fjthegrey wrote:
Carroll has a slightly better injury record over the last 4 years than Wilshere, by the way.
I think perhaps you need to lookup what the word prone means.
No I don't, I know they're both injury prone players but that's not specifically what we are discussing here. I responded specifically saying he's over his injuries (he got called up for England for a tournament so he's not showing signs he's injured still). And because he's over the recent injury, I'd have him here on the right deal.
I must be drunk then as I've seen Wiltshire tackle the crap out of anything from the time he turned up with Wigan to the scum from north London
Nothing wrong with that part of his game, the bloke us a tiger I'd actually say that only Gerard was a better all round midfielder than jack and I don't reckon he was as good tackling
Jacks only downside apart from injuries is lack of pace which is why he's a 10 or a dm and not box to box, never did Xavi any harm England managers have been desperate to get him in the side, and it was prevalent in the press that he is our best midfielder.
Still some on here are right, he's not good enough to be on our bench or better than lanzini who the same people last year on here were saying must be crap as he was from the uae, I give up
Last edited by Ozza on Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:03 am, edited 5 times in total.
Ozza wrote:I must be drunk then as I've seen Wiltshire tackle the crap out of anything from the time he turned up with Wigan to the scum from north London
Nothing wrong with that part of his game, the bloke us a tiger I'd actually say that only Gerard was a better all round midfielder than jack and I don't reckon he was as good tackling
Jacks only downside apart from injuries is lack of pace
That's what I thought too. Lanzini is admirable in working tirelessly for the team helping but he ain't really a tackler. I would however regard Wilshere as a tackler, not the best but certainly no means the worst. I'd happily enjoy him, Kouyate and Noble sharing the workload in the middle of the park throughout a season at the heart of midfield.
That could be one way, I wouldn't be against that and would be wise. I'm very much liking the idea of only a loan with a perm deal as previously stated though. I wouldn't be prepared to pay a large fee right now for him for much of the same concerns as others have over his long term fitness, but if he proved he could have a big say in a season and avoid injuries then I'd make perm if a deal was in place. If not, no ta.
Jack Wilshere appears to be rated incredibly highly by some, I for one don't see it but each to their own. If we signed him on loan I'd be surprised if we got more than 15 starts out of him, and there'd be big wages to pay and a loan fee, a no doubt ridiculous loan fee. 100 times no.
Ozza wrote:I must be drunk then as I've seen Wiltshire tackle the crap out of anything from the time he turned up with Wigan to the scum from north London
Nothing wrong with that part of his game, the bloke us a tiger I'd actually say that only Gerard was a better all round midfielder than jack and I don't reckon he was as good tackling
Jacks only downside apart from injuries is lack of pace which is why he's a 10 or a dm and not box to box, never did Xavi any harm
Lack of goals and assists is a glaring downside as well..Only regard Gerrard as better :lol: . What's the excuse going to be when he ends up at some donkey team for the rest of the season lol
On a serious note I literally cannot see why you rate him so highly
You could always try joining in discussing footballing matters properly, Bergen, instead of pointlessly digging me out over one word. We already know many others want words to be starred out because they cause some offence, why not add yet another one..
On a separate note plenty of people who work in football who know what their talking about say the same, maybe youre unique and can see something amazingly different based on stats to anyone who knows what their talking about (I'm not talking about me either)
Last edited by Ozza on Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
No conceivable deal exists that would benefit us in any way other than very short term.
Outright purchase now, too much risk.
Loan to buy, if he justified us buying him, he wouldn't sign, he'll just go back to Arsenal. If he doesn't justify it, he's been injured or ****.
Loan, no option. Just don't get it. Really, we don't get all that much. Rather build the team around Manu.
In terms of pay as you play. There's more chance of us signing Ronaldo than convincing Wilshere to sign a pay as you play deal so we might as well talk about that.
fjthegrey wrote:No conceivable deal exists that would benefit us in any way other than very short term.
Outright purchase now, too much risk.
Loan to buy, if he justified us buying him, he wouldn't sign, he'll just go back to Arsenal. If he doesn't justify it, he's been injured or ****.
Loan, no option. Just don't get it. Really, we don't get all that much. Rather build the team around Manu.
In terms of pay as you play. There's more chance of us signing Ronaldo than convincing Wilshere to sign a pay as you play deal so we might as well talk about that.
Who says he wouldn't sign, just a question? I thought these deals were done in up front?
fjthegrey wrote:No conceivable deal exists that would benefit us in any way other than very short term.
Loan to buy, if he justified us buying him, he wouldn't sign, he'll just go back to Arsenal. If he doesn't justify it, he's been injured or ****.
Who says he wouldn't necessarily? A West Ham fan who if he played regularly and well in a winning team could well sign permanently at the end of it. We've managed it with Lanzini and I see no reason why a similar deal wouldn't work if we did arrange for such a thing with Wilshere. And if he got injured again and hardly played, then we send him back and say thanks but no thanks much like we did with Jenkinson. No big drama, there's always an element of risk with every signing but a small risk under those terms I'd be more than happy to give it a go. It'll show real ambition of the Club prepared to take on highly rated players at a decent age in their prime.
He's only being touted around for a loan because Arsenal want him to get fit. Not because they don't want him.
Which is a fair point and if strictly true, no I wouldn't be interested. But should negotiations get under way properly, you never know whether something can be agreed more in our terms, otherwise Wenger would then have to deal with a player who now feels unwanted thinking he doesn't have much of a future if the manager is losing faith in him anyway but wanting to loan him out.
We're not the ones instigating a loan, it's Arsenal. So the ball can be in our court if we're clever as we haven't anything to lose on a temp to perm.
Last edited by Colours never run on Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lanzini was playing for Al Ahli or some such no mark club in a no mark league. Wilshere is an established international at one of the world's biggest clubs on astronomical wages. And they obviously don't want to sell him so he'd cost ****ing loads.
As an aside, that bloke Southampton just signed is absolute quality.
I'd be a little surprised if we didn't have the wage budget in the bank to accommodate Wilshere even at the higher end. Because we've made sure we've made plenty of wages available, new increase due to revenue and also a possibility Arsenal may well supplement some wages, some 'bigger' Clubs have been known to do that if they want rid of a player on loan.
On the 13th Aug before the recent revelations the Club is looking to send him out on loan. I wonder if Jack is still as hungry as ever now know that the best manager is happy to see him go out on loan yet again?