Scott Sinclair

[Tony101]

Scott Sinclair better than Adam Johnson....Now i have heard it all

 

[grunge]

Liverpool clearly want Sinclair.

We clearly want Agger.

This is simply a tool to get Agger more quickly threatening to take Sinclair from their grasp.

Agger is disputing a loyalty payment with Pool.

We are certainly no longer standing still.

There are media rumours of AJ going in a cash and player deal for Agger so Sinclair could just be a replacement for AJ.

 

[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.

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

No he isnt.

Sinclair was more consistent last season because (a) he started more games and played at a level (with swansea) where he was slightly better than the rest of the side he played with.

Johnson has moved from Boro to a side challenging for CL straight away who have then kicked on, won the FA cup and PL. He has not been as critical to our success as Silva or Yaya, but technically he is good enough to be in our squad. He needs to improve mentally and take his career more seriously.

The simple test here would be, Sinclair moves to City, is on the bench, comes on like Johnson does for a few games, contributes similar.

Johnson went somewhere like Swansea and would look like a world beater

 

[LongsightM13]

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.

Try and progress his mental and technical ability to a level where he can play in the CL and so on.

Johnson has come on a lot under Mancini but has struggled to make that next big step. Sinclair I feel with his already good level of technical ability and raw pace can.
At 8m we have nothing to lose but a whole lot to gain.

He will start games where his skills can be utilized.

Nasri and Silva suffered against Stoke as an example last season because their skill centrally fell right infront of a wall of players. Sinclair up against their full backs and its chances galore. He puts a cross for the winner and its 3 points. He offers something different. That something different can win you matches.

Sinclair also plays on the 'wrong side' and cuts in, so he would have exactly the same problem.
His crossing is at best average.
He was made to look very mediocre by full backs from S Korea and UAE

 

[Ntini77]

I wouldn't say he's a better player than Johnson, but he's certainly got more pace and no doubt has a better attitude, too.

 

[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.

In your opinion, not mine and by the sounds of it probably not in mancini view.

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.

 

[blue wang]

i think it was part of the plan to always get a wing on the left, we would be playing similarl to the rags do when teams park the bus.
use the width of the pitch and get the two wings being sinclar and johnson to wip the balls in from the touch lin e for the likes of dzeko.

just thinking we could also utilse his pace in a 3-5.-2


3-5-2
zab-kompany-agger
micah cleachy/kolorov
nasri/dejong-yaya-silva
johnson/tevez/balo dzeko/aguero/sinclar

4-4-2

zab/micah -kompany- lescott/agger- cleachy/kolorov

johnson/nasri-dejong/silva-yaya- sinclar/balo
aguero dzeko/tevez

 

[gio's side step]

Scott Sinclair better than Adam Johnson....Now i have heard it all

mate, it's utterly ridiculous.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

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.

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

 

[without a dream]

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.

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.

 

[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.