Alex Pearce - Yes or No?

[Dr. Ink 0]

Alex Pearce hinted that he would be happy making his Norwich loan move permanent. Personally I don''t think he was that great, and much prefer to have Tiny sign on.

[Desi Rascall 0]

all things being equal i would prefer tiny because i think with the number of loan signings this year we will be lacking in experience.

[Norma Stick 0]

Is both asking too much?

[Canary Pirate 0]

[quote user="Big Dave"]Alex Pearce hinted that he would be happy making his Norwich loan move permanent. Personally I don''t think he was that great, and much prefer to have Tiny sign on.[/quote]

Apart from the dodgy game he had at Ipswich I think he would be a great addition to the squad. He''s physically strong and for someone so young he can only get better. Well worth a gamble and these are the type of players we will be aiming to bring to the club.

[lucky green trainers 0]

no way - he''s just a boy with potential.  he needs to size up to be good enough.taylor and others like him shud be the way city go - if we harbour any play-off ambitions whatsoever imo.

[TheCardinal 0]

Yes for me; his calm and composure on the ball is a rare quality that you don''t see in many center halves these days. And as people have said, he has a lot of potential so I think could grow to be a permenant Norwich City center half and - dare I say it? - a future captain.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Big Dave"]Alex Pearce hinted that he would be happy making his Norwich loan move permanent. Personally I don''t think he was that great, and much prefer to have Tiny sign on.[/quote]I agree, but I''d rather have Pearce than Shackell.  We need cover in the CB area anyway regardless of whether Tiny signs.

[sturgeon220 0]

A Yes for me, he already looks a lot better than what we have and can only get better

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Dean Coneys Arse"]Is both asking too much?[/quote]

yes

jas :)

[scott 0]

Would rather have Taylor cause he was the complete article which Pearce is some way from beign although he has potential. Taylor undoubtedly improved the team while Pearce who done alright certainly didn''t!

 

If Pearce was to come back he''d only be back up to Doc and Shack cause at the end of the day Pearce wasn''t as wonderful as some made him out to be though he was the best out the clutch of youngsters we got on January 1st and he isn''t as good as the much often unfairly critiscised Doc and Shacks.

[GJP 79]

Would only really want Pearce as backup. Thought he defended ok most of the time although sometimes he got himself caught in no mans land, unsure of where he should be. Also he looked an inch or two too short to be really dominant in the air and he was very slow across the turf.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="scott"]

If Pearce was to come back he''d only be back up to Doc and Shack cause at the end of the day Pearce wasn''t as wonderful as some made him out to be though he was the best out the clutch of youngsters we got on January 1st and he isn''t as good as the much often unfairly critiscised Doc and Shacks.

[/quote]Are you seriously suggesting that Pearce was better than Bertrand?

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

Yup, I''d have him in - Tiny would obviously be better/first choice as is more ''proven'' but I thought Pearce looked pretty composed most of the time; I did wonder whether perhaps both were in the pipeline hence the stalling on Doc, though tbh we could do with two c/b''s and can''t really afford to lose one that we already have - it is a v important role and with DD going we won''t be able to rely on his dual abilities next season. 

[Freeza 0]

Yes from me - already better than Shacks and Doc and should only get better.

[viennacanary 0]

slowest player to ever play for Norwich?

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

....surely that would be Mike Channon?! 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

If Doherty doesn''t sign his new contract then yes. Pearce, Shackell, and Doherty are all decent defenders, but I can''t help but feel we could do with two who are better than all three. If getting two better ones is not possible, then get Pearce and one better one.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Freeza"]Yes from me - already better than Shacks and Doc and should only get better.[/quote]

Really???

I''m always critical of Shacks but I wouldn''t be in a hurry to put Pearce in ahead of him. Definitely not better than the Doc either.

[silver fox 0]

A definite yes from me.  He has so much composure and I can hardly remember him not finding one of his own players when he cleared the ball out of defence.   Yes he is young, but he can only get better, whereas Doherty has reached the age where he is unlikely to improve, and Shackell seems to have not blossomed after showing early promise.

