Ipswich bid for McAuley

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Ipswich bid

Jeff said:
Can I remind people to use thread titles that describe what's in the thread. "Ipswich bid" could mean a number of things, "Ipswich Bid for McAuley" would be more appropriate in this case. So I'll change it to that.
Click to expand...

im was going for the mystery factor

"ipswich bid:icon_eek:, for who? id better click on it to find out"

adds excitment to the scenerio:023:
 
Haven't read the link, so I don't know how much the offer was.

Why?, 'cause I don't fecking care if it was as high as 17p, sell the cnut.
 
I cant think of a decent replacement.

I probably wouldn't sell. The rebuilding job is big enough without ripping holes in the defence, which we know is capable of being the best in the league.
 
Against a sale here. I think Kinsboro and McCauley are good enough for a promotion aspiring team next season. If LCFC had a decent midfield and forward line and didn't play with 2 suspect full backs (on left and right) so far, then the perceptions of K & M would be unanamous approval. At the moment they just have the approval of the overwhelming majority from what I've seen. Which is not bad given a shite team in a shite (to date) campaign. Keep McCauley!
 
Last edited:
consty said:
Against a sale here. I think Kinsboro and McCauley are good enough for a promotion aspiring team next season. If LCFC had a decent midfield and forward line and didn't play with 2 suspect full backs (on left and right) so far, then the perceptions of K & M would be unanamous approval. At the moment they just have the approval of the overwhelming majority from what I've seen. Which is not bad given a shite team in a shite (to date) campaign. Keep McCauley!
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
my only problem with mcauley and kissa really is that due to lack of pace we have to defend relatively deep if the other team set up with a pacey striker. this defines the way we play to an extent, either separating defence from midfield, dragging the midfield to deep, and meaning the fullbacks tuck in rather than getting forward on the overlap.
 
sparky79 said:
my only problem with mcauley and kissa really is that due to lack of pace we have to defend relatively deep if the other team set up with a pacey striker. this defines the way we play to an extent, either separating defence from midfield, dragging the midfield to deep, and meaning the fullbacks tuck in rather than getting forward on the overlap.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are not that quick but still hope they are kept. They could get some decent cover from Chambers if he switches to right back (as I hope he will) he's quick.
 
One things for sure, if we assemble a decent midfield, which looks to be happening, then these two both need to improve their distribution a huge amount.
 
i dont think he'll go for chambers.

i think he'll have stears and sheehan at full backs. mattock and zsolto on the same side might be too much of a gamble and mattock was back in the youth team the other day.

alnwick

stears mcauley kisnorbo sheehan

bori clemence oakley Lazcske

Howard Hume

Subs: Hayles, Fryatt, Ngotty, Blunderson, Chambers
 
i don't doubt it, if we had a replacement centre back i could see mcauley going to finance norris. but ngotty and stearman aren't replacements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool615
2Manchester C  614
3Arsenal614
4Chelsea613
5Aston Villa512
6Fulham611
7Newcastle611
8Brighton69
9Nottm F69
10Tottenham 57
11Manchester U57
12Brentford67
13Bournemouth55
14West Ham65
15Everton64
16Leicester63
17Palace63
18Ipswich53
19Southampton51
20Wolves61

Latest posts

Back
Top