Peter Crouch

jesus_thats_gre

Meh who cares.. Its only a goal..

mchurl

cant see how he got that goal tbh

Big fan of his though

Thanx 4 The Fish

I will tell you if you like, a deflected shot is credited to the striker.
A shot that the keeper attempts to save is credited to the striker.

A shot that takes a deflection and a keeper trys to save is credited to th striker.

Kingp35

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I will tell you if you like, a deflected shot is credited to the striker.
A shot that the keeper attempts to save is credited to the striker.

A shot that takes a deflection and a keeper trys to save is credited to th striker.

A shot that a goalkeeper punches into his own net is an own goal!

Jivin Turkey

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I will tell you if you like, a deflected shot is credited to the striker.
A shot that the keeper attempts to save is credited to the striker.

A shot that takes a deflection and a keeper trys to save is credited to th striker.

Once that at all times it was on target

As I said before, I bet we wouldn't be having this crisis if either (a) it was someone else, or (b) Crouch had already scored 10 goals this year.

p.pete

I'm dubious about the initial shot being on target but definitely when it got as far as the keeper to palm / punch the ball it was on its way into the net.

Third_Echelon

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I will tell you if you like, a deflected shot is credited to the striker.
A shot that the keeper attempts to save is credited to the striker.

A shot that takes a deflection and a keeper trys to save is credited to th striker.

eh.... no!

What about the own goal that david weir scored last night. He was credited with that. Going by your logic it would have been credited to Repka.... It wasn't

Tusky

The goalkeeper didnt punch it into his own net, he attempted to save it, it was going into the net anyway! If a goalkeeper gets a hand on a shot, do you consider that punching it into his own next too ?

Crouch took the shot, it was deflected, the keeper tried to save but could only succeed in getting a hand to it. Its a flukey goal but still a goal that should be credited to him.

Vokes

Third_Echelon wrote:

What about the own goal that david weir scored last night. He was credited with that. Going by your logic it would have been credited to Repka.... It wasn't

But that was a cross by Repka, no?

Third_Echelon

SofaKing wrote:

But that was a cross by Repka, no?

It doesn't matter. He could say he was shooting for goal....

Kingp35

Tusky wrote:

The goalkeeper didnt punch it into his own net, he attempted to save it, it was going into the net anyway! If a goalkeeper gets a hand on a shot, do you consider that punching it into his own next too ?

Crouch took the shot, it was deflected, the keeper tried to save but could only succeed in getting a hand to it. Its a flukey goal but still a goal that should be credited to him.

He didnt try and save it as such, he tried to hit "slap" the ball over the bar but instead slapped it into his own net. Own goal. Totally different than a keeper getting a hand to it

Jivin Turkey

Kingp35 wrote:

He didnt try and save it as such, he tried to hit "slap" the ball over the bar but instead slapped it into his own net. Own goal. Totally different than a keeper getting a hand to it

Eh how exactly?

Whenever a keeper gets a hand on a ball is he not trying to "slap the ball over the bar/around the post"?

Tusky

Kingp35 wrote:

He didnt try and save it as such, he tried to hit "slap" the ball over the bar but instead slapped it into his own net. Own goal. Totally different than a keeper getting a hand to it

Salpping it over isnt a save ? Do you only consider it a save if he catches it ? The ball was going in the net, doesnt matter HOW he tried to save it.

Kingp35

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Eh how exactly?

Whenever a keeper gets a hand on a ball is he not trying to "slap the ball over the bar/around the post"?

Let me get this straight. Just because a shot is on target it doesnt matter what happens its never going to be an own goal? Thats the impression im getting. If a shot is on target and a defender its it into the other side of the net than it ws originally heading for is that an own goal?

Tusky wrote:

Salpping it over isnt a save ? Do you only consider it a save if he catches it ? The ball was going in the net, doesnt matter HOW he tried to save it.

Yes it is, just like kicking the ball over would be a clearence although if you kick the ball into your own net then its an own goal. Makes no difference if its a keepers hand or a defenders foot its the same thing.

mike65

I just saw the goals and they were taken like a pro!

