Shacks on his way back !!

[PhysioSam 0]

Norwich are trying to bring Shacks back to Carrow Road for 600k after he has failed to settle in Wolverhampton and hasn''t impressed Mick McCarthy.

Shackell was left out of the Wolves squad on Saturday. It was thought Shackell would come into replace Neil Collins after his suspension but instead McCarthy chose Jody Craddock.

[er indoors 0]

Rubbish

[yoda 0]

[quote user="PhysioSam"]Norwich are trying to bring Shacks back to Carrow Road for 600k after he has failed to settle in Wolverhampton and hasn''t impressed Mick McCarthy.

Shackell was left out of the Wolves squad on Saturday. It was thought Shackell would come into replace Neil Collins after his suspension but instead McCarthy chose Jody Craddock.[/quote]

no thanks .

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PhysioSam"]Norwich are trying to bring Shacks back to Carrow Road for 600k after he has failed to settle in Wolverhampton and hasn''t impressed Mick McCarthy. Shackell was left out of the Wolves squad on Saturday. It was thought Shackell would come into replace Neil Collins after his suspension but instead McCarthy chose Jody Craddock.[/quote]

 

New poster, bizarre new rumour. I smell binner!

[Tony DaWonderful 35]

Come on, pull the other one.

No way Shack would return and would we want him back?

[O.T.B.C 0]

We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.

[djc 0]

I''d welcome Shacks back. Bet he''d play better for us without Roeder being here.

[Mason 47 1,395]

[:|]

[Yellowfuture 71]

£600k or £6k ?

[PhysioSam 0]

It''s not a topic - i know hes coming back but he is definitely on his way out of wolves and we are in desperate need for a CB and Gunn knows him and he knows the club so i wouldn''t at all be surprised to see it happen.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.[/quote]

 

Really?

 

Doc and Shacks had more better games together than what the supposedly better Stefanovic and Kennedy had together!

 

I said last season when everyone was making Doc and Shacks the scapegoats that they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out ot be and in reality are both 2 good stoppers though they are limited attackwise!

 

In hindsight keeping Shacks and not signing the injury prone because of it not very good Kennedy would of been the better option!

 

In is current position Shackell would struggle to go to a better club than us!

 

Shacks is too good to be playing reserve football, would be better than the very shaky Grounds, knows the club so therefore would be a good signing!

[O.T.B.C 0]

The thing is, give both of them a strong partner like Stevo and Kennedy and they do ok, when they are together they don''t inspire confidence.

 

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="grantroederdisaster"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.[/quote]

 

Really?

 

Doc and Shacks had more better games together than what the supposedly better Stefanovic and Kennedy had together!

 

I said last season when everyone was making Doc and Shacks the scapegoats that they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out ot be and in reality are both 2 good stoppers though they are limited attackwise!

 

In hindsight keeping Shacks and not signing the injury prone because of it not very good Kennedy would of been the better option!

 

In is current position Shackell would struggle to go to a better club than us!

 

Shacks is too good to be playing reserve football, would be better than the very shaky Grounds, knows the club so therefore would be a good signing!

[/quote]

Grounds is a lot better than Shackell! His reading of the game is ten times better, he is composed and can actually pass a ball.

Its no surprise that Doc is playing better without him......Doc was a better player with Taylor next to him too.

We did well to get rid of Shackell...lets not get him back!

"Not very good Kennedy!" Gimme a break!

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="grantroederdisaster"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.[/quote]

 

Really?

 

Doc and Shacks had more better games together than what the supposedly better Stefanovic and Kennedy had together!

 

I said last season when everyone was making Doc and Shacks the scapegoats that they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out ot be and in reality are both 2 good stoppers though they are limited attackwise!

 

In hindsight keeping Shacks and not signing the injury prone because of it not very good Kennedy would of been the better option!

 

In is current position Shackell would struggle to go to a better club than us!

 

Shacks is too good to be playing reserve football, would be better than the very shaky Grounds, knows the club so therefore would be a good signing!

[/quote]

Grounds is a lot better than Shackell! His reading of the game is ten times better, he is composed and can actually pass a ball.

Its no surprise that Doc is playing better without him......Doc was a better player with Taylor next to him too.

We did well to get rid of Shackell...lets not get him back!

"Not very good Kennedy!" Gimme a break!

[/quote]

 

You watch a different game to me and everyone else mate!

 

Grounds has been shaky at best!

 

After Taylor left last season the Doc was outstanding and that was with Shackell!

 

Kennedy was good for a start but in his last 10 games was a liability, getting outpaced by Kuqi a prime example of his ineptness.

