Peter Crouch

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
# 1
Rumbletonk
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 5:25 pm
Been Liked: 227 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Rumbletonk » Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:43 am

Winstonswhite wrote:Surely with us being the long balliest of long ball teams in the history of the Premier League, it makes sense to sign the talliest of tall players in the history of the Premier League?

A match made in heaven I say.


It's a Dyche masterstroke. Plan B is now putting Crouch on for the last 10 mins and going to a sublime tiki-taka style of play. No one will be expecting that

# 2
dougcollins
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 12:23 am
Been Liked: 471 times
Has Liked: 469 times
Location: Yarkshire

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby dougcollins » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:42 pm

I've not seen this robot vid thing, anyone have a link?

# 3
BillyIngham'sShorts
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:41 pm
Been Liked: 23 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby BillyIngham'sShorts » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:42 pm

He s a head on a stick
He s a head on a stick
Peter Crouch
He's our head on a stick

To tune of "I wanna go home"

# 4
elwaclaret
Posts: 2200
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
Been Liked: 539 times
Has Liked: 1075 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby elwaclaret » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:23 pm

I didn't want Sam to leave.
I have absolutely no problem with Crouch helping us see out the season.
I am delighted we will have Crouch on the training pitch giving his vast experience to our squad.

# 5
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 3992
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 1355 times
Has Liked: 242 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Devils_Advocate » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:27 pm

I feel sorry for the fans who sit on the immediate rows behind the Burnley dugout as they are gonna have a restricted view for at least 80 mins of all home games from now on
This user liked this post: Tribesmen

# 6
Dyched
Posts: 3869
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:34 am
Been Liked: 1255 times
Has Liked: 302 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Dyched » Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:29 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I feel sorry for the fans who sit on the immediate rows behind the Burnley dugout as they are gonna have a restricted view for at least 80 mins of all home games from now on


Good point. I wonder if they’ve fitted a sunroof to the dugout so Crouchy can poke his head out?

# 7
COBBLE
Posts: 730
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:04 am
Been Liked: 196 times
Has Liked: 187 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby COBBLE » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:56 pm

Can I be the first to congratulate our manager on this signing!
These 3 users liked this post: FactualFrank longsidepies Paul Waine

# 8
theroyaldyche
Posts: 2551
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:26 pm
Been Liked: 477 times
Has Liked: 231 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby theroyaldyche » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:58 pm

ASSIST FOR CROUCH
This user liked this post: Paul Waine

# 9
FactualFrank
Posts: 15741
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 4302 times
Has Liked: 7598 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby FactualFrank » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:00 pm

Dyched wrote:Good point. I wonder if they’ve fitted a sunroof to the dugout so Crouchy can poke his head out?


It certainly was a good point ;)

# 10
IndigoLake
Been Liked: 1 time
Has Liked: 396 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby IndigoLake » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:01 pm

Crouch came on and caused them problems today. His sheer height means defenders have something else to think about. Certainly a useful option to have.

# 11
Paul Waine
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1176 times
Has Liked: 1421 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Paul Waine » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:08 pm

anyone in any doubt that adding Peter Crouch to our squad was "bad business?"

UTC

# 12
Tall Paul
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:07 am
Been Liked: 1796 times
Has Liked: 431 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Tall Paul » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:09 pm

He did well.

# 13
Colburn_Claret
Posts: 3625
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:30 pm
Been Liked: 1385 times
Has Liked: 1956 times
Location: Catterick N.Yorks

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Colburn_Claret » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:43 pm

He did what he was signed for. They said on Sky, teams are so frightened of his height, they forget about the other players on the pitch. Not a bad asset to have.

# 14
agreenwood
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm
Been Liked: 464 times
Has Liked: 87 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby agreenwood » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:46 pm

A lovely cushioned header aside I don’t think he had another positive touch or won a header.

However, his presence did cause panic in their defence. In that way he was effective.

# 15
kaptin1
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 am
Been Liked: 341 times
Has Liked: 101 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby kaptin1 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:12 pm

To be fair, I thought his movement was excellent too.

