Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Author Posted 1 January 2008 I used to think the same but that outstanding coolness he used to have has dissipated slightly this season. Kisnorbo is less replacable, hes a more "all-action" type. Difficult to call though. The QPR fan on here didn't sound much impressed with McAuley today. Apart from his aerial ability, which hardly seemed to stand out this afternoon, I cannot see anything special about him at all.
Chelve84 Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 sell the lot especially mattock, the guy cant defend and i aint seen him beat his man once without falling over the ball. I think we need a different approach altogether we need footballers who can pass and trap a ball, there aint many who can pass and move in our team without giving the ball away. if there is we aint seen it at all this season.
Joe. Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 The QPR fan on here didn't sound much impressed with McAuley today. Apart from his aerial ability, which hardly seemed to stand out this afternoon, I cannot see anything special about him at all. McAuley's been superb for us since he joined us. Great ariel ability in both defence and attack, he can tackle and he's not afraid to get stuck in. Rarely is he booked also. I know he has his faults, his pace and distribution the main ones, but overall I still think he's a better defender than Kisnorbo.
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Author Posted 1 January 2008 By not selling someone to part-finance the purchase of possibly the best goalkeeper in this division and deciding to make do with Henderson or bring Logan back would be the height of recklessness. And stupid too....... Wise words. I hate to think where we might have been without Fulop this season.
Jack Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 sell the lot especially mattock, the guy cant defend and i aint seen him beat his man once without falling over the ball. I think we need a different approach altogether we need footballers who can pass and trap a ball, there aint many who can pass and move in our team without giving the ball away. if there is we aint seen it at all this season. You have to remember that Mattock is still only 17, therefore he will be inconsistent and has a lot to learn. I think what would be best would be to loan him out to a league one side for a season to get him playing first team football everyweek. I am confident in his ability and think he will come good, but atm I think that people ask too much of him and forget his age.
Daggers Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 are you all mad ; selling first team regulars should not even be considered until the replacements have proved to be better than what we have recent experience and evidence of our mass of incoming players seem to suggest that this is probably not going to be the case Wrong. The fundamental problem with LCFC is everyone currently associated with LCFC. The attitude sucks, it has become part of the culture and replacing individuals does not cure this. In order to change the cultural basis of an organisation you have to strip it to the bare minimum and start again.
Chelve84 Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 You have to remember that Mattock is still only 17, therefore he will be inconsistent and has a lot to learn. I think what would be best would be to loan him out to a league one side for a season to get him playing first team football everyweek. I am confident in his ability and think he will come good, but atm I think that people ask too much of him and forget his age. I think that would be good idea, but even tho he is 17, he shouldn't be playing left back if he cant defend and he certainly shouldn't be our left winger cuz the guy is scared to take any 1 on, and that is because he knows he aint gonna beat him. confidence thing i don't know? but he aint good he enough for either one of them positions. Wrong.The fundamental problem with LCFC is everyone currently associated with LCFC. The attitude sucks, it has become part of the culture and replacing individuals does not cure this. In order to change the cultural basis of an organisation you have to strip it to the bare minimum and start again. you have a point there.
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Author Posted 1 January 2008 You have to remember that Mattock is still only 17, therefore he will be inconsistent and has a lot to learn. I think what would be best would be to loan him out to a league one side for a season to get him playing first team football everyweek. I am confident in his ability and think he will come good, but atm I think that people ask too much of him and forget his age. You're right. But because some of the big clubs have expressed interest he's seen as a potential golden goose and has been rushed through far too quickly. Also he's being asked to play as a wing-back and it's really too much to expect all at once. I think it's because he used to play further forward before finding that full-back was his best position. I don't think he has great effect as an attacker anyway but having the extra duty has hardly made life easier for him as a left-back. I wonder what Nils would have said about that idea!
Jack Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 I think that would be good idea, but even tho he is 17, he shouldn't be playing left back if he cant defend and he certainly shouldn't be our left winger cuz the guy is scared to take any 1 on, and that is because he knows he aint gonna beat him. confidence thing i don't know? but he aint good he enough for either one of them positions. The reason he is scared to take people on is probably due to the fact that he is inexperienced. If we sent him out on loan hopefully he would be more confident in taking people on and add that to his game, which in turn will benefit us.