When he signed I was a bit sceptical but trusted in Rafa as he does actually know whats he's on about, and as times gone on its become ever more apparent what a good buy he has been.

Mike.

Jivin Turkey

Kingp35 wrote:

Let me get this straight. Just because a shot is on target it doesnt matter what happens its never going to be an own goal? Thats the impression im getting.

No I never said that. Every sinle case is extremely different, and it is impossible to compare cases. This one however was Crouch's goal.

Kingp35 wrote:

If a shot is on target and a defender its it into the other side of the net than it ws originally heading for is that an own goal?

Plenty of times you would see a defender case a ball toward the line that has beaten the keeper, and carry the ball over the line in an attempt to clear it. Those types of goals are never given as own goals.

The dubious goals committee or whatever they are called, are they to deduce who gets awarded with the goal. They have awarded it to Crouch, so it's his goal. It was the right decision, and I'm sure we will see other instances of shots being deflected and then handled by the keeper before going into the net and they will be the shooters goal too.

You also never answered my question as to how Crouch's was different to a keeper "getting a hand" to a shot. You just responded with questions to me.

mike65

By the end of the season Crouchinio will have so many goals to his name we'll barely recall the the one that was'nt then was.

Mike.

redspider

p.pete wrote:

The same people who say beating Chelsea, AC Milan and Juventos on the way to the Champions league was a fluke?
The same people who say the Drink Cup is worth nothing when we win it or get to the final?
The same people who say we shouldn't have won the FA Cup coz we only scored at the end of the match?
The same people who say a treble with the UEFA Cup is worth nothing?
The same people who's clubs have been winning sod all in the last few years?
And of course Red Spider

Hey, you're painting me a bit "black" and placing me in with a group of "nasties". Are you sure you arent thinking about blackspider ?!?! ;-)

I still think that Crouch was not the right buy for Liverpool. However, Benitez has used him effectively and the lad is trying hard. He has good enough feet for a big lad, not great when compared with a small lad but he is playing the target-man role ala Quinn reasonably well. Its effective in a certain way, but I still dont like it in footballing terms at this level and Crouch, despite his recent goals is not a killer goalscorer.

Here's my comments on Crouch from the last match:
"Crouch finished well for his first but missed a couple of other chances. Gerrard's finish for the 2nd was top-class. Crouch did well for the third too, but the build up was fortunate and poor defending by the Costa Rican's allowed him to get in and slot past the keeper."

In terms of whether his first goal a few weeks ago should be awarded to him or not, I dont have the time to get my quote from then but the jist of it was that either way, it was a fortunate goal. The goalkeeper made a mess of it and should have saved it. Thats football and soft goals count.

As I've also said elsewhere, football is a team game, and at times its not the be-all and end-all of who scores the goal, it may come off the arse of a player, or tapped in say by an Aldo after a mazy run by a Barnes that beat 3 or more players. So goal records at times I take with a pinch of salt, especially those that dont discount penalties (ie: all of them ?).

We all recognise players that make and finish goals, and to me, Crouch's contribution is weak enough in that regard, especially for a striker. However, as he plays as a target man who comes out to the 30 metre area, and lays balls off for the likes of a running Gerrard, Garcia or another striker, then he plays that role well. Its neither a goal scoring role nor a goal creating role, its sort of a possession role.

redspider

RE*AC*TOR

Whether or not he scores x number of goals this season. The fact is, he has been by a mile our best forward so far this season and his contribution has been paramount to our ever-improving performances.

Kingp35

Jivin Turkey wrote:

You also never answered my question as to how Crouch's was different to a keeper "getting a hand" to a shot. You just responded with questions to me.

A keeper getting a hand to a shot is more a deflection of his hand. The Wigan keeper was practically facing the net and then slapped it in. I guess we are going to have to disgree on this one. Out of the people I have talked to it seems pretty much 50-50 that it was his goal or it wasnt.

mchurl

There is no way in the world that that was crouch's goal. The original shot took a wicked deflection and then the keeper put it in to his own net to finish it off. Was the shot even on target when it lest crouch's foot?