I still find it amazing that certain posters seem to think Pearce isn''t any better than Doherty and Shackell.  I will stick my neck out and say that of the defenders Roeder brought in last season which is Taylor, Bertrand, Pearce and Bates, they were all a class above the ones we currently have at the club.

[Dr. Bunsen 0]

i think just about a yes from me but personally id like to see taylor and another new one at the back because TBH shackell is worse than......... well i dont know but hes crap. the doc is ok but doesnt look like hes going to sign a new contract and pearce is a bi unreliable IMO.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="silver fox"]

A definite yes from me.  He has so much composure and I can hardly remember him not finding one of his own players when he cleared the ball out of defence.   Yes he is young, but he can only get better, whereas Doherty has reached the age where he is unlikely to improve, and Shackell seems to have not blossomed after showing early promise.

I still find it amazing that certain posters seem to think Pearce isn''t any better than Doherty and Shackell.  I will stick my neck out and say that of the defenders Roeder brought in last season which is Taylor, Bertrand, Pearce and Bates, they were all a class above the ones we currently have at the club.

[/quote]

Agreed with regard to his composure on the ball, his distribution out of defence was good. But for me that bit is a bit like the icing on the cake for a defender if he can play the ball well. Unfortunately Alex Pearce lacks height/aerial presence and has only got 1 speed which happens to be very slow. His positional sense isn''t particulartly great either, it''s not bad but if you watched him when he played for us there were several times when he didn''t know which player or space to committ himself to.

All depends what your priority is in a centreback. Is it the ability to play the ball well or is it someone who can dominate in the air and has the speed to recover and make crucial tackles?

For the record - I''d love to see Taylor come back as well as Ryan Bertrand (genuine class) but Bates didn''t look anything special.

[Syteanric 1]

Bertrand would of been regarded as a definate purchase if funds allow.. Pearce did ok in his time here.. id have him back

jas :)

[scott 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="scott"]

If Pearce was to come back he''d only be back up to Doc and Shack cause at the end of the day Pearce wasn''t as wonderful as some made him out to be though he was the best out the clutch of youngsters we got on January 1st and he isn''t as good as the much often unfairly critiscised Doc and Shacks.

[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that Pearce was better than Bertrand?
[/quote]

 

No not at all!

Bertrand came to Norwich before January 31st when we signed messrs Pearce, Gibbs and Henry. Bates signed as well but I don''t count him in the young category like the beforementioned 3!

 

Pearce was not as good as Doc or Shacks. People talk about them 2 as if they are completely useless. Yes they are poor going forward or scoring goals but as stoppers most of the time they are more than adequate. If they were as good as some seem to think they should be then they would not be playing for Norwich. People are very blinkered I''m afraid!

 

Pearce has potential without a doubt but he was slow, not strong enough and is not great with the ball at his feet. His lack of pace and strangth is why the Doc and Shacks are better! 

[Stevie Wonder 0]

[quote user="viennacanary"]slowest player to ever play for Norwich?
[/quote]

err....John Hartson?

I would sign Pearce if he was available for around £250K but not instead of Taylor. Pearce would be decent back up at the moment.

[Hannibal 0]

surely no slower than when we got Jan Molby on loan!

[can u sit down please 0]

hell yes........10 times better than Shackell.

[Bryan Gunn 0]

Taylor 750kPearce- Season long loan?4 decent palyers fighting for 2 places has to raise everyones standard and provides cover for injuries and suspention. We can''t go another season without any backup.

[Ivana_rubyatitz 6]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]....surely that would be Mike Channon?! [/quote]

I remember seeing Channon play for us Branston.  Sure he was slow, indeed many games he never damn well moved, but he still had a knack of being able to stand still in the right place! 

[BigGreenStoppingMachine 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]hell yes........10 times better than Shackell.[/quote]

 

Agree 100%

[The Chirp 0]

his girlfriend is a norwich girl so you never know... he''s young and his heart might be swayed by her.. :-)

 

 

however reading in the champ gives him the perfect time to get in his home team...