Olallana Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 No, great prospect yes but not ready for PL.
Matthew Le God Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 Is it time to give him a chance? Not whilst he is in hospital it isn't. No, great prospect yes but not ready for PL. Would you apply the same to Ward-Prowse? I wouldn't, so I wouldn't write off Shaw this season solely on age.
saintant Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 I mentioned this on the match reaction thread. If he's such a hot prospect he has got to be a better bet than Fox. James Ward Prowse is proving the maxim if you're good enough you're old enough. I think we could do worse than throwing Luke Shaw in to see how he copes.
channonball Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 He must be absolutely awful if he isn't better than fox....
Winchester Red Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 Fox played 70 minutes of the game with an injury against Wigan and still NA didn't bring on Shaw. On that basis what was the point of putting him on the f*cking bench. We're not pimpey with a half empty bench to fill (Yes I know, they'd have left it empty rather than put a young player on it anyway). I'm not a fan of Fox but it was clear (to me anyway) that we were not the same team when he wasn't mobile enough to provide the width any more. Thought we were decent for the first 20 minutes until his injury and after that we were carp
shurlock Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 Would you apply the same to Ward-Prowse? I wouldn't, so I wouldn't write off Shaw this season solely on age. What a silly statement-where did the poster mention age? JWP's ready to play some kind of role on the basis of his performances; Shaw isn't.
Matthew Le God Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 What a silly statement-where did the poster mention age? By using the phrase "great prospect", it is a reference to his age. So not such a silly statement.
shurlock Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 By using the phrase "great prospect", it is a reference to his age. So not such a silly statement. Perhaps, they've seen him play and decided that he's not good enough just now but will be in the future? Nothing to do with age.
saintchris23 Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 After seeing him Tuesday, he isn't ready. agreed.
Webby Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 After seeing him Tuesday, he isn't ready. One game.
pingwing Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 One game. He really wasn't all that, poor tackling, gave the ball away passing to Seaborne, isn't ready as a LB. Was very good going forward though when he put the effort in. Give him a few years to develop though as some pressure right now will ruin his career.
LGTL Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 What a silly statement-where did the poster mention age? JWP's ready to play some kind of role on the basis of his performances; Shaw isn't. I'd say a first choice role.
SNSUN Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 Perhaps, they've seen him play and decided that he's not good enough just now but will be in the future? Nothing to do with age. Which begs the question Why didn't we go all out to bring in another left back? Shaw's our only other left back besides Fox, and if he's not good enough yet, surely we'll be stumped if anything happens to Fox?!? Yes Seaborne can play left back, and yes Clyne has apparently played there in the past, but surely we should have brought someone in if Shaw's not good enough? Strange one. Fox it is, I guess.
shurlock Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 (edited) Which begs the question Why didn't we go all out to bring in another left back? Shaw's our only other left back besides Fox, and if he's not good enough yet, surely we'll be stumped if anything happens to Fox?!? Yes Seaborne can play left back, and yes Clyne has apparently played there in the past, but surely we should have brought someone in if Shaw's not good enough? Strange one. Fox it is, I guess. True but the pretty public transfer links with Buttner, Olsson, Boilesen suggest it was a high priority. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Only on here was there a confidence that LB wasn't a priority and that a combo of Fox/Shaw (too many people getting carried away with cameo appearances by Shaw in preseason) would get us by. Edited 2 September, 2012 by shurlock
shurlock Posted 2 September, 2012 Posted 2 September, 2012 I'd say a first choice role. Possibly but wouldn't want to rush the lad and hurt his development.
Saint_clark Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 One game. Well Fox has been written off after only two more than that against MUCH better opposition, so I don't see why we can't do the same for Shaw.
doddisalegend Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 Well Fox has been written off after only two more than that against MUCH better opposition, so I don't see why we can't do the same for Shaw. Hardly you could see Fox struggling in the Championship....plenty of people saying he wasn't good enough for the PL last season...but becuase he got some assists (mostly corners and free kicks I reckon) some people chose to ignore his defensive frailities........
Leicestersaint Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 Yes - give Shaw a game as he opportunities arise - I really do worry about Fox in the PL.
Torres Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 Based solely on the Stevenage game (an important caveat) Shaw isn't ready yet, nowhere near.
Greenridge Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 I think I'd rather have seen Aaron Martin at left back who at least knows his defending responsibilities. Fox just seems to lack any sense of position when he's defending and would rather be careering up the wing.
Saint Charlie Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 I think I'd rather have seen Aaron Martin at left back who at least knows his defending responsibilities. Fox just seems to lack any sense of position when he's defending and would rather be careering up the wing. You can't be serious? Martin has been dropped by Palace at centre back and is nowhere near being a full back ever.
Greenridge Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 You can't be serious? Martin has been dropped by Palace at centre back and is nowhere near being a full back ever. It was an extreme example but goes to show how exposed we are down the left flank with any sort of attacking threat.
Saint_clark Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 Hardly you could see Fox struggling in the Championship....plenty of people saying he wasn't good enough for the PL last season...but becuase he got some assists (mostly corners and free kicks I reckon) some people chose to ignore his defensive frailities........ Against the better players, yes. Worth noting that Clyne had an absolute shocker when we played Palace.
Ken Tone Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 Against the better players, yes. Worth noting that Clyne had an absolute shocker when we played Palace. Yes and what is more we targeted him in that game ...putting long balls in to Rickie on his wing. On that basis I had severe reservatrions about Clyne when we bought him. So far he has proved me very wrong. Fox however I've watched for much longer of course and to me he has never looked any better than Harding. He's fine going forward but has poor positional sense and is far too prone to give the ball away carelessly. in fact he'd probably be better as a left-side midfield player, where he'd be less exposed defensively... but we have far better options than him there already.
James_O_Mac Posted 3 September, 2012 Posted 3 September, 2012 I'd rather we tried Richardson on the left, despite the obvious right footed player on the left arguement.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now