Ultra Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Clapham is much better than Shush! IMO. You obviously didn't go to Barnsley then...
Ultra Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Calm down i was only saying, i just think Shush! is a bit of a liability and does not make the grade for Leicester. If he was that good surely we would have kept him? no? and what left-backs set up goals...not many, they are there to defend which clearly Shush! is not able to do to a great standard...shush!?! "We" didn't have any say in the matter. Holloway did. Although why anyone should have any faith in the manager's judgement remains to be seen.
Koke Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Shush! is better than Clapham. At least Shush! was useful at set pieces, whilst the latter is a liability in my humble opinion.
Koke Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 "We" didn't have any say in the matter. Holloway did.Although why anyone should have any faith in the manager's judgement remains to be seen. Remind me again how many players whom the club didn't rate have gone on to do bigger and better things?
yorksfox Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Remind me again how many players whom the club didn't rate have gone on to do bigger and better things? Shush! is definitely our best bet at left back - an adequate defender (no worse than Clapham / Mattock) but also someone who would score 4/5 goals a season and probably set up a dozen. Our delivery at free kicks and corners has been so poor of late than signing Howard is a waste. Imagine Martin O'Neill not having a set piece specialist to bang the ball into Elliott, Taggart, Heskey and co.
teblin Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 A Shush! arguement i hav enever seen one of these on this forum before. Great set peices, poor in open play. Has that been said before?
Thracian Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Remind me again how many players whom the club didn't rate have gone on to do bigger and better things? Can't imagine why they offered him a new, reputedly three-year contract, if they didn't rate him.
The People's Hero Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Can't imagine why they offered him a new, reputedly three-year contract, if they didn't rate him. Can't imagine why he was sent out on loan and is now probably our 4th choice left back if they DO rate him.
Alexikokopops Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 I think my head's going to implode from reading the same crap over and over again. And no, this isn't just directed at Thracian, it's directed at all of you who get involved in this argument we've have every two weeks since time immemorial.
The People's Hero Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 I think my head's going to implode from reading the same crap over and over again.And no, this isn't just directed at Thracian, it's directed at all of you who get involved in this argument we've have every two weeks since time immemorial. Close the thread, mate.
Thracian Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Can't imagine why he was sent out on loan and is now probably our 4th choice left back if they DO rate him. So Gradel might as well negotiate his release right now, presumably.
James. Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 The line's been drawn. I'm more concerned now that we don't lose others for the same reasons. Did you forget about this post or something? I'm not normally one for requesting threads to be closed but f**k me if EVER there was a thread that needed confining to history then it's this one (and that bloody Loanees one as well while you're at it). EVERYTHING that needs to be said has been. More than once. Please.
Alexikokopops Posted 23 April 2008 Posted 23 April 2008 Close the thread, mate. I only have powers in General Chat
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.