Carroll Loaned Out- A Bad Decision?

Liverpool have been very active in the transfer window this year, and the latest player to be part of this is Andy Carroll, who has gone on a season-long loan to West Ham United. West Ham have the option to buy Carroll after this loan spell, but there is no obligation on them to do so.

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 Liverpool 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 Liverpool 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 Chelsea. To me, loaning him out at a time when he seems to be returning to form is not a great move.

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 Liverpool 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 Man City, 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.

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.