Turner for Mccormack

[Sebastian Asspong 0]

Ive heard rumours that we''ve bid 3m and Turner for Ross McCormack

[Tetteys Jig 851]

Well i''d be happy with that. Probably rubbish though.

[morty 0]

I would think they would want a bit more money than that.

[Nicko 0]

That''s a deal and half if true, take it and run.

[ZLF 335]

If thats the price its nearly worth a go.    but still not better than we have which is the benchmark

[Lessingham Canary 108]

If true we should do it, but that would most likely mean Hooper would be on his way ?.

[Lessingham Canary 108]

Meant to add, they must be keen on Turner also, which helps massively

[scrappy33 0]

Is he Prem quality? He is soon to be 29, will he improve?

[chuggs 0]

He would be another to play along side BJ and JH. That would really please the Leeds fans

[Miss Bum Bum 0]

[quote user="chuggs"]He would be another to play along side BJ and JH. That would really please the Leeds fans[/quote]

For this reason and this reason alone we should sign him

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

I couldn''t quite understand Turner''s quick turn around in fortunes. He did have his limits and his critics, but for the most part he was a solid performer even in the top league. Good for the occasional goal as well.

 

He always gave his best and became somewhat of a stalwart, although not fully accepted by some sections of the canary support.

 

Fulham seem to like him, or rather their manager does and he is also after the Ipswich striker Murphy. He clearly likes the ageing big uns with a lot of experience, is there a trend there?

 

If the deal is favourable, then do it. Helps solve two problems.

 

We wouldn''t have got too much for Turner the open market, he owes the club nothing.

[TheTetteyRole 0]

Pleasing the Leeds scum is cool now? The problem with this is that the job isn''t done with just McCormack, we need proven scorers, of which he isn''t at his level. However, some may be satisfied with just this and that is an incredibly risky gamble.

[lake district canary 4,830]

Looking at his record, he is as consistent a striker as you could want - not prolific, but slightly better than one goal every three games at every club he has been at. Would be a good addition, but only if one of ours leaves. Would still prefer Grabban, the improved Jerome, Hooper and yes, RVW, as te four strikers.

[YellowFellow 0]

That wld b a stunning deal if he''s to replace becchio but I''d rather keep hooper if its one or the other..maybe rvw is tempted by London :)

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

I like Turner - solid and dependable. Possibly his lack of pace is a concern given we play a high line with advancing full-backs these days.

The rumour of acquiring McCormack concerns me if that means losing Hooper. Given his excellent first touch, link-up play & obvious goal-scoring ability, Hooper deserves his chance in the Prem. He can play as a No.10 off the main striker and with his back to goal he''s as capable as Hoolahan at playing others in.

McCormack looked anonymous this season at Carrow Rd - I can''t see what he offers over and above Hooper?

Hooper comes across in interviews as slightly disengaged; pretty understandable really - since he joined, he''s not been allowed to play very regularly. I guess one of the sides relegated from the Prem this season would snap him up. Burnley are likely to lose Ings & QPR will not be short of bids for Austin - Hull, well their need for a goal scorer is obvious. Selling Shane Long was a massive mistake; Norwich offloading Hooper could represent a similar scenario...

[mrs miggins 0]

Yeah we must keep our only natural goalscorer, Hooper''s had a good season in a goalscoring sense even though he hasn''t played that much because of Jerome being so good as the lone striker.

I wonder if Hooper will play more of a role as Wes inevitably doesn''t play as many games next season.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Yeah we must keep our only natural goalscorer, Hooper''s had a good season in a goalscoring sense even though he hasn''t played that much because of Jerome being so good as the lone striker.

I wonder if Hooper will play more of a role as Wes inevitably doesn''t play as many games next season.[/quote]Too attacking though?Wes retains the ball a lot more than Hooper, not sure how often we''d get away with it.

[Norfolk Mustard 106]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="mrs miggins"]Yeah we must keep our only natural goalscorer, Hooper''s had a good season in a goalscoring sense even though he hasn''t played that much because of Jerome being so good as the lone striker.

I wonder if Hooper will play more of a role as Wes inevitably doesn''t play as many games next season.[/quote]Too attacking though?Wes retains the ball a lot more than Hooper, not sure how often we''d get away with it.[/quote]

I haven''t seen any dispossession stats, however watching Hooper I have been hugely impressed with how well he retains the ball. Surely Wes is the vulnerable one when it comes to being robbed?

[mrs miggins 0]

Hooper''s retention of the ball is good. The difference between Wes and Hooper is still quite vast though, not in terms of ability, but skill set. Wes drops deeper to get the ball and looks to spread the play as well as go on a few runs, however Hooper doesn''t do this, he stays central helping the forward (Jerome) more as well as getting in goalscoring areas, which is why he''s also scored a sh!tload of goals for the games that he''s played.

Yes it''s more attacking but we shouldn''t see this as a negative, only an alternative. It would be very risky if BJ wasn''t playing on the left and we had more of a pacey Redmond type player there as well, however with BJ there this notion of Hooper playing instead of Wes could be more beneficial. We don''t want Jerome to become isolated, which in the Prem, is very easy to do due to the quality of defenders.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]Hooper''s retention of the ball is good. The difference between Wes and Hooper is still quite vast though, not in terms of ability, but skill set. Wes drops deeper to get the ball and looks to spread the play as well as go on a few runs, however Hooper doesn''t do this, he stays central helping the forward (Jerome) more as well as getting in goalscoring areas, which is why he''s also scored a sh!tload of goals for the games that he''s played.

Yes it''s more attacking but we shouldn''t see this as a negative, only an alternative. It would be very risky if BJ wasn''t playing on the left and we had more of a pacey Redmond type player there as well, however with BJ there this notion of Hooper playing instead of Wes could be more beneficial. We don''t want Jerome to become isolated, which in the Prem, is very easy to do due to the quality of defenders.[/quote]I agree. He isn''t a like for like Hoolahan replacement.But Hooper is turning into a bit of an enigma, for me. And I assume for Alex Neil too, as he hasn''t really nailed down a starting place, or a position. I do wonder if there is something in rumours linking him with a move away, and maybe it would be better for him too. Sometimes a player needs to be the one that the team is built around.

[ZLF 335]

Hoopers sits off another striker well but that is not all wes does,   Wes comes much deeper and his defensive contribution is not insignificant - that is something hooper does not offer.

Hooper is a great natural finisher and has a good touch;   however that it is now 3 managers who have not seen enough to keep him as their prefered starting striker over two divisions suggests he will only play a supporting role here.

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

Sounds like a decent deal to me - have kept an eye on McCormack for a while, he''s a decent player; may not have looked special at FCR this season but then it was a nothing match for them, I recall Lukaku looking ropey for WBA when we stuffed them a couple of years ago so it''s not really a good yardstick