Do you reckon that Lansbury and Pacheco are of the past?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Or should we be after them in the summer?

 

OTBC

[Gingerpele 0]

No idea, not very easy to guess what Lambert is going to do.

If it were up too me, i''d be interested. Lansbury can''t be worth all that much, he''s 21 now isn''t he? They keep loaning him out, he can''t stay in the first team/starting line up. But he did play very well here, has a great energy and I think has the skill to fit into our side in this league.

Pacheco, last time I checked had barley played for the club he''s on loan at. A.Mardid have an option to buy him, but I believe the manager who agreed that deal left, and since he hasn''t even been playing for an average team in Spain, I don''t think they will be that keen on him. But Lambert might, he doesn''t take too much notice of players form really does he...

[smooth 114]

Lansbury has the ability to again in our team to make an impact he has skill that is surpasses many of our current midfield group, has a premiership engine, has tenacity and understand Lamberts ethos.Pacheco once more has had been ill-treated by Liverpool and the move to Spain has been a disaster. At times he made players look like statues like last season. I personally believe he would fit into any premiership team.But in regard to the players that I think we need, the two of them will not be on the list right now. Personally I rate these players better than many in our current midfield, but I do not think that either player will be looked at by us anymore unfortunately.

[GJP 79]

You wouldn''t rule it out but it seems unlikely they''d have a future with us. Both of them can play but we''ve come along way since last season and neither of them have really pushed on.

 

Would I pick Lansbury ahead of any of Bennett, Pilkington, Hoolahan, Fox or Howson? No, definitely not. He couldn''t make himself first choice when he was here and we''ve only got better since. I''d probably have him ahead of Andrew Crofts and that''s about it.

 

Harder to judge with Pacheco because he only played half a dozen games in which he was a total mixed bag. He could rip a poor Scunny team to shreds but wasn''t quite so hot against better sides. Things obviously haven''t worked out for him this season but I hope he gets some better luck next season and in the future.

 

[. 0]

Don''t want any fancy Dans here Bly.......Understated is the name of PL''s signings game. [Y]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Jeremy Cluckson"]Don''t want any fancy Dans here Bly.......

Understated is the name of PL''s signings game. [Y]
[/quote]

 

Not sure this is fair comment Cluck. Just because the lad Lansbury can dance?!

 

Lambert wanted them around last season......so if he wants them again next I''d be very happy.

 

OTBC

 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,479]

Interesting question Bly. You''re not so bad when you talk about football...

I think the issue is whether either of them have got better. Lansbury was not in our 1st XI in the Championship (though no one would deny the contribution he made). I think we''d all agree that our midfield now is stronger than it was then, so unless Lansbury has also taken strides forward, I don''t see how he''d improve the squad. Anyone got good info on how he''s played this season?

Pacheco is the more interesting case for me. Looked dazzlingly talented in those few games, but understandably inconsistent. I would imagine that he has more chance of become a top player than Lansbury, but have no idea whether that potential is being fulfilled. Where is he at the moment?

[smooth 114]

Personally I think Lansbury is a premirship footballer and could start for a prem. team I could see him in our midfield now in the diamond ahead of Surman. Quite happily have him and Howson as the two wider players in the diamond. I do think our midfield would have been better this season if we had had him. He scored some very important goals for us when we got our last minute winners. You could see his Arsenal upbringing which was class. He outshone our players for picking great passes and once a few other were on his wave length it would bring results. For me a player who could be in our first 16 right now and next season and make that a better 16.Pacheco, once more has the quality to be a game winner even in our current team. His technnical ability, awareness, control is exceptional and again proves he has come from the very best youth academies. Has he got it for this league, yes and again I would have him in our first 16 this and next season.Personally I still think we need Naughton altho Martin is looking very comfortable at right back, a holding midfielder, a winger and a striker hence I cannot see the two of them always being starters in a 4-4-2 that I would prefer but I can see them as superb subs that can come on and be the difference in a premiership game. That is the mark of a quality player, our bench is a very good bench but do I think it has that potential, no not really.But I will be surprised if either player returns, I think they can add alot and already know the ethos which means alot. But again we do not know what wages they were and are on now and that may be stretching it a little.

[Lets be aving you! 0]

Attacking midfield is our strongest suit at the moment, with Howson (who has been class since his arrival), Hoolahan, Surman, Pilkington & Bennett.

 

Our budget for the coming season will be constrained by further repayments to the banks, and so I cannot see our limited funds being spent in this area unless there are unexpected departures.

 

I would much prefer to see a striker and at least one full back (preferably two in case Tierney''s injury is really serious) on the shopping list. Any remaining funds should then be earmarked for a holding midfielder.

 

So, no, I wouldn''t want to see either Lansbury or Pacheco arriving this summer.

[Beauseant 0]

I don''t really understand the obsession with these two.Both showed flashes, but Lansbury was largely an impact sub in the Championship and Pacheco blew hot and cold. As has been said, his loan to Atletico Madrid and subsequent loan on to Rayo Vallecano has been a disaster and he has yet to score for them. Having said that, his regular tweets show his fondness for City.

The other concern I have about Lansbury is that he will be on his way down if he leaves Arsenal which doesn''t fit the Lambert profile, and also means that wages may be an issue.

