Firstly, I must start by giving the reasons Rodgers has given for loaning out Carroll. He says that he does not fit into his tiki-taka style of football, and
cannot afford to have a £35 million striker on the bench. Also, Carroll did not
have a good season at LFC last year, which resulted in many people believing he
simply does not fit in at the club.
However, I disagree. If you are signed for a prestigious club like
for a club record fee, and are being bought as a replacement for Fernando
Torres, you are bound to feel a lot of pressure. Unfortunately, this pressure
got to Carroll at the start of the season, and he simply didn’t perform. Near
the end of the season though, there were signs that Carroll was returning to
his old form. He put in some great performances, the most notable being the FA
cup final against .
To me, loaning him out at a time when he seems to be returning to form is not a
great move. Chelsea
On the other hand, it is true that with our current squad it is fairly hard for Carroll to get regular first team action. Rodgers is right in saying that Andy will benefit from more playing time, and if Rodgers refuses to give him that at
then a loan is a good option. If Carroll does return to Liverpool
at the end of his loan spell I think he will be a much improved player. In
fact, if that happens, I think Rodgers will have done quite a successful deal.
However, what bothers me is the fact that West Ham have been given an option to
buy. If, like I expect he will, Carroll continues getting better throughout his
time at West Ham, they are certain to want to buy him permanently. Although
this will aid Liverpool financially, we will
have lost a great striker. I think we would have been better off offering West
Ham a simple, straightforward loan that meant we automatically got Carroll back
for next season.
Now we come to what I believe is the key point. Although the ‘tiki-taka’ style is very good on paper, sometimes it goes wrong. This was demonstrated at
where mostly we played this system very well, but just one slip from Skrtel
left us level again and in need of a goal to win the match. Carroll came on as
a substitute, and very nearly scored (he was denied only by Jack Rodwell’s
off-the-line clearance). I think that by getting rid of Carroll, we lost our
plan B. By relying purely on a smooth, passing game, Rodgers is leaving very
little room for error. Man City
Overall, I believe loaning out Carroll was a bad idea. It puts a lot more pressure on the team to master Rodgers’ preferred style of play quickly, as now the team have no back-up. Carroll was a good option for
Liverpool, as he
allowed them to vary their play a little, and occasionally play a long ball up
the pitch. Now they have lost this option, and with it lost a player who was
just returning to form. I may be wrong, but I think this is a big mistake.