 

The Doc has been outstanding for us this season to the extent hes been  coveg for his other 3 defenders. I dread to think where we''d be if the Doc wern''t about and we had someone like Kennedy in place of him!

 

Selling Shacks to subsidise the loan signing of Sibierski wasn''t good business. Shackell is better than Grounds end of!

 

I say it as I see it mate, you don''t!

[GJP 79]

Shackell was never strong enough. He had a few good moments for us but the majority of the time he never looked strong enough.

Maybe the wrong players were signed after he left but getting rid of him was the right idea.

[lucky green trainers 0]

or is we8 on his way back???

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="grantroederdisaster"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.[/quote]

 

Really?

 

Doc and Shacks had more better games together than what the supposedly better Stefanovic and Kennedy had together!

 

I said last season when everyone was making Doc and Shacks the scapegoats that they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out ot be and in reality are both 2 good stoppers though they are limited attackwise!

 

In hindsight keeping Shacks and not signing the injury prone because of it not very good Kennedy would of been the better option!

 

In is current position Shackell would struggle to go to a better club than us!

 

Shacks is too good to be playing reserve football, would be better than the very shaky Grounds, knows the club so therefore would be a good signing!

[/quote]

Grounds is a lot better than Shackell! His reading of the game is ten times better, he is composed and can actually pass a ball.

Its no surprise that Doc is playing better without him......Doc was a better player with Taylor next to him too.

We did well to get rid of Shackell...lets not get him back!

"Not very good Kennedy!" Gimme a break!

[/quote]

Grounds looks a decent player in the making, but he very much looks like a left back playing centre back i personally would like to see him at left back, he was caughty out of position alot of times against Southampton and kept losing his man, agreed he passes the ball well and attacks better, but his reading of the game defensively is not too great in the centre when trying to stay solid. Grounds is not a better centre back than Shackell, but there is no doubting that Doherty and Shackell are not a good combination at the back. Anyway cant see this move happening.

[kdncfc 0]

This thread has to be a joke, he wasn''t good enough 6 months ago so why would he be good enough now? Has barely had a look in at Wolves and when he has he''s looked shaky at best. If we get him back I think I''ll lose the will to live.

[Foxy is a Pleasure 0]

I would be horrified if this is true. Cant see it happening. Although Grounds has looked shaky it takes time to settle at a new club. Shacks would be a step backwards.Still holding out that we will sign a centre back tomorrow though.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Well it sounds viable, i wouldn''t be too fussed either way really. He''s a good player, the problem before when him and Doc looked shacky is that they had too much to do with the opposition camped in our  half most matches.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

£6,000 and i''d say he was a bargain lol

[SwindonCanary 455]

A player like Darren Purse would have been ideal at the back. Shacks is a bit too quiet, we need someone to take charge of the back four.

[lucky green trainers 0]

think about it people - shax signed a 3 or 4 year contract, on i guess a nice whack, with wolves - why would he want to come back here, even on loan??? especially cos many of you numpties booed the blameless **** on his return to carra rd!!! but now it seems, if he did come back, he''d get a rousing ''curo'' type hero''s reception....the post is obviously a complete wind-up...

[Canary02 III 0]

All players have their strengths and weaknesses. Our problem with centre halves seems to be that we very rarely have two together who complement each other, and we almost never have them together for long enough to build up an understanding.

Doc is extremely consistent these days, strong in the tackle and good in the air. He is slow and clumsy though, so he needs a partner with pace and good positioning who can help him out when he gets into trouble, and who will put his mind at ease so he doesn''t feel the need to wrestle attckers that beat him lest they get in on goal.

Shack wasn''t the quickest but he had good reactions and really good recovery skills which got him out of trouble more than once. He was reasonably comfortable on the ball, but his positioning and concentration were suspect. He needed to play with someone with high levels of concentration and a bit of pace to complement him and that wasn''t Doc.

Kennedy was a good all-rounder, again, not blessed with pace, but read the game well. He was also decent on the ball and strong as an ox. Put him with a similar centre half or someone with pace and you have a good pairing, and this was borne out with good performances alongside both Dejan and Doc.

Stefanovic has exceptional positioning and anticipation which you''d expect from someone of his age and experience, but he''s slow, so he needs to play with a quickee or someone with great positioning. Stefanovic and Kennedy worked well, with Doc it was less successful.

Shack wouldn''t be the answer right now. We need someone with pace and positioning to play with Doc right now, and/or Stefanovic next season.