[Indy_Bones 441]

In my mind, Lansbury''s best position is in the middle as against on the flanks, which means that instead of competing for a place with Pilks, Bennett etc, he''s actually in competition with Howson, Fox, Crofts and Johnson. Obviously Crofts and Johnson are more defensively minded, Howson is the attacking midfielder, and Fox is the playmaker. Lansbury can do either of these latter roles with ease, meaning that his acquisition would offer good flexibility for rotation either in-game or through injuries/suspensions.Pacheco is the more difficult choice IMHO, as it''s hard to see where best he fits. Ideally it''s off the front man, but there''s already competition there, and he has struggled badly for form since leaving us. This doesn''t ignore his natural ability (which I think PL could get the best out of), but does cause concerns, however he''s still young and clearly has an affinity towards us, particularly now with Ayala here. I think the key issue here is likely to be price, as if both were available at fair prices, then they''re easily worth buying to improve the overall squad and give us options, but I don''t see either as being the first name on PL''s summer shopping list...

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

A top quality centre back, a right back a la Naughton, Junior Hoilett and a Papiss Cisse type of striker[Y]

 

We''d be fine next season with the above.  I''d be in fantasy football dreamland!

 

If others were to leave, not ones we wanted to get rid of, we''d have to find replacements for them.

 

 

[SnakepitCanary 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

I don''t really understand the obsession with these two.Both showed flashes, but Lansbury was largely an impact sub in the Championship and Pacheco blew hot and cold. As has been said, his loan to Atletico Madrid and subsequent loan on to Rayo Vallecano has been a disaster and he has yet to score for them. Having said that, his regular tweets show his fondness for City.

The other concern I have about Lansbury is that he will be on his way down if he leaves Arsenal which doesn''t fit the Lambert profile, and also means that wages may be an issue.

[/quote]

I agree with this. I don''t understand it either, they done well for us and helped play a part in securing our promotion but they wouldn''t get in the side now. We need to strengthen, not bring in players of similar quality to what we already have.

[Lambo 0]

Pacheco yes, in a heartbeat, would be a replacement for a now 30 and, as much as it pains me to say it, only has a season or two left at this level Hoolahan. His time in Spain from what i''ve read and heard isn''t neccessarily down to poor form it''s more that he''s unhappy at the club (Rayo Vallecano I beleive?)

Lansbury I don''t think is needed, quality player though and if we were to offload a couple of midfielders i''d love to see him back!

[Jacko 0]

Never saw what the fuss was about with either. Lansbury has not failed to nail down as starting place in a West Ham side which isn''t the strongest side around. His favoured position seems to be as an attacking midfielder. Howson and Wesley provide us with plenty of options already in that regard.

Pacheco did ok in fits and starts but I am not convinced he would be any more effective than Jackson. The goal against Coventry was a fantastic piece of skill but one moment doesnt make a player.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

I don''t really understand the obsession with these two.Both showed flashes, but Lansbury was largely an impact sub in the Championship and Pacheco blew hot and cold. As has been said, his loan to Atletico Madrid and subsequent loan on to Rayo Vallecano has been a disaster and he has yet to score for them. Having said that, his regular tweets show his fondness for City.

The other concern I have about Lansbury is that he will be on his way down if he leaves Arsenal which doesn''t fit the Lambert profile, and also means that wages may be an issue.

[/quote]

 

Ayala![:^)]

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

I think we''re fine in midfield- apart from a relative lack of wingers. Surman, Pilkington and Bennett are fine but I feel we need more depth in that area. If we could only sign one it would be Pacheo.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

For a team in Norwich''s position, ultimately, the question as regards a potential signing that has to be asked is basically in two connected parts;

a,  Is he any better than what we have already ?

b,  If so, with the money available would he be the best available on the market to us.?

 

To my mind, the answer to both questions in the case of both Lansbury and Pacheco is probably "no". So , I just wonder if we could not do rather better for ourselves.

 

Finally, nb, Lansbury has not been a regular starter for Wet Spam tis season.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

For a team in Norwich''s position, ultimately, the question as regards a potential signing that has to be asked is basically in two connected parts;

a,  Is he any better than what we have already ?

b,  If so, with the money available would he be the best available on the market to us.?

 

To my mind, the answer to both questions in the case of both Lansbury and Pacheco is probably "no". So , I just wonder if we could not do rather better for ourselves.

 

Finally, nb, Lansbury has not been a regular starter for Wet Spam tis season.

[/quote]

 

 

 

Have to agree with this.    We''ve moved on and it is not always a good move to go back to a club once you have left.    We will be looking for different players I suspect.   Lansbury and Pacheco contributed well to our success - but it is in the past and they have moved on too.   

 

 

Having said that, if PL did see Pacheco as a possible purchase - he would be welcomed back as a lost son.   Some players get  that special connection with fans that lasts beyond their stay, even though they may have only been at the club a short time.    Cody is another one like that........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="Beauseant"]

I don''t really understand the obsession with these two.Both showed flashes, but Lansbury was largely an impact sub in the Championship and Pacheco blew hot and cold. As has been said, his loan to Atletico Madrid and subsequent loan on to Rayo Vallecano has been a disaster and he has yet to score for them. Having said that, his regular tweets show his fondness for City.

The other concern I have about Lansbury is that he will be on his way down if he leaves Arsenal which doesn''t fit the Lambert profile, and also means that wages may be an issue.

[/quote]

 

Ayala![:^)]

[/quote]

 

OOPs! [:$][:D]

[Salopian 1]

They''re both good players, with plenty of skill, but are they what we need? Lansbury especially comes into the attacking midfielder category, rather than an out and out striker. Pacheco is quick but is he really a striker?

 

What we need are strikers who are good in the air, quick off the mark and with a powerful (and accurate) shot. If you can find them all in one player, you''ve done. admittedly, but I certainly don''t feel that Lansbury and Pacheco tick all the boxes, despite how well they played for us in the Championship.