Howaythelads Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I'm not his biggest fan by a longshot, but i think when weve got one fit striker, playing a midfielder upfront and are creating nothing, and need a goal he should be given a chance. Luque isn't a striker, he's a wide player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowndsy Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 start the chants lol " we want luque" haha Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 To answer the question posed in the thread title. Yes, he is that bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 To answer the question posed in the thread title. Yes, he is that bad. Agreed. Not the player we need in a relegation dogfight. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If he's not going to be brought on when we need a goal, what's the f*cking point of him being on the bench? Might as well put Troisi or Finnigan on the bench to get first-team squad experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I can only think that Luque's performances in training are as half-hearted as his perfomances in matches. Therefore Roeder doesn't see him as the answer. There's no question about his ability. Just his attitude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 I can only think that Luque's performances in training are as half-hearted as his perfomances in matches. Therefore Roeder doesn't see him as the answer. There's no question about his ability. Just his attitude. So why name him on the bench ahead of one of the kids from the reserves who could benefit from the experience of being an unused Premiership sub? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4 Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If he's not going to be brought on when we need a goal, what's the f*cking point of him being on the bench? Might as well put Troisi or Finnigan on the bench to get first-team squad experience. yeap. The last half an hour was a taylor made situation where you would throw Luque on if he's on your bench. Roeder decided not to, ridiculous, no logic whatsoever. I would love to know his reasoning behind it ... what his logic is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 Can't understand why he didn'y come on today for the last 20 mins when we'd clearly run out of ideas. For me I'd have brought him on for charlie who had a quiet game. He could have played left or swopped with Duff. He may not be everyone's cup of tea but we needed a change today and he was it. The squad is thin enough as it is without the manager making it one lighter. All I can presume is that the club are still p*ssed he turned down Bordeaux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wayne D Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 As said, if Roeder is unimpressed by Luque's attitude, why on earth put him on the bench? Talent doesn't just go like that. He's worth a shot, given the circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonbaz Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 i would certainly give him his chance now, our strikers have only managed 4 league goals between them all season. surely now is the time to try something else. especially with 3 of them out injured. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Someone who doesn't know the quality of our youth products and therefore shouldn't comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Someone who doesn't know the quality of our youth products and therefore shouldn't comment. But there was no way either were going to be brought on tonight (as with Luque), so why not sit on the bench with the first-team squad? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Someone who doesn't know the quality of our youth products and therefore shouldn't comment. But there was no way either were going to be brought on tonight (as with Luque), so why not sit on the bench with the first-team squad? What good would that do? Give them experience of sitting on comfy seats? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Someone who doesn't know the quality of our youth products and therefore shouldn't comment. But there was no way either were going to be brought on tonight (as with Luque), so why not sit on the bench with the first-team squad? What good would that do? Give them experience of sitting on comfy seats? Same good it did Newcastle tonight having Luque there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 If hes fallen out with Roeder that bad then why would he even be on the bench, getting beyond a joke tbh Because no one else was fit. So why not put Finnigan or Troisi on the bench instead? They're not ready of course, but if there was no intention of being brought in, you might as well put one of those rather than Luque. Someone who speaks sense Someone who doesn't know the quality of our youth products and therefore shouldn't comment. But there was no way either were going to be brought on tonight (as with Luque), so why not sit on the bench with the first-team squad? What good would that do? Give them experience of sitting on comfy seats? Same good it did Newcastle tonight having Luque there. Say we got a nasty injury to one of our key attacking players? Would you rather bring Luque on or a young kid in Finnigan? If you honestly think finnigan then you are an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 My whole point in this thread is that Luque should have been brought on. The fact even at 0-0 he doesn't bring on a £9m forward is a f*cking joke. With no intention of him going on, you might as well have started with 4 subs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted October 28, 2006 Share Posted October 28, 2006 My whole point in this thread is that Luque should have been brought on. The fact even at 0-0 he doesn't bring on a £9m forward is a f*cking joke. With no intention of him going on, you might as well have started with 4 subs. Yeah, I know. I get aggressive when i'm tired and pissed off Does anyone know if Pattison is injured? Surely a midfield player would have been better on the bench than two CB's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ryunufc Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 He does not think Luque is able to improve our attack/finishing, because he is a let footed and not a natural finisher. I personally think it will be a 50-50 gamble, but worth a shot . However, Roeder is piling pressure on himself for keeping him on the bench while we struggling to get a goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellsy Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 So over this argument about Luque, he should of come on it is really as simple as that. He is (was) a Spainish international for fuck sake and against the shit that was Charlton last night he could of gone on to score a goal or set someone up. You just never know unless you just sit him on the bench like Roeder is doing to him right now. If Roeder was to sell him (or Fred as we all know he does the deals around here now) then why not put him on and give him a run of games to show potential clubs what he is about? Then rather sticking him on the bench... and selling him for sweet FA at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shearer_united Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 My whole point in this thread is that Luque should have been brought on. The fact even at 0-0 he doesn't bring on a £9m forward is a f*cking joke. With no intention of him going on, you might as well have started with 4 subs. Im beginning to think luque and roeder have a bad relationship going on. Maybe something happened between them. And the match yesterday was definitely the match to put luque on.. i was expecting a switch with duff / luque and that never happened. Since luque didnt play yesterdays match, i honetsly dont know which match is he really going to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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