Grabbi Graeme Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 If I was a Liverpool fan I would be mighty Pi**ed that they had spent £7 million on player that lacks qualityand can't score and that his fee could have gone towards bringing Owen back to Liverpool. Crouch has yet to score for liverpool so what the hell was he doing being picked for England surley Bent would have been the better choice.
This thread is brought to you by theterracestore.com Enter code `BRFCS` at checkout for an exclusive discount!
Fife Rover Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 He'd be better off at basketball, his height confers no advantage in football and he's OK on the deck and can pass, but that's a minimum requirement for a top-flight attacker surely? 352193[/snapback] In my day that was way below the the minimum requirement even to become a professional footballer!
Ozz Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 Hes a freak just because hes tall? Typical chav attitude. 352228[/snapback] Yea-1864 is a proper well chav!
Anti Euro Smiths Fan Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) 9 ft 10 and cant jump... Well they say that white men can't jump Abbey, and Mr Crouch seems to be doing his best to live up to that statement. He was totally out of his depth yesterday wasn't he? The gangling beanpole doesn't have the pace and mobility needed for International football. He looked clumsy on the ball and Sven's tactics yesterday seemed to consist of lumping aimless high balls in his direction, which he struggled to deal with. I thought those sort of tactics went out of the window when Graham Taylor left, but they seem to be making an unwelcome return under the Swede. He's done bugger all since he joined Liverpool No goals in eight games for Liverpool this season and when you think of some of the great strikers that Liverpool have had down the years - Dalglish, Rush, Keegan, Roger Hunt, St John, Toshack etc - Crouch isn't fit to tie their bootlaces. Liverpool have made their worst start to a Premiership season for 13 years - since a certain Mr Souness was in charge. I think if the Reds hadn't made that miraculous comeback against AC Milan last May, a lot of Liverpool fans would be seriously starting to question Rafa Benitez's judgement by now. His record in the transfer market is patchy to say the least. I thought Alan Shearer was being diplomatic on the Beeb yesterday when he said that Crouch did "okay". I'd hate to see Crouch when he plays crap then.... I got the impression that Gary Lineker was not at all convinced about Crouch, when he questioned whether he was International class. Crouch has certainly got a long way to go before he can consider himself an International striker. He had one decent half-season at a relegated Southampton side. That's all. He's done bugger all since. We would be better off playing a Couch up front. 352306[/snapback] I think we'd get more pace and mobility up front that way Ozzie. Early school photo.... Before he left Villa and flew down to the South Coast.... Edited October 9, 2005 by Anti Euro Smiths Fan
colin Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) Just a few questions: (A) How tall has a player have to be before he is considered a "tall lad" (or any varient?) We really need to know. Imperial is preferable. 6' 3" seems about the lower limit to me. What do you reckon? ( Why is the "tall lad" assumed to have a natural born ability to head a ball better than anyone shorter? © Why does the "tall lad" allways get described as "For a tall lad he has good feet." Has anyone ever said "for a short fella he's got really poor feet?" Or the alternatives: "For a tall lad he has poor feet," or "For a short fella he's got really good feet." ] Aaaaah, for a tall lad he's very left-footed. (D) And as double corollory to (2) "That was a really poor header from Dickov. But that's not surprising since he's such a short fellow." Who ever says that? (E) Why is the "tall lad" assumed to have a natural born ability to jump "x" centimeters off the ground level more than a shorter person? Edited October 9, 2005 by colin
pksrover Posted October 9, 2005 Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) he's crap!! watched the game last night, and have seen both of the liverpool games against chelsea....he's we don't like that word, please don't use it crap all the way!!! Can't belive that stupid swedish guy choose him instead of Bent or Defoe!! You don't have to play with big guys like Heskey and Crouch when you are playing with two strikers!! It works very well with Defoe/Bent together with Owen...and now after Rooney is back, Owen and Rooney upfront!! Btw...that referee should never have given Becks the red card, not even a yellow! and England should have had another penalty when someone tried to chop of Owen legs at the end of the first half!! EDITED Edited October 10, 2005 by den
MIROVER Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 Leave the lad alone. I for one thought he had a decent game controlled and held up the ball well up front. Linked up play nicely. Crouch won the header for the pen and other than going over twice in the box and missing a one on one what else did Owen contribute ? Crouch and Rooney should be given a chance + Defoe / Bent Owen is the one who's place should be in doubt he seems a little out of touch but instead he is captain which I don't understand.
