Shackell: Which is more unbelievable?

[ncfclad 0]

Wolves wanting Shackell for £1m

OR

Norwich turning down £1m for Shackell.

I am not sure personally, but both are absolutely ridiculous, we could buy two better defenders than shackell for £1m.

[Robert N. LiM 4,338]

Such as?Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.

[King Beef 0]

If we sold Shacks we could sign two solid centre backs for that money, or definately sign Martin Taylor if that was still on the cards, bad business in my book.

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

Never. A liabilty. Maybe there just isnt many good one around at this level!

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

Never. A liabilty. Maybe there just isnt many good one around at this level!

[National express super guard 0]

yeah lets sell another defender when we were short anyway. are you for real? shacks is prob not worth a million (one error and his game goes to pieces) but I''d rather we kept hold of him than have doc on his own at the back!!!

[blahblahblah 2]

Well, given that 3 managers have been looking for better than Shacks and Doherty over 4 seasons, and not managed to do so, what does this tell us ?

Centre-backs are like gold-dust, left footed ones doubly so.  And as I said a few days ago, if the 6 plus 5 ruling comes into force, English players will be gold-dust.  To be an English left-footed centre-back at 24 is a good place to be.  Shackell is a lucky boy, if that ruling happens, he''ll be playing regularly in the Premiership.

[ncfclad 0]

The problem is the last three manager have not tried hard enough to replace Shacks and Doc, they dont seem to think there is a problem.

The facts are that we have had one of the worst defensive records since Mackay left and the reason for this is because its been the same defensive pairing since getting relegated.

[National express super guard 0]

we actually had one of the best defensive records last season, but why let the facts get in the way of knocking the club

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Well, given that 3 managers have been looking for better than Shacks and Doherty over 4 seasons, and not managed to do so, what does this tell us ?

[/quote]

Probably explains why we have never been close to challenging for the play-offs.  It also tells us our failure to sign Martin Taylor in January was a scandolously missed opportunity.  Cleverer than the rest? what a load of bull.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="National express super guard"]we actually had one of the best defensive records last season, but why let the facts get in the way of knocking the club
[/quote]

How about looking at a table before making an idiotic comment.  Our defense was 16th best last season.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="blahblahblah"]

Well, given that 3 managers have been looking for better than Shacks

and Doherty over 4 seasons, and not managed to do so, what does this

tell us ?

[/quote]

Probably explains why we have never been close to challenging for

the play-offs.  It also tells us our failure to sign Martin Taylor

in January was a scandolously missed opportunity.  Cleverer than

the rest? what a load of bull.

[/quote]

You''re right in what you say, CJF, but I think you''ve quoted Blah a bit

selectively there since the rest of his post went on to say:

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Centre-backs are like gold-dust, left footed ones doubly so.  And as I

said a few days ago, if the 6 plus 5 ruling comes into force, English

players will be gold-dust.  To be an English left-footed centre-back at

24 is a good place to be.  Shackell is a lucky boy, if that ruling

happens, he''ll be playing regularly in the Premiership.[/quote]

So we can all agree that the current partnership isn''t good enough, the

trick is getting someone better in and, unfortunately, good centre

backs are so rare they get snapped up and hoarded away, as with

Taylor.  The fact our board were unwilling to up the ante was

indeed a lost opportunity, especially since he himself seemed desperate

to come here.  However its not a case of waving a magic wand and

getting someone better in.  Until we do, Shack needs to

stay. 

And besides, I think he''s actually quite a decent centre back but we''re

struggling with the wrong partnership.  Remember that neither Flem

nor Malky were the best players in the world but together they were

outstanding...

[ncfclad 0]

The only reason the defence is a bit better last season was because we had a much more solid midfield and a solid goalkeeper, with better centre halves we will have one of the best defences.

MARSHALL FOR GALLAGHER
RUSSELL FOR ETUHU
FOTHERINGHAM FOR SAFRI

[ZLF 274]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]  Remember that neither Flem nor Malky were the best players in the world but together they were outstanding...
[/quote]

 

Not quite em;  Flem and Malky became outstanding only once Huckerby signed,  not a moment before...

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]  Remember that neither Flem nor Malky were the best players in the world but together they were outstanding...
[/quote]

 

Not quite em;  Flem and Malky became outstanding only once Huckerby signed,  not a moment before...

[/quote]

And I thought they never conceded more goals in any season they played together reguarly than in any of our three seasons since relegation?

[Salopian 1]

Is either any more unbelievable than the fact that no club seems to have considered approaching the out of contract and free transfer Doc?

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

 

agreed. He''s not incredibly good. But he is better than some people on here rate him.

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

 

agreed. He''s not incredibly good. But he is better than some people on here rate him. He

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

 

agreed. He''s not incredibly good. But he is better than some people on here rate him. He does

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

 

agreed. He''s not incredibly good. But he is better than some people on here rate him. He does a

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Such as?

Consider option c) - that the Shack is actually much better than most people think.
[/quote]

 

agreed. He''s not incredibly good. But he is better than some people on here rate him. He does a decent

[NCFC_Shaun 0]

erm. sorry about that. not sure what happened their :L