Sparky Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 You're right. But because some of the big clubs have expressed interest he's seen as a potential golden goose and has been rushed through far too quickly.Also he's being asked to play as a wing-back and it's really too much to expect all at once. I think it's because he used to play further forward before finding that full-back was his best position. I don't think he has great effect as an attacker anyway but having the extra duty has hardly made life easier for him as a left-back. I wonder what Nils would have said about that idea! Surely Thrac we will be playing 4-4-2 when Holloway s squad is complete so shouldnt be a problem for mattock ?
ibbosuk Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Fulop was never ours he was just a loane Fulop IS AVAILABLE and wants to come!
Chelve84 Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 The reason he is scared to take people on is probably due to the fact that he is inexperienced. If we sent him out on loan hopefully he would be more confident in taking people on and add that to his game, which in turn will benefit us. any good young players don't play with fear they play with adrenalin and enthusiasm, and Mattock plays with fear he dont want the ball its like a hot potato, and a lot of them players in our team are like that. chambers, stearman, gaz mcauley, kissa and sheenan we just hoof it and hope for the best.
Jonbluefox9 Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Mattock's looked shaky this season but we shouldn't even consider selling him imo. He's 17 years of age and can only get better. People seem to forget that he's a kid playing with and against men and a lot of the men that our on his side aren't showing him how it should be done. It's a crime that we still don't have an experienced left back for him and Sheehan to learn from and if we don't sign one in January I can only imagine it's because we have even bigger problems in other areas.
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Author Posted 1 January 2008 any good young players don't play with fear they play with adrenalin and enthusiasm, and Mattock plays with fear he dont want the ball its like a hot potato, and a lot of them players in our team are like that. chambers, stearman, gaz mcauley, kissa and sheenan we just hoof it and hope for the best. I cannot believe anyone views Sheehan as a hoofer.
Granno Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 I cannot believe anyone views Sheehan as a hoofer. Agreed. Out of anyone on that list Sheehan is the least likely to hoof it. The best deliverer of a ball out of any of them.
Jimmy Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 if anything Sheehan's problem is he dwells on the ball
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Author Posted 1 January 2008 if anything Sheehan's problem is he dwells on the ball Not sure that he wants to - but it's damned hard to spot any movement up front on far too many occasions.
MC Prussian Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 I'd get Sappleton and Sheehan/Mattock (your choice) out on loan, recall Gradel and Dodds and get rid of all the deadwood that's still lying around. SELL!!
Simon Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Get rid of EVERYONE. A bit heavy on the Hyperbole... ...But only a bit. The man has a point. None of our players should be considered exempt from consideration for being sold. If we can bring better people in by selling then we should bloody well do so.
Ultra Posted 2 January 2008 Posted 2 January 2008 The problem is neither our chairman or our manager seem capable of long-term planning. If they are serious about regaining and then retaining Premier League status for this club, they have to do whatever it takes to recruit players of sufficient quality to achieve that task. Fulop has proved in the last four months that he is one such player. I cannot think of anyone in the current squad who would meet that standard. If we have to offload Kisnorbo and/or Fryatt to bring him in, then so be it.
The People's Hero Posted 2 January 2008 Posted 2 January 2008 c) McAuley Another who might fetch £1m. He's a solid, failry reliable defender but we can't continue with two such poor passers in our defence and hope to win promotion. NUURRRRRRRRRSE!
Ultra Posted 2 January 2008 Posted 2 January 2008 Paul McShane went for £1.5m. Claude Davis went for £3m! So a £1m price tag for McAuley (a regular international) is maybe not THAT ridiculous..
koop. Posted 2 January 2008 Posted 2 January 2008 I would quite happily get rid of... Henderson McAuley Kishishev Newton (please lord, please) Stearman Hammond I'd love to see.... (? denotes i've mentioned loads of players for these positions and they have all turned out to be shit!) FULOP CHAMBERS N'GOTTY KISNORBO ? ? CLEMENCE © HUME (playing a Gerrard role) ? JOHN HOWARD DJ, FRYATT, WESO, HAYLES
The People's Hero Posted 2 January 2008 Posted 2 January 2008 Paul McShane went for £1.5m.Claude Davis went for £3m! So a £1m price tag for McAuley (a regular international) is maybe not THAT ridiculous.. Calling him a regular international is labouring a point which is hardly relevant anyway. Up until a year or so ago he was playing league one football and other than his threat from set pieces, he hardly stood out there. He's over-rated here. I appreciate your point Ultra but to be honest, both those players are better than McAuley. This ain't no witch hunt and I'm starting to feel a bit guilty for the stick I'm giving him but I guarantee to you that we will not be paid £1million for McAuley.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.