Pigman II

I rate Crouch. I think the main problem for him at Liverpool is that he's being asked to play 4-5-1 a lot of the time when 4-4-2 with a fast runner (like Cisse) is probably what suits his game the best.

Personally tho if I had a team that was gone 11 games without conceding a goal and had scored 21 I wouldn't care who was doing what or who was getting those goals is it clearly all adds up to a very impressive sum.

Pigman II

Pigman II wrote:

I rate Crouch. I think the main problem for him at Liverpool is that he's being asked to play 4-5-1 a lot of the time when 4-4-2 with a fast runner (like Cisse) is probably what suits his game the best.

Personally tho if I had a team that was gone 11 games without conceding a goal and had scored 21 I wouldn't care who was doing what or who was getting those goals is it clearly all adds up to a very impressive sum.

I agree. I knew one he got the first goal he would be in business.

I think crouch needs good balls delivered to him, this is something Cisse is not doing. Cisse seems out of position when playing on the right?

p.pete

redspider wrote:

Hey, you're painting me a bit "black" and placing me in with a group of "nasties". Are you sure you arent thinking about blackspider ?!?! ;-)

Apologies, I was probably being a bit cheeky. It's just a bit annoying that you've spent a lot of time trying to discredit him. It's taken some pretty excellent performances from him recently for you to give him some fairly mute applause. As a Liverpool fan I like to see new players given the benifit of the doubt and concentrate on the positives and not the negatives.

We've signed and will sign plenty worse then him, many coming for more money and with better reputations. Any player coming to Liverpool young or old short or tall I'd like to see given a chance of a decent run of things. It's by far the biggest club he's played for and I think he's doing an excellent job of settling so far.

There's plenty out there who don't like Liverpool and are quick to put down new players or even establised players as soon as they hit a bad patch. It's a clever thing to do as bad press can lead to low confidence which leads to an extended run of bad performances. As a Liverpool fan I don't see the need to be too quick to jump on the back of a Liverpool player, I like to think I call things as I see them but patience is a virtue and all that....

Tusky

Pigman II wrote:

I rate Crouch. I think the main problem for him at Liverpool is that he's being asked to play 4-5-1 a lot of the time when 4-4-2 with a fast runner (like Cisse) is probably what suits his game the best.

Personally tho if I had a team that was gone 11 games without conceding a goal and had scored 21 I wouldn't care who was doing what or who was getting those goals is it clearly all adds up to a very impressive sum.

Liverpool have been played 4-4-2 for ages now. Except, I think, against Chelsea recently.

redspider

p.pete wrote:

I was probably being a bit cheeky. It's just a bit annoying that you've spent a lot of time trying to discredit him. It's taken some pretty excellent performances from him recently for you to give him some fairly mute applause. As a Liverpool fan I like to see new players given the benifit of the doubt and concentrate on the positives and not the negatives. As a Liverpool fan I don't see the need to be too quick to jump on the back of a Liverpool player, I like to think I call things as I see them but patience is a virtue and all that....

There's plenty of cheeky people on here! I understand where you are coming from, give credit where credit is due, and start off by giving new players the benefit of the doubt. I always try to judge all players by what they do in any given game, given the role and responsibility they have. New players do need a few games to settle in, 5 maybe, 10 is pushing it. Some people claim that Morientes will play better once he settles in - give me a break.

Crouch though is a fairly divisive topic when it comes to the Liverpool fan base. If Liverpool had two other strikers that were excellent, there would be no question that Crouch would be 3rd in the pecking order. However, the thing about Crouch is that he plays in a role that requires a system around it. Its a system that many dont like. If that system pays off, then we all need to recognise when it does. However, we also cant look through red-coloured glasses and when Crouch misses a sitter, or has a poor header or whatever, these situations need to be called out. No player is perfect, but Crouch misses perhaps more than his fair share, and is slow. That wont change.

