You can only have one ! ! !

[Howson is now! 0]

Be it through the loan system or on a permanent signing, you can only have one!

Lansbury or Pacheco?

Just interested what the views of our fans are if we were only able to have one return to City.

[e10_yellow 0]

Pacheco

[alysha 0]

Pacheco

[Wembley_Canary 0]

Pacheco every day of the week

[San Miguel 0]

Pacheco for his raw talent in attack.

Lansbury was amazing for us, but the likes of Crofts and Fox didn''t exactly have a bad season.

[Jacko 0]

Lansbury

[Legend Iwan 30]

Pacheco by a long way. Offers so much more than Lansbury both going fowards and tracking back.

[Syteanric 1]

Pachecho... purely because i think if he did sign he''d be hungry for it and actually care...Lansbury would always have an eye on the exit door.

["""""""""Ben """"""""""" 0]

hmmm it''s a hard one. But probably just Pacheco

[L4cole 0]

Pacheco!!!!!!!!!

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

Both would be good but Pacheco offers that raw class

[Howson is now! 0]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]Pacheco by a long way. Offers so much more than Lansbury both going fowards and tracking back.[/quote]

For me, both Lansbury and Pacheco are integral to us winning the ball back. I think we have four real ball winners in the squad in Holt, Pacheco, Crofts, and Lansbury. Hoolahan has most definitely started chipping in with this as well.

I think we''re going to need this grit next season so for me, I would actually be dropping Surman and having Lansbury back on loan over Pacheco.

Obviously I want both, but if I could only have one, I think we would benefit most from Lansbury.

[YellowLittle1 0]

I think Lansbury, think Pacheco played well in half the games and was poor in the other half.

Brilliant against Scunny and then quiet against Swansea and Watford.

Still would love them both!

[CRAZY LEGS 0]

lansbury easy, haven;t seen enough of pacheo to know if he is good enough , but lansbury has been quality all season

[priceyrice 133]

agree with Who let the Fox out 100% on thisI really think the prem will suit Lansbury a lot more than the Championship did, he will have a lot more time on the ball and be able to pick out those runs he does so well more often. I think the same can be said with Pacheco, i have just seen more of Lansbury and agree he will offer us more defnsively than Surman does.

[GJP 79]

Pacheco, got more going for him as a player.

 

Although I''d be happy to either of them back here.

[Wembley_Canary 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]Pachecho... purely because i think if he did sign he''d be hungry for it and actually care...Lansbury would always have an eye on the exit door.[/quote]This ^^^I get the impression that Pachecho would give nothing less than 100% effort if we signed him, be it a loan deal or a perm deal. He just strikes me as one of those young players who just wants to play as much football as possible and is clearly happy to play for this Football club. For some reason I just get the feeling Lansbury will always have 1 eye on Arsenal and that big money earning contract.

[GJP 79]

Also, does Lansbury really offer that much more defensively than anyone else?

 

Yeah he likes to jump into a tackle if he''s got himself a bit carried away and seems to like a bit of confrontation but then look at Bullard''s goal against us. Lansbury made a very tame effort to tackle him - David Fox or Andrew Crofts would not have let Bullard go past them with such ease.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Wembley_Canary"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]Pachecho... purely because i think if he did sign he''d be hungry for it and actually care...Lansbury would always have an eye on the exit door.[/quote]This ^^^I get the impression that Pachecho would give nothing less than 100% effort if we signed him, be it a loan deal or a perm deal. He just strikes me as one of those young players who just wants to play as much football as possible and is clearly happy to play for this Football club. For some reason I just get the feeling Lansbury will always have 1 eye on Arsenal and that big money earning contract.[/quote]Pachecho reminds me of Juninho for Boro... Dani would cry like Juninho did if we got relegated...

[Gingerpele 0]

If we can get Lansbury permanently, him. If it were a season long loan, Pacheco all day long.

[Evil Monkey 52]

Pacheco, but I think Lambert will go for both, and rightly so...

[Jason Shackells limp Tackle 0]

Whilst the class is there for all to see, I really get the feeling that Lansbury may end up ''doing a Bentley''. I just get the feeling that there is a large ego there.

Neither Pacheco or Lansbury are good enough to get regular births at their respective clubs currently. If I had to choose one to return to CR - Pacheco!

[YellowLittle1 0]

Disagree I think Lansbury has grown fond of Norwich. I certainly wouldn''t t put him up there with Bentley, we''ve seen how well he has fit into the team and how hard he works on the pitch, definitely shown passion for the club at times aswell.

Also following his twitter he gained some friends at City seeing Barnett''s baby, putting pictures up of Norwich players. I think Lansbury has probably grown pretty attached to Norwich, and I think his attitude has been brilliant.

[alysha 0]

[quote user="YellowLittle1"]Disagree I think Lansbury has grown fond of Norwich. I certainly wouldn''t t put him up there with Bentley, we''ve seen how well he has fit into the team and how hard he works on the pitch, definitely shown passion for the club at times aswell. Also following his twitter he gained some friends at City seeing Barnett''s baby, putting pictures up of Norwich players. I think Lansbury has probably grown pretty attached to Norwich, and I think his attitude has been brilliant.[/quote]

Talking of Henri Lansbury on Twitter, looks like he has deleted his account

[Wembley_Canary 0]

Maybe Lambert has signed him then... [;)]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Lansbury, he is a more compelte player than Pacheco at the moment and would contribute more over the season. I also feel getting Lansbury on a permanent deal would be more likely. Pacheco cost Liverpool £5m not to long ago, they aren''t going to let him out of their sight just yet.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Wembley_Canary"]Maybe Lambert has signed him then... [;)]
[/quote]

Who knows, he last tweet was "Green and Yellow" and you will notice how no Norwich City players have twitter accounts anymore. Maybe it is part of the contract? Massive speculation I know, but I''m really bored.

[Barclay Kid 0]

On the suface Pacheco seems to have more drive and ethusiasm to play for Norwich. But if Lansbury didn''t have that, then Lambo wouldn''t have got him in.

I''d say Pacheco, even though we haven''t seen as much of him as Lansbury, he looks promising, has pace and would work very hard for and in the squad!

[alysha 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Wembley_Canary"]Maybe Lambert has signed him then... [;)]
[/quote]

Who knows, he last tweet was "Green and Yellow" and you will notice how no Norwich City players have twitter accounts anymore. Maybe it is part of the contract? Massive speculation I know, but I''m really bored.

[/quote]

Good point. Pacheco still has Twitter and has had interviews saying he is unsure of where he will be next season. Lansbury, now like other NCFC players has deleted his account and to my knowledge has not spoken to the press about which club he will be at next season, maybe been told to keep quiet for the moment untill the club announces it officially?...

[Evil Monkey 52]

Alysha wrote: Talking of Henri Lansbury on Twitter, looks like he has deleted his account.

 

Thank christ for that, he''s been a massive player for us but his tweets were, in general, extremely annoying and I ended up ''unfollowing'' him in the end. Did the same with Ruddy because of his constant RTs, my timeline was just getting filled with absolute pap.  Even Big Iwan is guilty of it, although full blame should perhaps go to the saddos who think that getting a RT from someone famous will be the highlight of their year...