Marouane Chamakh (Short term Solution or not)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

antipodeagle Wellington 01 Sep 16 5.23am
I've always enjoyed watching him play, but it's been quite a while now since he's seen any real action and his hamstrings seem to be made of tissue paper. That said, I don't see there would be any losers from popping him in the 25 as cover if AP thinks he can keep fit and healthy enough to ever be useful if called upon.
Alert a moderator to this post

antipodeagle

Wellington 01 Sep 16 5.23am

I've always enjoyed watching him play, but it's been quite a while now since he's seen any real action and his hamstrings seem to be made of tissue paper.

That said, I don't see there would be any losers from popping him in the 25 as cover if AP thinks he can keep fit and healthy enough to ever be useful if called upon.

Alert a moderator to this post

taldous123 Perth 01 Sep 16 5.27am
I'd deffo put him in the 25 now for cover at least. He was great for us as an Attacking Midfielder. If we would have gotten someone in I'd probably say no. He loves being here too, it's a no brainer from me. Anyone saying he was no good for us is utterly clueless! He's not that old either and may still have a point to prove. We're the red and blue army!!
Alert a moderator to this post

taldous123

Perth 01 Sep 16 5.27am

I'd deffo put him in the 25 now for cover at least. He was great for us as an Attacking Midfielder. If we would have gotten someone in I'd probably say no. He loves being here too, it's a no brainer from me. Anyone saying he was no good for us is utterly clueless! He's not that old either and may still have a point to prove.

We're the red and blue army!!

Alert a moderator to this post

Sherlock Holmesdale Milton Keynes 01 Sep 16 10.45am
Originally posted by taldous123 I'd deffo put him in the 25 now for cover at least. He was great for us as an Attacking Midfielder. If we would have gotten someone in I'd probably say no. He loves being here too, it's a no brainer from me. Anyone saying he was no good for us is utterly clueless! He's not that old either and may still have a point to prove. Wholeheartedly agree
Alert a moderator to this post

Sherlock Holmesdale

Milton Keynes 01 Sep 16 10.45am

Send a Private Message to Sherlock Holmesdale

Originally posted by taldous123

Wholeheartedly agree

Alert a moderator to this post

AussiePalace Melbourne, Australia 01 Sep 16 12.23pm
I'd be shocked if most on here, wouldn't accept Chammers as the 25th bloke on the squad. Worse players to have in reserve than him. I would love to see him back. Executive Junior Assistant's Vice President's P.A - CPFC Melbourne Supporters Club [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

AussiePalace

Melbourne, Australia 01 Sep 16 12.23pm

I'd be shocked if most on here, wouldn't accept Chammers as the 25th bloke on the squad.

Worse players to have in reserve than him.

I would love to see him back.

Executive Junior Assistant's Vice President's P.A - CPFC Melbourne Supporters Club

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

pieman203 Hayes 01 Sep 16 12.46pm
If we still need a No.ten then until Jan push McArthur up front, he looked good there for the short time he played against Bournemouth. Taking Chamack back is a retrograde step. I liked his effort but he was not that constructive and certainly not a scorer so what would be the point. You might just as well leave Puncheon there.
Alert a moderator to this post

pieman203

Hayes 01 Sep 16 12.46pm

If we still need a No.ten then until Jan push McArthur up front, he looked good there for the short time he played against Bournemouth. Taking Chamack back is a retrograde step. I liked his effort but he was not that constructive and certainly not a scorer so what would be the point. You might just as well leave Puncheon there.

Alert a moderator to this post

leejaneagles 01 Sep 16 1.51pm
Am I right in thinking that when you take away the youngsters that don't have to be registered and the players that have never tasted first team action (Fryers etc) we are not left with a full 25 man selection? If that's the case, then something is literally better than nothing. Why submit 23 players to the league for example, when we can submit 24 and include Chamakh? It's a no brainer even if he doesn't play.
Alert a moderator to this post

leejaneagles

01 Sep 16 1.51pm

Am I right in thinking that when you take away the youngsters that don't have to be registered and the players that have never tasted first team action (Fryers etc) we are not left with a full 25 man selection?

If that's the case, then something is literally better than nothing.

Why submit 23 players to the league for example, when we can submit 24 and include Chamakh? It's a no brainer even if he doesn't play.

Alert a moderator to this post

Sandy_Eagle Purley 01 Sep 16 2.27pm
Originally posted by pieman203 If we still need a No.ten then until Jan push McArthur up front, he looked good there for the short time he played against Bournemouth. Taking Chamack back is a retrograde step. I liked his effort but he was not that constructive and certainly not a scorer so what would be the point. You might just as well leave Puncheon there. Disagree, McCarthur was poor in the position against Bournemouth, think Chamakh can fill the void and definitely put Puncheon under some pressure for his place in the team.
Alert a moderator to this post

Sandy_Eagle

Purley 01 Sep 16 2.27pm

Originally posted by pieman203

Disagree, McCarthur was poor in the position against Bournemouth, think Chamakh can fill the void and definitely put Puncheon under some pressure for his place in the team.

Alert a moderator to this post

SurreyEagle16 Next Door 01 Sep 16 2.34pm
I must have been asleep for all of the games when Chamakh showed how good he was technically!! His one outstanding attribute that I could see was that...after being found out for bottling a tackle that cost us a draw at stoke second game of the season, he developed a phenomenal work rate. That resulted in him being used essentially as a defensive midfielder played behind a striker (like Martin O'Neill used Chris Sutton at Celtic) chasing and harrying. I don't remember him scoring or assisting in great numbers to justify the boasts of his technical skills.
Alert a moderator to this post

SurreyEagle16

Next Door 01 Sep 16 2.34pm

I must have been asleep for all of the games when Chamakh showed how good he was technically!!

His one outstanding attribute that I could see was that...after being found out for bottling a tackle that cost us a draw at stoke second game of the season, he developed a phenomenal work rate.

That resulted in him being used essentially as a defensive midfielder played behind a striker (like Martin O'Neill used Chris Sutton at Celtic) chasing and harrying.

I don't remember him scoring or assisting in great numbers to justify the boasts of his technical skills.

Alert a moderator to this post

GazJones Southwark 01 Sep 16 3.57pm
Some of the criticism is unfair. As someone highlighted, his contribution to the 13/14 season was vital. We were not blessed with a lot of technical attacking players back then (eg Cameron Jerome) and he did give as outlet up front for our counter attacking play. He only scored half a dozen goals, but those goals, along with Puncheon's, were enough for some important wins that kept us up (remember we had a lot of 1-0s back then). That said, that was three years ago and he's older now and has suffered a lot of injuries. It would seem like a backward step to bring him back now.
Alert a moderator to this post

GazJones

Southwark 01 Sep 16 3.57pm

Some of the criticism is unfair. As someone highlighted, his contribution to the 13/14 season was vital. We were not blessed with a lot of technical attacking players back then (eg Cameron Jerome) and he did give as outlet up front for our counter attacking play. He only scored half a dozen goals, but those goals, along with Puncheon's, were enough for some important wins that kept us up (remember we had a lot of 1-0s back then).

That said, that was three years ago and he's older now and has suffered a lot of injuries. It would seem like a backward step to bring him back now.

Alert a moderator to this post