Andy Carroll: The unanswered questions

YET to truly shine after a £35million move from Newcastle, TAF McDONALD questions the value of Andy Carroll.

IT IS important to note that this piece is NOT an attack on Andy Carroll. Neither is it about not supporting our lofty addition to the Liverpool family. It is aimed at (hopefully) providing some insight into the mind of a fan/fans who have questions about the transfer.

Questions which, I believe, are valid and should not simply be swept under the carpet. Why is it I felt totally comfortable with the signing of Peter Crouch - to the extent that I openly defended the signing when others were in doubt?

And why is it that I feel unable to extend the same courtesy to Andy Carroll - to the extent that I find myself openly questioning the signing, over and over again?

The reason I use the two players should be pretty clear. They both overshadow my own 6' 2" stature and bring something different to the game. In fact it could reasonably be argued that Carroll brings more to the game - or will do so in the future, if he reaches his potential.

So why do I face these two opposing views? It can only really come down to two factors - price and potential. Peter Crouch, at less than £10m, was a player who wasn't everyone's cup of tea but had demonstrated his ability within the Premier League on a consistent basis.

This came at a price in that much of his potential had been realised, although I would argue that Benitez got far more out of him than his predecessors; providing Crouch a revitalised platform to move on from.

Surprisingly his heading ability wasn't what could be expected from a 'big man' but his deft footwork more than made up for it. At the time of his signing, Liverpool had often struggled to break down teams who set out to defend.

Plan 'A' often didn't work and plan 'B' offered very little variance from the usual modus operandi. Crouch offered something different to the club and fitted in with Benitez's apparent preference for a big man up top. A reasonable price tag coupled together with that 'plan B' made me perfectly comfortable to defend his signing, when others were in doubt. Others who would soon be singing along with the rest of us 'he's big, he's red, his feet stick out the bed'.

It seemed to be a shrewd piece of business by Benitez and if further proof was needed it was provided when he signed for Portsmouth, leaving a nice tidy profit behind. Fast forward to a frantic final few hours of the winter transfer window and I can remember tweeting that the then reported £25m was too much for Carroll.

Imagine my surprise/dismay/disbelief when the figure of £35m finally came out. It is a hefty price tag for anyone to live up to. Never mind a player with a catalogue of off the field antics and one who had 'done well' for Newcastle but hadn't really set the world alight.

Since then fans have set themselves into two camps. This is not the first time it's happened and will not be the last. It is though the first time I find myself in the camp of 'the negative'.

Yet I look around and (following conversations, tweets and emails) see myself in some pretty familiar company. Perhaps others who find themselves surprisingly in the negative camp, having previously defended the signing of Liverpool players? There have been many positive arguments put forward about Carroll, some better than others. Yet each positive argument has it's own flaws/answers...

• This was not a rush buy, even Benitez had a dossier on the player

I'm not sure if the Benitez suggestion is mere speculation, but in some ways it's irrelevant. I don't believe anyone is arguing that Carroll doesn't have potential. So it would be an act of negligence for any manager of Liverpool to not be aware of a young English player of such potential.

Yet the more I think about it the less I believe Benitez would have parted with £35m for Carroll. Would we have bought Carroll had Torres not left? Would we have paid £35m had there only been a few hours of the transfer window left? I suspect the answer to both questions is no.

Hence this was a purchase made in quick time with limited opportunity to think and consider - a rush buy.

• We shouldn't think of Carroll as costing us £35m, but instead he's 70 per cent of a Torres.

Does this argument really pass the most rudimentary of checks? Turn it around. When Torres was bought on the basis of his potential did that make him 60 per cent of a Carroll? Or, expand the argument further - he's 70 per cent of a Torres, or, 100 per cent of the Bale, Van Der Vaart and Modric trio which ripped us to pieces at the weekend. The fact we had £50m did not mean we had the capacity to gamble with £50m.

• Now he's at the club he should be given our full support and the price paid becomes irrelevant

The first part of the argument is entirely valid. I doubt there are any fans who are waiting with baited breath to start booing. Any player in red should be given time to settle in and prove their worth. Albeit there is a lot of worth to prove in this case.

The second part though, which really is the crux of the matter, must be born out of some sort of apathy. Yet this is where I believe most concerns lie and they are well founded.

We've become so desensitised to these large figures we see bandied about for transfers and player's wages that we're now at the point of shrugging our shoulders when we buy an unproven player, based on potential, for £35m.

Are we really that festooned in American riches that we can afford (and afford is the key word) to take that level of gamble? We are a football club who has made significant losses over the past few years, came back from crippling debts just last year and is facing (what must be) reduced income levels due to the lack of European football.

We seem to be going back to the days of blissful ignorance in relation to the club's finances. That is worrying. The question is not about supporting Carroll. The question is should we have bought him in the first place for such an exorbitant fee? If we shouldn't have then does that impact our confidence in the custodians of the club?

• Fenway Sports Group wanted/needed to make a statement of intent for the fans

Really? The owners who we thought may act differently and bring something new to the table fell into the same trap as others? If this is the case then we should be genuinely worried. They were that easily swayed that they paid over the odds for a player that many fans found questionable - and made perfectly clear throughout the usual outlets.

Hopefully this is the weakest of the arguments and simply not true. I cannot see how you can review this transfer and not come to any other conclusion than some level of risk has been taken. That, of course, can be said about any transfer.

So what do we associate the level of risk to? Well the gamble has to surely be in the amount of underlying potential stacked up against the price paid. It's a question of whether you've bought £35m of shares in the next Facebook, or, the next Myspace (remember them?).

In the case of Andy Carroll you would have to class the level of risk as high - high levels of untapped potential with a high level of price. In fact, had we paid £15m for him would we even need discussions about him at this early juncture?

That element of risk of course has the other contributing factor of Andy Caroll's questionable attitude. Maybe it's historic, or maybe it's been tempered. Maybe it will come to the surface again or maybe it won't. But his track record before joining the club certainly added to the risk.

In fact when Daglish took over if you'd have told me our forwards would consist of a drinker/clubber, golf club swinger and biter - three strikers with questionable tempers/attitude  - most would probably say that won't happen.

In summary, it just doesn't feel right and it hasn't since the news first broke. As for my fellow 'negative ones' out there you can blame your brains. It turns out that the part of the brain that deals with information and facts also handles communication.

But the part of the brain which handles feelings and emotions has no capacity for communication, hence why you can't explain your 'gut feelings'.

Normally your feelings are supported by facts and figures, so you are able to justify the feelings. We negatives clearly can't see enough justification in the facts and figures - so we stick with our gut feeling - and it just doesn't feel right.

This is bigger than Andy Carroll (surprisingly) and goes to the root of the confidence we have in the owners and management.

I personally retain confidence in the owners and management, at the moment. However that confidence has been rocked somewhat and won't be recovered if Andy Carroll wins the golden boot this season, but will be when I see financial results which show the club on a sound financial footing and the club succeeding on the pitch.

In the meantime I, like almost every other Red, will continue to support Andy Carroll.

Maybe the gamble will pay off. If it does - fantastic - but that doesn't mean you didn't take a gamble in the first place. If it doesn't I just hope that the expensive lesson is learnt!

@mcdonaldtaf