Should he be given a chance? He's obviously got talent but has only played 1 half of football with us.
Adkins obviously feels that he isn't good enough or perhaps there are things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, i.e. attitude etc.
I forget where, but i have seen an article suggesting that IF we go up then we want to take Falque permanently.
too risky throwing him in imo. He looked massively out of his depth against Leicester, but the whole team were crap that day. Maybe a couple of 15 minute stints in the next 2 home games may help him. We are in desperate need of another quality winger, as of yet Falque hasn't brought anything to the table, De Ridder is pretty useless and Puncheon, I'm seeing the same things as before, he's not an effective player in the same was Chambo was or Lallana is.
I don't think so, he has been playing for the U21s once or twice In regards to Falque, I must admit I wasn't impressed with him at Leicester but it's hard to judge him from one game, one game where the whole team were ****e anyway but I'm sure Adkins has his reasons as to why he ain't involved. It's a squad game and I'm sure he'll play some part (like De Ridder, Connolly, Butterfield etc who aren't involved now)
He's clearly a good player but it's difficult for a young player who perhaps doesn't speak perfect english to come into a team and gel straight away, and with Puncheon coming back into the fold he's fallen further down the pecking order. He was obviously brought in to strengthen the depth of the squad and Adkins probably feels it's better to play the players we actually own rather than come to rely on one who will not be here very long.
I agree, i think had Puncheon not come back into it the lad would of been given more of a chance but at the moment it's to risky maybe we should put him on bench and give him 10-15 minutes when coasting
Spurs have just bought him and I'm sure they intend to keep him unless they change their mind. He hasn't had a chance to prove himself here, so can't see us buying him.
But problem with that is we haven't got the space on the bench for an untested youngster, with the 5 sub ruling - if we were allowed 7 subs I would agree but space is limited right now
I see what you mean and actually thinking about it if he has played a couple of times for u21's and been outstanding we would of heard about it and he wud already be close to the match day squad.
Talking of subs, I am a little worried, somewhere in the back of my head, that a team could take advantage during the run-in of our no substitute keeper policy. What if Reading go all out to try to get SKD off in our game against them?
If they do that then we will put an out field player in goal just like WH did with Lansbury. That also brings the question of who we think would be the player to take the responsibilty?
I know, but still, with a metaphorical six points at stake, I really wouldn't like to be in that situation. Think there is a thread somewhere whcih posed that question - who should be the outfield man in goal. Can't remember the popular outcome.
playing without a keeper on the bench may be the norm soon, more teams are not picking a second keeper. hopefully this will increase the chance of the fa dropping this stupid ruling. we may get to see some funny keeping from an outfield player(hopefully not for saints though)
