Pacheco or Lansbury? Which One?

[LeJuge 0]

Assuming that they would probably cost about £3m, and both wanted to come here, which of the two would you choose? It''s a tough one for me, my head says Lansbury because of his versatility and being a little more ready... but my heart says Pacheco because he seems to love the club. Lansbury on the other hand seems a little wrapped up in himself and I can only see him being a journeyman, although in fairness he has been turned into a journeyman by virtue of the three places he has been on loan to already. I''ve got a feeling that Lansbury will become another Bentley, never really fulfill his potential, a millionaire that never wins anything. With Pacheco there is a fine line between whether he becomes the next Rossi or the next Lupoli, both of those players were treated equally at that age and one is now world class whilst the other is a competant player who plays in the Italian version of the Champs.A tough decision, and I would of course have either, but Pacheco knicks it for me. I see Lansbury most likely to have a career at the highest level, but Pacheco the most likely to ever be seen as a legend of the game like a Zola or a Di Canio. I have to say that I doubt we would get Lansbury anyway, but irrespective..... who would you choose?

[LeJuge 0]

Whilst on the subject of Lupoli, looks like he has joined an even smaller club! Who the hell are Grosetto? Stadium capacity 10000 :/

[Yellow Shirt 17]

Pacheco for sure- Lansbury is great but I think we have more players who do what he does than what Pacheco does.Advanced midfield/forward is more needed in my book- I also think he is more likely to put one of our strikers in by drawing defenders out of position.Would LOVE to see DP back with us.

[Mahogany 0]

I think that''s a bit harsh on Lansbury. He always put in 100% when he played and didn''t complain when he spent a lot of game on the bench. Very unlike Bentley who, even when he was good, was a bit lazy and came across as thinking he was the best player in the world.

That said I think I''d probably take Pacheco, he''s an obvious medium term replacement for Hoolahan, who probably only has 2-3 seasons left at the top level, whilst he can also give us something different playing up front.

I''d take them both in a heartbeat, but I just think Pacheco offers more that we don''t currently have than Lansbury.

Also as you said, Pacheco has seemed more interested in coming back.

[birchfest 397]

The trouble is they are both quite different players and both good at what they do in their own respect. It would be great to have Pacheco as competion to Hoolahan and just add that creative flair, while lansbury just would bring the quality of being a good attack minded midfielder with an excellent passing range.I think Lansbury is the more likely of the two at the moment though, maybe Pacheco next summer if he still isnt getting a look in.

[LeJuge 0]

[quote user="Mahogany"]I think that''s a bit harsh on Lansbury. He always put in 100% when he played and didn''t complain when he spent a lot of game on the bench. Very unlike Bentley who, even when he was good, was a bit lazy and came across as thinking he was the best player in the world.

That said I think I''d probably take Pacheco, he''s an obvious medium term replacement for Hoolahan, who probably only has 2-3 seasons left at the top level, whilst he can also give us something different playing up front.

I''d take them both in a heartbeat, but I just think Pacheco offers more that we don''t currently have than Lansbury.

Also as you said, Pacheco has seemed more interested in coming back.[/quote]I have absolutely no problem with Lansbury''s effort or performances, and like I said I would take him. But he didn''t really seem to have any emotional attachment to the club, more just fully satisfying his professional obligations. You can''t deny that Lansbury has a bit of an ego though? His Twitter account says it all really, he does conform to some of the more cynical stereotypes of footballers? Basically, I can''t see him sticking around if we went down, Pacheco on the other hand might be willing to give it a season or half a season to see how things go. Lansbury would perhaps be our Francis, Pacheco would perhaps be our Ashton, in that respect. As for Bentley, I suspect Lambert would have managed him much more effectively than Worthington. Worthy was a good manager (kinda) but discipline problems were pretty commonplace, Worthy admitted that he couldn''t manage Bentley. If Bentley (or anybody) played up with Lambert like that they would be kicked out of Dunston Hall within hours and sent packing! But I agree, would take either in a heartbeat, just trying to pick holes..... necessary to choose one :-) I''d love to have Henri here, but I can''t help but feel that Dani is the one who truly has something special. He is nicknamed The Assassin for a start, how can''t you want a player with that nickname? I think The Horse and The Assassin would make a great partnership in the Prem.

[LeJuge 0]

[quote user="birchfest"]The trouble is they are both quite different players and both good at what they do in their own respect. It would be great to have Pacheco as competion to Hoolahan and just add that creative flair, while lansbury just would bring the quality of being a good attack minded midfielder with an excellent passing range.I think Lansbury is the more likely of the two at the moment though, maybe Pacheco next summer if he still isnt getting a look in. [/quote]If he moves on somewhere else, such as back to Spain, then it may be far too late to sign him though! If he got a season of football I reckon he could show himself as a £10m player by the end of that season, a bit like Rossi did.

[Mr. Bump 0]

Would be delighted to have either back here but, Pacheco.

[birchfest 397]

[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="birchfest"]The trouble is they are both quite different players and both good at what they do in their own respect. It would be great to have Pacheco as competion to Hoolahan and just add that creative flair, while lansbury just would bring the quality of being a good attack minded midfielder with an excellent passing range.I think Lansbury is the more likely of the two at the moment though, maybe Pacheco next summer if he still isnt getting a look in. [/quote]If he moves on somewhere else, such as back to Spain, then it may be far too late to sign him though! If he got a season of football I reckon he could show himself as a £10m player by the end of that season, a bit like Rossi did. [/quote]That is the risk, but right now I cant see us affording him. If he still hasnt had a look in come january or even next summer I think we will be able to get him at a price we can afford.

[Barclay Kid 0]

Would also love to see either back at Carrow Rd. But Pacheco just edges it.

