The ArgusAlbion talking point: What's your line-up to beat QPR tonight? (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Albion talking point: What's your line-up to beat QPR tonight?

The Argus: Albion and QPR meet again tonight Albion and QPR meet again tonight

Will Buckley could be in line for a first league start of 2014 tonight.

But what would you do if you were sending out an Albion side XI to face QPR at the Amex?

Is it time to add pace to the attack or do you go with the line-up which started against Reading?

With Dale Stephens again doubtful with a foot injury, do you stick with the midfield trio that faced the Royals?

Or do you change formation and come up with a new plan, maybe, with two wingers starting and Jesse Lingard playing more centrally off Leo Ulloa?

Gordon Greer serves a one-match ban and Lewis Dunk looks the obvious replacement. Or do you have another suggestion?

It’s a big game for Oscar Garcia’s men tonight. So what would you do in his place?

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:46am Tue 11 Mar 14

Bushell17 says...

Just my thoughts, TK, Bruno, Dunk, Upson, Ward, Ince, Andrews, Lopez, Lingard, Buckley and Ulloa. Upson as skipper and that is assuming that Stephens is injured, if not Stephens for Lopez. UTA
Just my thoughts, TK, Bruno, Dunk, Upson, Ward, Ince, Andrews, Lopez, Lingard, Buckley and Ulloa. Upson as skipper and that is assuming that Stephens is injured, if not Stephens for Lopez. UTA Bushell17
  • Score: 6

9:52am Tue 11 Mar 14

sgambling1 says...

TK
Bruno Dunk Upson Ward
Ince Andrews Stephens/Lopez

Lingard Ulloa Buckley

Back 5 is certain. Midfield depends on Stephens injury? when is Orlandi back in contention? Andrews is a must at the moment he does the ugly stuff very well and is extremely passionate what I enjoy watching !
Front 3 will be fantastic if he goes for Lingaard and Buckley. Alot of pace there will cause QPR trouble!

Would like to see Lua Lua at some point!
TK Bruno Dunk Upson Ward Ince Andrews Stephens/Lopez Lingard Ulloa Buckley Back 5 is certain. Midfield depends on Stephens injury? when is Orlandi back in contention? Andrews is a must at the moment he does the ugly stuff very well and is extremely passionate what I enjoy watching ! Front 3 will be fantastic if he goes for Lingaard and Buckley. Alot of pace there will cause QPR trouble! Would like to see Lua Lua at some point! sgambling1
  • Score: 9

9:59am Tue 11 Mar 14

Uckfield Seagull says...

Back 5 will pick themselves, Ulloa and Lingard up front, if everyone fit I guess the midfield 4 would be Ince, Orlandi, Buckley and Crofts, but as 2 of those def out I guess it will be Ince, Buckley, Andrews and KFC, big difference that.

I would like to see Lua Lua, Buckley, Ulloa and Lingard starting tonight with Ince and Andrews holding
Back 5 will pick themselves, Ulloa and Lingard up front, if everyone fit I guess the midfield 4 would be Ince, Orlandi, Buckley and Crofts, but as 2 of those def out I guess it will be Ince, Buckley, Andrews and KFC, big difference that. I would like to see Lua Lua, Buckley, Ulloa and Lingard starting tonight with Ince and Andrews holding Uckfield Seagull
  • Score: 0

10:12am Tue 11 Mar 14

SevenD says...

sgambling1 wrote:
TK
Bruno Dunk Upson Ward
Ince Andrews Stephens/Lopez

Lingard Ulloa Buckley

Back 5 is certain. Midfield depends on Stephens injury? when is Orlandi back in contention? Andrews is a must at the moment he does the ugly stuff very well and is extremely passionate what I enjoy watching !
Front 3 will be fantastic if he goes for Lingaard and Buckley. Alot of pace there will cause QPR trouble!

Would like to see Lua Lua at some point!
TOMASZ KUSZCZAK

BRUNO , DUNK , UPSON , WARD

SPANISH DAVE , INCE , CASKEY

BUCKLEY , ULLOA , LINGARD

subs , Bresovan , Calderon , Andrews , LuaLua ,Rodriguez ,March ,Stevens

Also I feel that we need to run at players more and not just try and pass round them , plus I felt that at the Reading game we gave the ball away to freely . even before the second half sending off. we need to be more clinical with our passing and keep the ball on the floor.
[quote][p][bold]sgambling1[/bold] wrote: TK Bruno Dunk Upson Ward Ince Andrews Stephens/Lopez Lingard Ulloa Buckley Back 5 is certain. Midfield depends on Stephens injury? when is Orlandi back in contention? Andrews is a must at the moment he does the ugly stuff very well and is extremely passionate what I enjoy watching ! Front 3 will be fantastic if he goes for Lingaard and Buckley. Alot of pace there will cause QPR trouble! Would like to see Lua Lua at some point![/p][/quote]TOMASZ KUSZCZAK BRUNO , DUNK , UPSON , WARD SPANISH DAVE , INCE , CASKEY BUCKLEY , ULLOA , LINGARD subs , Bresovan , Calderon , Andrews , LuaLua ,Rodriguez ,March ,Stevens Also I feel that we need to run at players more and not just try and pass round them , plus I felt that at the Reading game we gave the ball away to freely . even before the second half sending off. we need to be more clinical with our passing and keep the ball on the floor. SevenD
  • Score: 3

10:17am Tue 11 Mar 14

SevenD says...