# 16
Murger
Posts: 1491
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:55 pm
Been Liked: 414 times
Has Liked: 473 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Murger » Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:20 pm

That header he did into space for Brady to run onto was brilliant.

# 17
Cubanclaret
Posts: 843
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:35 am
Been Liked: 205 times
Has Liked: 112 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Cubanclaret » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:11 pm

Murger wrote:That header he did into space for Brady to run onto was brilliant.


It was the best cushioned header I’ve ever seen in the flesh ;)

# 18
Long Time Lurker
Posts: 762
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 365 times
Has Liked: 207 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Long Time Lurker » Sat Feb 02, 2019 7:35 pm

Paul Waine wrote:anyone in any doubt that adding Peter Crouch to our squad was "bad business?"

UTC


Raises his hand

I can't speak for any of the other doubters, but my concerns are directed towards his suitability to play a full 90 minutes if circumstances ever require it of us. The "cross to Crouch" plan B strategy worked well for us today. Bringing on JBG and Brady to load the box with opportunities paid off. However, I'm not sure we can get away with that as a 90 minute plan A.

Hats off to Crouch today though, he came in and did the job that he is suited to and we nicked a point at the end.

I would describe it as a reasonably solid debut, but it was still a very risky piece of business for the purpose of bringing in what will equate to £5-6m (with the 20% to Wolves deduction) earlier than the Summer window. Despite his penalty miss today £7-8m was a low price for Vokes and I would feel more comfortable if he was still with us.

After reading his Guardian review I have a feeling that Crouch has his eyes firmly fixed on an extension at the end of the season, which could influence our Summer business in relation to the decisions we make about changes to our strikers.

I'm hearing a lot more business focussed comments coming out of the club. If finances are set to trump football I could see us beginning the Summer window with Crouch on our books for next season as part of a keep it cheap strategy, or as an insurance policy against the ability of our recruitment team to bring in a quality new addition at a respectable price.

I still think we have taken a big risk in relation to our chance of staying up by shipping out Sam, because Stoke flashed us some cash, and not replacing him with a striker that is better suited to making more than cameo appearances at this level. Stoke knocked on our door and offered us £7m on the basis that they think Sam is a better starting option in the Championship, never mind the Premier League, so they obviously agree with me.

And no, I don't believe Sam was chomping at the bit to leave. If you watch Sean's interview it is perfectly clear that until the emergence of Stokes interest last week he was happy to stay here and the club had no intention of selling him.

What is done is done, but our performance in the last window was poor, especially when you take into account that we had a reasonable free run at things, because the other clubs in our financial bracket spent all of their transfer kitties in the Summer window.

# 19
Paul Waine
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:28 pm
Been Liked: 1176 times
Has Liked: 1421 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby Paul Waine » Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:43 pm

Long Time Lurker wrote:Raises his hand

I can't speak for any of the other doubters, but my concerns are directed towards his suitability to play a full 90 minutes if circumstances ever require it of us. The "cross to Crouch" plan B strategy worked well for us today. Bringing on JBG and Brady to load the box with opportunities paid off. However, I'm not sure we can get away with that as a 90 minute plan A.

Hats off to Crouch today though, he came in and did the job that he is suited to and we nicked a point at the end.

What is done is done, but our performance in the last window was poor, especially when you take into account that we had a reasonable free run at things, because the other clubs in our financial bracket spent all of their transfer kitties in the Summer window.


Hi Long Time, thanks for your detailed response (and don't take that, because I've deleted a section, I'm not responding to parts of your response - I've deleted out of courtesy for other posters/readers and cutting the overall length of threads).

Early in the game (I was watching on a very "stop-go" stream) there were a number of occasions when McNeil crossed into the box. I could see Peter Crouch "licking his lips" at those crosses. If we are in a place when we need Crouch to start - and don't want to go with just one up top - we have the chance to get some scores on the board before we head into the last 10-15 minutes.

Like you, I don't expect a 38 year old to deliver a full 90+ minutes - just as Steve Defour didn't get in a single 90 minute game in his first season - and just as Dwight McNeil can tire and we are better off subbing him for this closing period. So, I can see Plan A being Crouch being a starter but being subbed later in the game. Yes, this is a different "Plan A" and it will show us once more that Sean Dyche can be flexible - as well as loyal.