[mrs miggins 0]

[quote user="Titch.Canary"]Would also love to see either back at Carrow Rd. But Pacheco just edges it.[/quote]

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

Pacheco.

[JJ 0]

I find Pacheco much to undisciplined in his position i suppose he plays typically spanish constantly overlapping. I like Pacheco but Landsbury has slightly got the edge for me

[Excited Canary 19]

Dani. It''s amazing to have such a talented young player ( with so much potential) have such affection for our club, we would regret not at least making an enquiry/bid for him even if it is rebuffed!

[Google Bot 3,301]

Henners is pure quality, defense splitting passes will become his trademark, to have our forwards in sync with that would be immense for next season.

Personally, i do feel as though he has passion for the club, he''s just a little bit cool with it all though. And obviously would miss the london life were he to make a permanent move.

He''s well grounded, and its clear on twitter that he thinks alot of his family. Sign him and Pacheco up!

Whatever we buy them for will be an investment, so it''s really not an issue.

[sjs7 0]

[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="Mahogany"]I think that''s a bit harsh on Lansbury. He always put in 100% when he played and didn''t complain when he spent a lot of game on the bench. Very unlike Bentley who, even when he was good, was a bit lazy and came across as thinking he was the best player in the world.

That said I think I''d probably take Pacheco, he''s an obvious medium term replacement for Hoolahan, who probably only has 2-3 seasons left at the top level, whilst he can also give us something different playing up front.

I''d take them both in a heartbeat, but I just think Pacheco offers more that we don''t currently have than Lansbury.

Also as you said, Pacheco has seemed more interested in coming back.[/quote]I have absolutely no problem with Lansbury''s effort or performances, and like I said I would take him. But he didn''t really seem to have any emotional attachment to the club, more just fully satisfying his professional obligations. You can''t deny that Lansbury has a bit of an ego though? His Twitter account says it all really, he does conform to some of the more cynical stereotypes of footballers? Basically, I can''t see him sticking around if we went down, Pacheco on the other hand might be willing to give it a season or half a season to see how things go. Lansbury would perhaps be our Francis, Pacheco would perhaps be our Ashton, in that respect. As for Bentley, I suspect Lambert would have managed him much more effectively than Worthington. Worthy was a good manager (kinda) but discipline problems were pretty commonplace, Worthy admitted that he couldn''t manage Bentley. If Bentley (or anybody) played up with Lambert like that they would be kicked out of Dunston Hall within hours and sent packing! But I agree, would take either in a heartbeat, just trying to pick holes..... necessary to choose one :-) I''d love to have Henri here, but I can''t help but feel that Dani is the one who truly has something special. He is nicknamed The Assassin for a start, how can''t you want a player with that nickname? I think The Horse and The Assassin would make a great partnership in the Prem.

[/quote]

What a great name for a Pub,'' The Horse and The Assassin''. Im thirsty already.

[Boris 56]

Lansbury not have future on Arsenal not good enough for them at same time Pacheco still have big rate for future star so no way pool to sell him just now.

So only possibly buy one of them is Lansbury and Pacheco is max on loan.

No one of this two will start many games if is here so not see why big discusions over them!

Lansbury even score many important goals was on bench in champinship and Pacheco even have interesting skill is unfinished product who will miss so many balls at top level.

Middf is ok imo if we need addition I belive attack need somthing more premiere lig qualy because even is a hero and legend already Holty is too slow with ball for quick top level deffenders and Jacko if loose confidence we know what will see from him.

 

[alysha 0]

It would have to be Pacheco for me, for same reasons stated by the OP

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

would love both suspect we will get neither

[Jersey Canary 148]

It''s all irrelevant really as Lambert has dismissed getting Pacheco.

If I had a choice it would be Lansbury as he seems more robust for Premier League football but with similar vision and passing skills.

[Balham Yellow 0]

I think both would raise the bar in terms of innate quality. It is also likely that they are only going to develop further given their age. In addition, whilst I appreciate the initial outlay would be significant I can only see these two providing a sound financial return as and when they are sold on, barring a career threatening injury. This could be a rare opportunity to acquire youngsters with genuine talent at what would still be a relatively low sum when compared with the wider transfer market.

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

I''d welcome them both as they each have massive potential in the game. They are both top players technically; Pacheco has vision and movement (it''s not indiscipline like someone on here said - finding space is an incredible a skill!) with a short stride and really quick feet. Lansbury seems rather egotistical to me - yes he is competent can do great things, but after that one great pass for Holt to score at home against Ipswich I didn''t see another to match it. However I think Lansbury would flourish in the Premiership - he''d love the media attention and perform accordingly.

 

If we had both Pacheco and Lansbury here I think the majority of us would be doing cartwheels wouldn''t we?

 

Maybe we''re planning to offload the excess players from the wage bill prior to bringing them in...

 

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

[quote user="Jersey Canary"]It''s all irrelevant really as Lambert has dismissed getting Pacheco. If I had a choice it would be Lansbury as he seems more robust for Premier League football but with similar vision and passing skills.[/quote]

 

When did PL say that Jersey?

[Chunky Norwich 0]

Angela all the way for me.

I''m going to get absolutely nailed for this but I really do think Pacman was over-rated slightly when he was here. I''m not saying he was rubbish but just not the next Lionel Messi like everyone seems to think. I also find it odd that people are questioning Lansbury''s commitment and saying Pacheco cares more for the club than Lansbury; how do you know? Lansbury scored some incredibly important goals for us last season (Millwall and Brizzle at home, Leeds away) and celebrated like a nutter. He also seemed to be enjoying himself at the end of season awards and seemed very at-home with the club, bantering with Lambert about his Dougie-dance. As someone else has already said, Lansbury seemed very happy to sit on the bench at the tail-end of last season and came off with a couple of match-winning performances