Liverpool have problems up front, well documented at this stage, Cisse, Morientes, but if Couch is ok by comparing with these two, it shouldnt mean that we should be satisfied with it.

I'm happy with lots of other aspects of the team. The defence is good, midfield with Alonso and Gerrard are good. If we had two brilliant strikers, or even one, we would be well-capable of making 2nd place our own in the league and challenging even better in cup tournaments such as the CL or the FA Cup or the "Amber Nectar" Cup.

redspider

BolBill

Lets see if he scores against decent opposition.........

p.pete

BolBill wrote:

Lets see if he scores against decent opposition.........

TBH Wigan started the season with a pretty mean defence, they don't count?

<edit>

I want to see him performing well away from home (Japan doesn't count). He gets a good reaction at Anfield, the crowd are warm and that's where he's playing his best football. Away from home I don't think he's doing much and has had to put up with a fair bit of jeering. When he scores one or two on his travels I'd like to think he'll be on proper form - especially since when we were buying him Rafa stated repeatedly that he'd be useful for the tough away ties where we found it difficult to get off the mark last season.

Jivin Turkey

BolBill wrote:

Lets see if he scores against decent opposition.........

But then the likes of you will say, lets see if he can score 20 goals. Then it will be, lets see if he can do that consistently, lets see can he score 25. Fact is Crouch has been an integral part of Liverpools performances this year, and if you look at the league table as well as the CL Liverpool have considerably improved over last year.

£7M is not a huge amount of money in todays terms, don't get me wrong I'm not saying it's nothing, but Crouch is looking every bit his worth of that £7M.

Lemlin

I'm a fan of Crouch but IMO he's getting a bit desperate to claim goals like that.

Chucky the tree

Lemlin wrote:

I'm a fan of Crouch but IMO he's getting a bit desperate to claim goals like that.

stop talking ****e.


Every striker out there will try and claim a goal if they have a chance. If henry or Ronaldo scored a goal like that they would try and claim it aswell.

Lemlin

Chucky the tree wrote:

stop talking ****e.


Every striker out there will try and claim a goal if they have a chance. If henry or Ronaldo scored a goal like that they would try and claim it aswell.

Don't think I am talking ****e. Here's something you could try though: listening to other people's opinions. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine, whether you think its ****e or not.

Now, back to the topic. The difference is that Henry and Ronaldo don't tend to score jammy goals like that.

Like I said, I'm a fan of Crouch but I don't see why he wanted the goal labelled his.

Chucky the tree

Lemlin wrote:

Don't think I am talking ****e. Here's something you could try though: listening to other people's opinions. You're entitled to yours, I'm entitled to mine, whether you think its ****e or not.

Now, back to the topic. The difference is that Henry and Ronaldo don't tend to score jammy goals like that.

Like I said, I'm a fan of Crouch but I don't see why he wanted the goal labelled his.

Yea, and i am entitled to express my opinion. ANd my opinion is that your talking ****e and trolling.

How does crouch tend to score jammy goals? Every striker has scored a jammy goal, do you think every single goal henry and ronaldo have scored has been world class?. :rolleyes:

The reason he wanted the goal labelled his is because it all counts to his total. Every striker wants to score as many goals a season as they can, no matter how they are scored.

Lemlin

Chucky the tree wrote:

Yea, and i am entitled to express my opinion. ANd my opinion is that your talking ****e and trolling.

How does crouch tend to score jammy goals? Every striker has scored a jammy goal, do you think every single goal henry and ronaldo have scored has been world class?. :rolleyes:

The reason he wanted the goal labelled his is because it all counts to his total. Every striker wants to score as many goals a season as they can, no matter how they are scored.

I never said every goal he scores is jammy. If anyone is trolling, its you. Where have I even expressed that opinion?

I said that particular goal was a jammy. Do you disagree? Fact is, there was only a rigmarole about the goal because Crouch hasn't been scoring. He should of just left well alone IMO and it would of took some of the focus away from the fact that he isn't scoring.