I also liked Sam Vokes, but if we are comparing Vokes and Crouch we should ask ourselves how many caps would we have expected Sam Vokes to get for England (and, I think I'm right to suggest that Sam would have qualified by place of birth)? Crouchie's experience improves our team and squad through the end of this season, despite him now being a 38 year old Premier League striker.

Is Premier League football a sport or a business? In my view it is a competive sport that is facilitated by all the money that flows through it. Several of the large clubs (and I don't just mean the "top 6" - I also include the others with large fan bases and catchment areas) have the financial backing to take a few financial hits, spending too much on players, a transfer deal that doesn't work out etc etc. Burnley have a lot less scope for these mistakes. To create even a little chance to compete in the Premier League Burnley have to be smarter than most with their financial resources.

There's quite a bit reported today in The Times sport section about all the clubs that missed out on their targets for this window. If we look at how these other clubs did, then we could conclude that Burnley did better than most.

The summer is a new window. Mike Rigg should be established by then - remember it was said that we shouldn't expect too much in Jan when Mike joined in Nov. We will also know if we are in the Premier League again - and, I believe Peter Crouch gives us a much better chance of staying up than Sam Vokes would have done. Crouchie will be older - and I doubt Sean Dyche or the Board are thinking he will be in our Premier League squad next season. I'm sure we will see a lot more action in the summer and I'm sure the plans will be to bring in younger players that lower the squads age profile. I trust the Board because I see them making the right decisions for the club. I trust Sean Dyche because Sean "gets" what it means to be the manager of Burnley Football Club. He is a superb motivator and coach of our team. We are in the Premier League because we have this Board and because we have Sean Dyche. And, it's still a very competive sport and it's still "small margins" that will either keep Burnley in the Premier League or slip down a division.

UTC

# 20
otto1959
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:23 pm
Been Liked: 13 times
Has Liked: 29 times

Re: Peter Crouch

Postby otto1959 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 8:44 pm

Long Time Lurker wrote:Raises his hand

I can't speak for any of the other doubters, but my concerns are directed towards his suitability to play a full 90 minutes if circumstances ever require it of us. The "cross to Crouch" plan B strategy worked well for us today. Bringing on JBG and Brady to load the box with opportunities paid off. However, I'm not sure we can get away with that as a 90 minute plan A.

Hats off to Crouch today though, he came in and did the job that he is suited to and we nicked a point at the end.

I would describe it as a reasonably solid debut, but it was still a very risky piece of business for the purpose of bringing in what will equate to £5-6m (with the 20% to Wolves deduction) earlier than the Summer window. Despite his penalty miss today £7-8m was a low price for Vokes and I would feel more comfortable if he was still with us.

After reading his Guardian review I have a feeling that Crouch has his eyes firmly fixed on an extension at the end of the season, which could influence our Summer business in relation to the decisions we make about changes to our strikers.

I'm hearing a lot more business focussed comments coming out of the club. If finances are set to trump football I could see us beginning the Summer window with Crouch on our books for next season as part of a keep it cheap strategy, or as an insurance policy against the ability of our recruitment team to bring in a quality new addition at a respectable price.

I still think we have taken a big risk in relation to our chance of staying up by shipping out Sam, because Stoke flashed us some cash, and not replacing him with a striker that is better suited to making more than cameo appearances at this level. Stoke knocked on our door and offered us £7m on the basis that they think Sam is a better starting option in the Championship, never mind the Premier League, so they obviously agree with me.

And no, I don't believe Sam was chomping at the bit to leave. If you watch Sean's interview it is perfectly clear that until the emergence of Stokes interest last week he was happy to stay here and the club had no intention of selling him.

What is done is done, but our performance in the last window was poor, especially when you take into account that we had a reasonable free run at things, because the other clubs in our financial bracket spent all of their transfer kitties in the Summer window.



Agree totally.


Return to “The Bee Hole End”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Awayfromburnley, Burnleyareback2, Grimsdale, NottsClaret, oldclaret101, Rick_Muller, Steve-Harpers-perm and 92 guests