[Gonzo 0]

Great news if true (which unfortuantly I can''t see that it is). Can''t understand some of the comments posted here. I was gutted when Shacks left, a player to rise from from the youth has been a very rare occurance in recent years and at the moment we want players who''ll give it all for City. OK I''m not sure why he ended up leaving, but I guess it was more to do with that rodent that Shackell. I''d welcome him home. Heres hoping.

[Philipo87 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]or is we8 on his way back???
[/quote]

physiosam''s other post was about the wolves game potentially being called off because of the snow!

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Gonzo"]Great news if true (which unfortuantly I can''t see that it is).

Can''t understand some of the comments posted here. I was gutted when Shacks left, a player to rise from from the youth has been a very rare occurance in recent years and at the moment we want players who''ll give it all for City. OK I''m not sure why he ended up leaving, but I guess it was more to do with that rodent that Shackell. I''d welcome him home. Heres hoping.
[/quote]

So even though he''s not good enough we should welcome him back with open arms just because he came through our youth system, don''t quite understand your philosiphy. He has done his time here and we need to move on imo.

[Gonzo 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Gonzo"]Great news if true (which unfortuantly I can''t see that it is). Can''t understand some of the comments posted here. I was gutted when Shacks left, a player to rise from from the youth has been a very rare occurance in recent years and at the moment we want players who''ll give it all for City. OK I''m not sure why he ended up leaving, but I guess it was more to do with that rodent that Shackell. I''d welcome him home. Heres hoping.[/quote]

So even though he''s not good enough we should welcome him back with open arms just because he came through our youth system, don''t quite understand your philosiphy. He has done his time here and we need to move on imo.

[/quote]I happen to think that he is good enough. I obviously didn''t make that point? I agree we do need to move on, but based on your statement you wouldn''t want any ex-city players returning?

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"][quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="grantroederdisaster"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]We all know that him and Doc don''t work, so I doubt we would want him and I reckon he would see this as a backward step. I see Wolves are getting Berra in so it could mean that he is on his way out, but not here.[/quote]

 

Really?

 

Doc and Shacks had more better games together than what the supposedly better Stefanovic and Kennedy had together!

 

I said last season when everyone was making Doc and Shacks the scapegoats that they were nowhere near as bad as they were made out ot be and in reality are both 2 good stoppers though they are limited attackwise!

 

In hindsight keeping Shacks and not signing the injury prone because of it not very good Kennedy would of been the better option!

 

In is current position Shackell would struggle to go to a better club than us!

 

Shacks is too good to be playing reserve football, would be better than the very shaky Grounds, knows the club so therefore would be a good signing!

[/quote]

Grounds is a lot better than Shackell! His reading of the game is ten times better, he is composed and can actually pass a ball.

Its no surprise that Doc is playing better without him......Doc was a better player with Taylor next to him too.

We did well to get rid of Shackell...lets not get him back!

"Not very good Kennedy!" Gimme a break!

[/quote]

Grounds looks a decent player in the making, but he very much looks like a left back playing centre back i personally would like to see him at left back, he was caughty out of position alot of times against Southampton and kept losing his man, agreed he passes the ball well and attacks better, but his reading of the game defensively is not too great in the centre when trying to stay solid. Grounds is not a better centre back than Shackell, but there is no doubting that Doherty and Shackell are not a good combination at the back. Anyway cant see this move happening.

[/quote]

i agree with this, Grounds has plenty of ability and will make a very good centre back in time but his lack of experience does show sometimes when in the centre, i think at this stage of his development he''d be better off at full back but with no other options he has to play centrally unfortunately

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Gonzo"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Gonzo"]Great news if true (which unfortuantly I can''t see that it is).

Can''t understand some of the comments posted here. I was gutted when Shacks left, a player to rise from from the youth has been a very rare occurance in recent years and at the moment we want players who''ll give it all for City. OK I''m not sure why he ended up leaving, but I guess it was more to do with that rodent that Shackell. I''d welcome him home. Heres hoping.
[/quote]

So even though he''s not good enough we should welcome him back with open arms just because he came through our youth system, don''t quite understand your philosiphy. He has done his time here and we need to move on imo.

[/quote]

I happen to think that he is good enough. I obviously didn''t make that point? I agree we do need to move on, but based on your statement you wouldn''t want any ex-city players returning?
[/quote]

I''m not keen on ex players leaving and coming back tbh, it is never the same second time around as has been proved many times in the past. Flecky came back to a few years ago but it wasn''t the same as when he was here first time around. I respect the fact that you see Shackell as a good player but him and Doc together in defence was like a disaster waiting to happen when he was here before, they are not compatible in defence imo.