By pursuing the dodgy goal, he is just putting more spotlight on himself. Do you see every other dodgy goal scored in the Premier League getting coverage like his has?

That's my point. If you don't like it, ignore it.

Jivin Turkey

Lemlin wrote:

I never said every goal he scores is jammy. If anyone is trolling, its you. Where have I even expressed that opinion?

I said that particular goal was a jammy. Do you disagree? Fact is, there was only a rigmarole about the goal because Crouch hasn't been scoring. He should of just left well alone IMO and it would of took some of the focus away from the fact that he isn't scoring.

By pursuing the dodgy goal, he is just putting more spotlight on himself. Do you see every other dodgy goal scored in the Premier League getting coverage like his has?

That's my point. If you don't like it, ignore it.

In this post you have just explained why there was such a fuss in the first place.

If Henry scored said goal, no one would have even thought to take it away from him.

Because it was Crouch and because it was his first goal people were on his back saying it wasn't, just like you

Lemlin wrote:

I'm a fan of Crouch but IMO he's getting a bit desperate to claim goals like that.

The goal was his. It's been rightly awarded so. Get over it. Just like you would do for any other striker, instantly.

I'm going to note similar deflected goals, which are parried in by keepers in the future, and post them. I wonder what sort of reactions we will get........

Assuming it's not Crouch that shoots them

Lemlin

In this post you have just explained why there was such a fuss in the first place.

If Henry scored said goal, no one would have even thought to take it away from him.

Because it was Crouch and because it was his first goal people were on his back saying it wasn't, just like you

No, because the Wigan keeper, Pollitt I think it was, punched the ball into the top of the net when he should of saved it people were saying it was an own goal.

The goal was his. It's been rightly awarded so. Get over it. Just like you would do for any other striker, instantly.

You're not getting my point at all, are you? By pursuing the goal Crouch has put more emphasis on the fact that he's not scoring. I'm not begrudging him the goal at all.

No need to get on the defensive and presume Liverpool are being attacked by the way. Like I said, I'm a fan of Crouch, he's a good, honest footballer who trys his best.

Perhaps you should learn to listen rather than jump to conclusions. I look forward to reading your list btw

Jivin Turkey

Lemlin wrote:

No, because the Wigan keeper, Pollitt I think it was, punched the ball into the top of the net when he should of saved it people were saying it was an own goal.

So any time a keeper makes a hash of something that he "should have saved", is should be an own goal in your opinion?

Jesus, my list of own goals is going to be a very long one so.

Lemlin wrote:

You're not getting my point at all, are you? By pursuing the goal Crouch has put more emphasis on the fact that he's not scoring. I'm not begrudging him the goal at all.

How exactly did he "pursue" it? He came out in the interview after the game and said he thought it was his because it was on target. And then nothing after that. No cries to give him the goal or anything.

It hardly put any "emphasis on his not scoring", he did what any other would.

Lemlin wrote:

Perhaps you should learn to listen rather than jump to conclusions. I look forward to reading your list btw

I fully read and understood your post.

You claimed that Crouch was desperate to claim the goal, how so? What did he do? You claim that if a keeper makes a mistake where he should save something it's an own goal, how so? I truly believe that that is not what you actually believe?

What next, a defender makes a cock up to let a forward in, who scores, own goal too?

Lemlin

Nope, the fact that he punched it into his own net makes it an own goal. It was just a general observation that he should of saved it.

Seeing as you still don't seem to get it, here's my point spelled out for you: When was the last time you heard of any striker's goal going to a Disputes authority, or whatever its called?

Answers on a postcard please.

Also, answers on a postcard to anyone who can make sense of this: "I truly believe that that is not what you actually believe?", a quote from the above.

Davei141

Answer this lemlin, if the keeper dropped dead before his "attempt" at saving the ball, would it of went into the goal?

And btw the way, i think that fact he scored his first goal(s) (now officially 2) in that game, put alot of emphasis on his goal scoring record, instead of claiming a goal that was given to him weeks later, no?

