Almost spot on.Millsy wrote:Everyone is pretending not to notice that if we sign him around Christmas time the signing will technically be a Christmas Carroll.
Thanks.
Almost spot on.Millsy wrote:Everyone is pretending not to notice that if we sign him around Christmas time the signing will technically be a Christmas Carroll.
Thanks.
Well, that's 10 more than our strikers had contributed pre the Brum game.Pepe the Horseman wrote:Obviously hope it works out, and there's a quality player in there, but I'd be amazed if we get more than 10 games out of him.
I have the same reservations. If he is given the correct service, he will score goals - but it would mean adapting our style which hasn't happened for Puscas. He is definitely a plan B option, throw him on and get looping balls into him to cause havoc.Pepe the Horseman wrote:Obviously hope it works out, and there's a quality player in there, but I'd be amazed if we get more than 10 games out of him.
I quite like Puski and would prefer him to Carroll who is just going to add to a very long list of injury prone players.NathStPaul wrote:Why is this a bad thing?Zip wrote:Groan. This suggests 1) Puscas is leaving in January and 2) Clarke is going to be out for a good while.tidus_mi2 wrote:Reading FC Exclusives on Twitter just said he is signing, WTAF.
We need a striker of course but I hope he has been training with us all this time or he will be well short of match fitness.
leon wrote:Clarke’s injured - what?
48 hours after playing first team football?Zip wrote:leon wrote:Clarke’s injured - what?
I thought you knew. Management thought it a good idea to bring him on in the second half of last Monday night’s under 23 game. Last season wearing a protective boot post match.
We simply don't know yet RE: Carroll. History tells us he will struggle for fitness but history also tells us he is likely a better fit for the system we play. I don't think Puscas is happy at the club and he isn't used in a way that plays to his strengths so a move is probably in the best interest of both parties.Zip wrote:I quite like Puski and would prefer him to Carroll who is just going to add to a very long list of injury prone players.NathStPaul wrote:Why is this a bad thing?Zip wrote:
Groan. This suggests 1) Puscas is leaving in January and 2) Clarke is going to be out for a good while.
But then he did only play 45 minutes in both games. Pretty sure on a few occasions last season, players played for the U23 on the Friday as well as being in the squad for the first team the day after. A gap of more than 48 hours (afternoon to evening) really shouldn’t have had much of an impact, especially not for someone like ClarkeZip wrote:leon wrote:Clarke’s injured - what?
I thought you knew. Management thought it a good idea to bring him on in the second half of last Monday night’s under 23 game. Last season wearing a protective boot post match.
I'd hope he has been training with us to some extent already.Norfolk Royal wrote:Was wondering what level of fitness Carroll would have which is obvs highly relevant to us. It's not as bad as I feared.
He left Newcastle in July this year so assuming he was in full training at that time and has been keeping fit, he would possibly not be too far away in say, three weeks time.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], windermereROYAL and 86 guests