Paul Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 £7million pounds for him good old southampton! 352176[/snapback] Yep WE know how good they are at that trick!
OscarRaven Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 (edited) Just a few questions: ( Why is the "tall lad" assumed to have a natural born ability to head a ball better than anyone shorter? 352483[/snapback] All proffesional footballers should be able to head a ball. Taller players should be able to get thier head higher than shorter players when they jump, which means the taller you are the greater proportion of ariel balls you should win... not rocket science. A low centre of gravity (i.e. small guys) is helpful with close ball control, which is why tall guys often dont have the same level of ball control. The above are of course genralisations and I can name many exceptions, but in most cases it holds. Edited October 10, 2005 by OscarRaven
1864roverite Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 chav ? my little left buttock ! freak is a chav saying ? no not really lads, I was simply meaning there aint any more tall like players such as crouch, not that he is a freak of nature et al. oh by the way can anyone lend me a chav handbook for the meaning of certain words ? Ozz and Abs, you both know better
colin Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 Taller players should be able to get thier head higher than shorter players when they jump, which means the taller you are the greater proportion of ariel balls you should win... not rocket science. 352559[/snapback] If you are 6'5" tall then, OK, you should have a bit of an advantage with the balls that come in at 6' 7". But my question was "why should you be a better header of the ball?" A low centre of gravity (i.e. small guys) is helpful with close ball control, Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. I know it's been repeated ad-nauseum but it is, to my mind, a myth. Why on earth should a short person have better ball-control than a tall person?
yorkblues Posted October 10, 2005 Posted October 10, 2005 he did not swap shirts at the end of the game because he will never get one again
FourLaneBlue Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Ok so Crouch didn't have the greatest of games but it was hardly so bad that it deserves quite so much ridicule. The reaction on here seems typical of the herd mentality which means ridicule for players who deviate from the norm. Heskey was another, as was Waddle, Barnes, even when they played well on occasion they were complained about. Crouch might be a nightmare but let's give him more of a chance than this. Although not great he did a few things of note. Not that I think he is good enough for the England team but his performance doesn't deserve such negative reactions. Seems like he is just an easy target.
AussieinUk Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 ...Seems like he is just an easy target. 352732[/snapback] Just a very tall one!
ihateburnley Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Peter Crouch is an excellent footballer. It just sounds wrong.
AlanK Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) Sorry, but that just doesn't hold water. I know it's been repeated ad-nauseum but it is, to my mind, a myth. Why on earth should a short person have better ball-control than a tall person? 352666[/snapback] Its because they have a lower centre of gravity and can therefore turn, stop and change direction much quicker. Examples are Duff, Wright Phillips, Giggs. Its physically impossible to turn as quick as these guys if you are taller unless you have already anticipated it. Its just physics. Another example would be a mini changing direction as opposed to a double decker bus. Edited October 11, 2005 by AlanK
USABlue Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Whilst I was not against Crouch getting a start I cannot fathom why the top English scorer in the Prem did not even get a kick. Also what the hell is Ledley King doing in there.
colin Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Its because they have a lower centre of gravity and can therefore turn, stop and change direction much quicker. Examples are Duff, Wright Phillips, Giggs. Its physically impossible to turn as quick as these guys if you are taller unless you have already anticipated it. Its just physics. 352787[/snapback] OK, but your comment doesn't cover close ball control which is a different matter all together and is the point that I am trying to make. There seems to be an overwhelming, and completely unscientific assumption that tall players have no ball control. Sorry, but it is just a fallacy perpetuated by the whole football industry which seems to beleive its own rubbish. If it thought through the assumption then it would take as read that shorter players have good ball control. We'd laugh at that one. Look at this for a collection of half-arsed garbage crouch-a-saurous Just like the excuse that players who jump for a header with their elbows smacking into an opponent's face are doing it for "leverage." I didn't take any physics exams, but I know it's complete tummy rubbish.
neekoy Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Seems like he is just an easy target. 352732[/snapback] Unfortunately the English midfeilders thought the same thing
Al Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Just like the excuse that players who jump for a header with their elbows smacking into an opponent's face are doing it for "leverage." I didn't take any physics exams, but I know it's complete tummy rubbish. 352813[/snapback] No it's not. Just watch any jumper in the Athletics arena. Wether it be long jump or high jump they all lift their elbows to gain extra leverage and extra height. It just comes naturally.
Recommended Posts