Lemlin

Davei141 wrote:

Answer this lemlin, if the keeper dropped dead before his "attempt" at saving the ball, would it of went into the goal?

And btw the way, i think that fact he scored his first goal(s) (now officially 2) in that game, put alot of emphasis on his goal scoring record, instead of claiming a goal that was given to him weeks later, no?

I'm not even going to answer the first question. Are you serious with it?

The whole emphasis was on him not scoring. The fact that this is still being dragged up two weeks later is now putting even more emphasis on the fact he couldn't score and emphasis on whether he'll continue to score.

Pigman II

I'm not up on the rules of what is an OG and what is not but I always considered an OG as a pass/shot that wasn't on going on target being made to go on target by a defender/goalies touch/intervention.

The point about the goalie being dead is a bit OTT but I see where he's coming from. If the goalie (for example) hadn't been there (or hadn't got a touch on it) Crouchs shot was still on target (iirc?) and would have gone in. All the goalie did was change it's direction and make it go in to a different point.

Lemlin

Pigman II wrote:

I'm not up on the rules of what is an OG and what is not but I always considered an OG as a pass/shot that wasn't on going on target being made to go on target by a defender/goalies touch/intervention.

The point about the goalie being dead is a bit OTT but I see where he's coming from. If the goalie (for example) hadn't been there (or hadn't got a touch on it) Crouchs shot was still on target (iirc?) and would have gone in. All the goalie did was change it's direction and make it go in to a different point.

I accept your point but I'm not arguing over whether it was Crouch's goal or not. I was merely pointing out why some people thought it was an OG.

If you raed the post, my point is about Crouch pursuing the goal as his. It put alot of emphasis on the whole situation of him not scoring.

mike65

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ad infinitum.

Mike.

Hobart

Lemlin wrote:

Nope, the fact that he punched it into his own net makes it an own goal. It was just a general observation that he should of saved it.

I think in order to Punch something, your fist must be closed. It was more of a flap at it. I also understand that the goal has been awarded to PC. So, at this stage, your thesis that the "punch" that "makes it an own goal" holds about as much water as the titanic. But hey lets not let details get in the way your truth.

[edit] And Mike has a very good point aswell[/edit] Lollers!!

Lemlin

Hobart wrote:

I think in order to Punch something, your fist must be closed. It was more of a flap at it. I also understand that the goal has been awarded to PC. So, at this stage, your thesis that the "punch" that "makes it an own goal" holds about as much water as the titanic. But hey lets not let details get in the way your truth.

[edit] And Mike has a very good point aswell[/edit] Lollers!!

You really amaze me. If Mike has a good point, is the irony of your last post lost on you?

Hobart

Lemlin wrote:

You really amaze me. If Mike has a good point, is the irony of your last post lost on you?

Speaking of previous posts, I think Chucky summed up the calibre of your posting earlier, and this post of yours is a prime example.

Davei141

Lemlin wrote:

I'm not even going to answer the first question. Are you serious with it?

Answer this lemlin, if the keeper was abducted by rock and roll loving aliens before his "attempt" at saving the ball, would it of went into the goal?

Is that better? same point.

I accept your point but I'm not arguing over whether it was Crouch's goal or not. I was merely pointing out why some people thought it was an OG

Well its quite obvious you think it should be an own goal, and because its jammy he shouldnt claim it. I think the first question has everything to do with whether he should claim it or not. The dubious goals panel ruled him correct in claiming the goal.

And whatever about drawing attention to his goal scoring record, he can say i scored 4 goals in my last 4 games now.

zAbbo

Don't you know? goals only count if there against top class opposition as well

Thanx 4 The Fish

Van persie I believe had one taken off him by the DGP recently.
Bosvelt in 2004 for his first in a man city shirt was sent to the DGP.
Saha had one sent to DGP a couple of years ago.
Thought Sheringham fell out with Cole as a result of a goal taken off one of them by the DGP too.

Tusky

This thread is getting fairly annoying at this stage!