million more than Crouch 7 million?

by **Scottbot** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:13 pm

Crouch's effectiveness in Europe isn't particularly surprising when you consider that, A) the team as a whole are more effective in Europe and, B) European defenders don't see many big target men (let alone one who is 6'7!) forwards in their own leagues.

Liverpool FC Forum

Peter crouch - The irony

Who is online