Scott Sinclair

[Lancet Fluke]

At 8m a good signing. Someone with real direct pace in the attacking third and is technically good also. Mancini has given Johnson plenty of chances and it hasn't worked out consistently. He will now try with Sinclair.

Will try what with Sinclair? To merely replace Johnson as a 'squad' player to come on and try and change games when too narrow.

Because if everyone is fit, and we are playing a reasonably difficult PL fixture, Sinclair would never start. So what is the point in signing him when we have Johnson who is no worse.

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

I love that. A completely made up stat that even if it were true would be completely irrelevant in terms of whether we should sign him anyway.

 

[kompany10]

Will try what with Sinclair? To merely replace Johnson as a 'squad' player to come on and try and change games when too narrow.

Because if everyone is fit, and we are playing a reasonably difficult PL fixture, Sinclair would never start. So what is the point in signing him when we have Johnson who is no worse.

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

It really doesn't matter what AJ does elsewhere, especially if it's Liverpool or Sunderland who frankly aren't our competition. AJ just isn't doing it for us, he's been here 2 and a half years and hasn't got better, if anything he's worse. I'venot seen a whole lot of Sinclair but I don't see any harm in us trying again with the impact sub and who knows, Sinclair might come on leaps and bounds under Mancini.

couldnt agree more with this, the guy isnt a youngster anymore, he is 25 and hasnt really shown any signs of improovments

 

[hgblue]

sinclair is a better player and more effective and direct than johnson which is what we are looking for.

Scott Sinclair is NOT a better player than Adam Johnson. In fact, he's not on the same planet.

No they are both on Earth im certain of it

Oops, forgot to add the word 'footballing'. Pedantic twat ;).

 

[Philbo]

I don't think we need to be comparing Sinclair and Johnson. They both play different wings. Imagine chasing a game for example against West Ham we're losing 1-0 following a really early goal. They've defended for their lives and 20 minutes to go Sinclair and Johnson come on and completely stretch the back line and use their pace and trickery.

 

[hgblue]

Will try what with Sinclair? To merely replace Johnson as a 'squad' player to come on and try and change games when too narrow.

Because if everyone is fit, and we are playing a reasonably difficult PL fixture, Sinclair would never start. So what is the point in signing him when we have Johnson who is no worse.

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

I love that. A completely made up stat that even if it were true would be completely irrelevant in terms of whether we should sign him anyway.

Of course it's relevant if we're thinking of getting rid of Johnson and replacing him with Sinclair.

 

[gio's side step]

Will try what with Sinclair? To merely replace Johnson as a 'squad' player to come on and try and change games when too narrow.

Because if everyone is fit, and we are playing a reasonably difficult PL fixture, Sinclair would never start. So what is the point in signing him when we have Johnson who is no worse.

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

It really doesn't matter what AJ does elsewhere, especially if it's Liverpool or Sunderland who frankly aren't our competition. AJ just isn't doing it for us, he's been here 2 and a half years and hasn't got better, if anything he's worse. I'venot seen a whole lot of Sinclair but I don't see any harm in us trying again with the impact sub and who knows, Sinclair might come on leaps and bounds under Mancini.

He's not improved because he hasnt played enough games from the start. He isnt first choice because we would always go with silva and nasri in most games. He's become a player who is 'expected' to merely come off the bench and regardless of the context (how the game is unfolding) merely produce otherwise it contributes to the narrative of 'johnson aint good enough', 'johnson is not improving'. Unless he is given a consistent run in the team to prove his ability now he will always be a squad player.

I'm not advocating we give him a consistent run in the team. It would mean altering the way we play. And im happy with him being a squad player who challenges for a first team place and contributes over the course of a long season.

He is however, much better than Sinclair who would rarely ever get a game at this level.

 

[Gareth Barry Manilow]

Will try what with Sinclair? To merely replace Johnson as a 'squad' player to come on and try and change games when too narrow.

Because if everyone is fit, and we are playing a reasonably difficult PL fixture, Sinclair would never start. So what is the point in signing him when we have Johnson who is no worse.

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

I love that. A completely made up stat that even if it were true would be completely irrelevant in terms of whether we should sign him anyway.

So today we've found out that Scott Sinclair plays on Mars and a survey of 100 people in someones head says that AJ is a better player.

I love the transfer forum.

 

[LoveCity]

I don't think there will be room on the bench for both Sinclair and Johnson given that one big name usually already misses the bench every time. Even before anymore signings we'll have 7 spots on the bench for Pantilimon, Kolo/Savic (Agger/Lescott), Kolarov, Zabaleta, De Jong, Milner, Johnson (Sinclair), Balotelli, Dzeko - 9 or 10 players

 

[Tony101]

I don't think we need to be comparing Sinclair and Johnson. They both play different wings. Imagine chasing a game for example against West Ham we're losing 1-0 following a really early goal. They've defended for their lives and 20 minutes to go Sinclair and Johnson come on and completely stretch the back line and use their pace and trickery.

You do know Sinclair is a right footer that plays on the left and just like Johnson he always cuts inside. i really dont get how people think he's someone who beats players on the outside. im not saying he cant do that. But he sure as hell wasnt playing like that for Swansea.

 

[kompany10]

If you asked 100 neutrals to choose between Johnson and Sinclair, the number who would plump for Sinclair would be in single figures. When Johnson gets a run of games under his belt at Liverpool, we're going to look very, very, silly.

It really doesn't matter what AJ does elsewhere, especially if it's Liverpool or Sunderland who frankly aren't our competition. AJ just isn't doing it for us, he's been here 2 and a half years and hasn't got better, if anything he's worse. I'venot seen a whole lot of Sinclair but I don't see any harm in us trying again with the impact sub and who knows, Sinclair might come on leaps and bounds under Mancini.

He's not improved because he hasnt played enough games from the start. He isnt first choice because we would always go with silva and nasri in most games. He's become a player who is 'expected' to merely come off the bench and regardless of the context (how the game is unfolding) merely produce otherwise it contributes to the narrative of 'johnson aint good enough', 'johnson is not improving'. Unless he is given a consistent run in the team to prove his ability now he will always be a squad player.

I'm not advocating we give him a consistent run in the team. It would mean altering the way we play. And im happy with him being a squad player who challenges for a first team place and contributes over the course of a long season.

He is however, much better than Sinclair who would rarely ever get a game at this level.

i agree with everything you said up untill your last line. Sinclair is equally the player of johnson and is what we are looking for in terms of having a different option, somebody with pace to try and unlock a stuborn defence.