Page 4 of 6
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:36 pmby stmichael
I'm a Crouch fan but I'd a lot depends on the price imo. I'd probably prefer Carew as he'd be significantly cheaper.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:42 pmby Benny The Noon
Ben Patrick wrote:Benny The Noon wrote:Anyway I think there are prob pages and pages of that old debate around somewhere and its in the past and now we need to look towards the future and IMO spending 10 mil on a striker who is coming up to 30 and didn't get into double figures last season despite playing 38 odd games for his club is a waste of ten million - would rather spend that sort of money on someone who has a bit more of a future ahead as opposed to last remaining years
Its not an old debate if he is rumoured to be coming back is it ? 
I personally think he would be a good signing regardless of age. He is proven already and had a good understanding with Gerrard.
He could be a very good option, i recall in his first spell his hold up play being very good. When you have Gerrard and Joe Cole joining the attack that could be a very useful weapon.
The what happened when he was with us last is an old debate .
As for a good option yes he could provide something of the bench or replace torres when torres is injured but at 10 mil thats a lot of money for someone who doesnt score enough . He played 16 more games than Ngog in the prem last season yet only scored 2 more goals than him ??
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:47 pmby Ben Patrick
Benny The Noon wrote:Ben Patrick wrote:Benny The Noon wrote:Anyway I think there are prob pages and pages of that old debate around somewhere and its in the past and now we need to look towards the future and IMO spending 10 mil on a striker who is coming up to 30 and didn't get into double figures last season despite playing 38 odd games for his club is a waste of ten million - would rather spend that sort of money on someone who has a bit more of a future ahead as opposed to last remaining years
Its not an old debate if he is rumoured to be coming back is it ?
I personally think he would be a good signing regardless of age. He is proven already and had a good understanding with Gerrard.
He could be a very good option, i recall in his first spell his hold up play being very good. When you have Gerrard and Joe Cole joining the attack that could be a very useful weapon.
The what happened when he was with us last is an old debate .
As for a good option yes he could provide something of the bench or replace torres when torres is injured but at 10 mil thats a lot of money for someone who doesnt score enough . He played 16 more games than Ngog in the prem last season yet only scored 2 more goals than him ??
I would be prepared to bet you any sum of money that if he signed for us and played the same amount of games as Ngog, he would outscore the frenchman and significantly out perform him with assists as well.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:50 pmby Benny The Noon
But he hasnt been much of a goalscorer before so why would he suddenly change ?
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:59 pmby Benny The Noon
Would he also be a more than just a back up ? if he is going to play up front with Torres does that mean Cole moves out wide and then we loose the best of torres as we have seen on many occasions that torres works best wup front on his own with the support of gerrard behind him .
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:05 pmby Ben Patrick
Benny The Noon wrote:Would he also be a more than just a back up ? if he is going to play up front with Torres does that mean Cole moves out wide and then we loose the best of torres as we have seen on many occasions that torres works best wup front on his own with the support of gerrard behind him .
It gives us options to either play him with Torres or when Torres is injured - which based on the last 2 seasons is an awful lot.
When i see our team with Ngog starting upfront it makes me cringe.
If we had someone of the calibre of crouch we would still be a threat.
The year we won the FA cup with him in the side we looked not far from a league winning side and that was before we had Torres.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:09 pmby Benny The Noon
And that was over 4 years ago - he still has never scored enough in the prem - only time he got into double figures was at pompey when he got 11 - either way you look at the stats he hasnt scored enough goals and is coming to the latter stage of his career and would cost us 10 mil ?! that an awful lot of money
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:20 pmby Ben Patrick
Benny The Noon wrote:And that was over 4 years ago - he still has never scored enough in the prem - only time he got into double figures was at pompey when he got 11 - either way you look at the stats he hasnt scored enough goals and is coming to the latter stage of his career and would cost us 10 mil ?! that an awful lot of money
I wouldnt be happy paying 10 million myself.
Around the 7 mark would be right for me.
I dont have any doubts that he would be a success though.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:30 pmby Roger Red Hat
if he had played up front instead of ngog last thursday we'd of won by 4 clear goals on the night-easy. Crouch wouldn't of fluffed a couple of those chances eggnog got gifted with.
hang on, so Remy is waiting to see if Spurs get through the CL before making a decision? fk him right off. 
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:40 pmby bigmick
Crouch hasn't scored enough in his career, but he is still a good player. I wouldn't pay 10 mill for him, but he would be a good buy at 5-7. The thing is when you sign a player, it often takes them a season to settle in, sometimes it doesn't happen at all. In the case of Crouch though, he knows all the players already, he was well liked before and his bird (if she's still with him) is from the city. He'd settle in overnight, he'd be happy and he'd be a risk free signing. He also rarely gets injured and is a different player to Torres but can play up on his own. He wouldn't be my first choice, but he would do a good job.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:56 pmby In and Out
Whatever the debate we can not go a whole season again relying on N'good. He isn't good enough to be our 'second' striker and we'll loose vital points IMO if we have to rely on him again.
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:12 pmby Bad Bob
It's a tough one. Ten million is a lot to spend, given our current financial situation. With that said, all English players have inflated transfer fees (part of the reason why signing Joe Cole was brilliant business). TBPH, I'd have Crouchie back because I rate him and because Mick's spot on about how quickly he would bed back into the set up. I'm not worried about his age: he's not a pacey striker and never has been. He relies on his height (duh), touch and intelligence to make an impact and none of those are going to desert him anytime soon. I think he'd be thrilled to have a second bite of the Liverpool cherry under Roy and I certainly think the likes of Stevie, Cole and Johnson would love to have him in the squad. And, lest we forget his impact in Europe, I think he'd be a great player to put out for the Europa league matches. He scared continental defenders sh!tless with his height. 
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:02 pmby Benny The Noon
Meanwhile, Liverpool have been quoted £14 million for Tottenham striker Peter Crouch. That fee remains beyond Liverpool’s reach, at least until a takeover is completed.
Daily Telegraph.
No bloody way - not at 14 million
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:03 pmby Ben Patrick
Benny The Noon wrote:Meanwhile, Liverpool have been quoted £14 million for Tottenham striker Peter Crouch. That fee remains beyond Liverpool’s reach, at least until a takeover is completed.
Daily Telegraph.
No bloody way - not at 14 million
agreed
Posted:
Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:05 pmby Benny The Noon
At 5 ish to maybe 7 mil max then prob yes but at 14 mil im sure there must be a fair number of younger strikers around we could look at - C Cole for one maybe even i still dont rate him that highly - but pavluychenko im sure would be cheaper .