TOMASZ KUSZCZAK

BRUNO , DUNK , UPSON , WARD

SPANISH DAVE , INCE , CASKEY

BUCKLEY , ULLOA , LINGARD

subs , Bresovan , Calderon , Andrews , LuaLua ,Rodriguez ,March ,Stevens

Also I feel that we need to run at players more and not just try and pass round them , plus I felt that at the Reading game we gave the ball away to freely . even before the second half sending off. we need to be more clinical with our passing and keep the ball on the floor.
TOMASZ KUSZCZAK BRUNO , DUNK , UPSON , WARD SPANISH DAVE , INCE , CASKEY BUCKLEY , ULLOA , LINGARD subs , Bresovan , Calderon , Andrews , LuaLua ,Rodriguez ,March ,Stevens Also I feel that we need to run at players more and not just try and pass round them , plus I felt that at the Reading game we gave the ball away to freely . even before the second half sending off. we need to be more clinical with our passing and keep the ball on the floor. SevenD
  • Score: 2

10:44am Tue 11 Mar 14

brightonfan34 says...

my team would be this

kuszczak

bruno upson dunk ward

ince andrews stephens if fit

buckley lingard
ulloa
my team would be this kuszczak bruno upson dunk ward ince andrews stephens if fit buckley lingard ulloa brightonfan34
  • Score: 2

10:53am Tue 11 Mar 14

AlanDuffy says...

Keeper and defence pick themselves, midfield depends on injuries but if, as seems likely, Stephens and Orlandi are unavailable, then I'd go Ince, Andrews, Spanish, Buckers, Lingard and Leo.....and let's have a real go, let's see some passion.
Keeper and defence pick themselves, midfield depends on injuries but if, as seems likely, Stephens and Orlandi are unavailable, then I'd go Ince, Andrews, Spanish, Buckers, Lingard and Leo.....and let's have a real go, let's see some passion. AlanDuffy
  • Score: 3

11:05am Tue 11 Mar 14

Tommy11 says...

I would love 4-4-2, but I know it would happen. But in my view, we need to go for it;

TK
Calde, Dunk, Greer, Ward
Buckley, Ince, Andrews, Lua Lua
Ulloa, Lindgard

I don't see why we can't give this a try??? on paper, this is an excellent team - and the players are available! this is why I get so frustrated when the team sheet is read out...as we DO have the team, but the selection (in my view) is wrong an awful amount of time.

Come on Albion!
I would love 4-4-2, but I know it would happen. But in my view, we need to go for it; TK Calde, Dunk, Greer, Ward Buckley, Ince, Andrews, Lua Lua Ulloa, Lindgard I don't see why we can't give this a try??? on paper, this is an excellent team - and the players are available! this is why I get so frustrated when the team sheet is read out...as we DO have the team, but the selection (in my view) is wrong an awful amount of time. Come on Albion! Tommy11
  • Score: 4

11:11am Tue 11 Mar 14

Conelli98 says...

Tk, BS LD MU SW, WB KA RI AO SM, LU
Tk, BS LD MU SW, WB KA RI AO SM, LU Conelli98
  • Score: 4

12:48pm Tue 11 Mar 14

SeagullOverSelsey says...

Tommy11 wrote:
I would love 4-4-2, but I know it would happen. But in my view, we need to go for it;

TK
Calde, Dunk, Greer, Ward
Buckley, Ince, Andrews, Lua Lua
Ulloa, Lindgard

I don't see why we can't give this a try??? on paper, this is an excellent team - and the players are available! this is why I get so frustrated when the team sheet is read out...as we DO have the team, but the selection (in my view) is wrong an awful amount of time.

Come on Albion!
Tommy you,ve forgotten that Greer is suspended for tonight so has to be Dunk in there. agree with the rest except Bruno for Calde.
Subs.Ank Calde Lopez JFC Chicksen Solly. Obika/Rodriguez.
[quote][p][bold]Tommy11[/bold] wrote: I would love 4-4-2, but I know it would happen. But in my view, we need to go for it; TK Calde, Dunk, Greer, Ward Buckley, Ince, Andrews, Lua Lua Ulloa, Lindgard I don't see why we can't give this a try??? on paper, this is an excellent team - and the players are available! this is why I get so frustrated when the team sheet is read out...as we DO have the team, but the selection (in my view) is wrong an awful amount of time. Come on Albion![/p][/quote]Tommy you,ve forgotten that Greer is suspended for tonight so has to be Dunk in there. agree with the rest except Bruno for Calde. Subs.Ank Calde Lopez JFC Chicksen Solly. Obika/Rodriguez. SeagullOverSelsey
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

I would like to see a 4-5-1 set up with Lingard given a free role, and start with Buckley. Ince, Andrews, Lingard, Buckley and Lopez, Lingard free to roam and Lopez linking the play from midfield.
I would like to see a 4-5-1 set up with Lingard given a free role, and start with Buckley. Ince, Andrews, Lingard, Buckley and Lopez, Lingard free to roam and Lopez linking the play from midfield. VegasSeagull
  • Score: -1

1:23pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Tommy11 says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
I would like to see a 4-5-1 set up with Lingard given a free role, and start with Buckley. Ince, Andrews, Lingard, Buckley and Lopez, Lingard free to roam and Lopez linking the play from midfield.
If you have seen the games.....you would know that the majority of people don't want Lopez near Falmer station, let alone the football pitch! Please no Lopez Oscar - nice guy - but not hard enough... (and that is putiing it lightly!)
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: I would like to see a 4-5-1 set up with Lingard given a free role, and start with Buckley. Ince, Andrews, Lingard, Buckley and Lopez, Lingard free to roam and Lopez linking the play from midfield.[/p][/quote]If you have seen the games.....you would know that the majority of people don't want Lopez near Falmer station, let alone the football pitch! Please no Lopez Oscar - nice guy - but not hard enough... (and that is putiing it lightly!) Tommy11
  • Score: 6

1:28pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Far gull says...

Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season.
Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season. Far gull
  • Score: 1

1:39pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

Far gull wrote:
Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season.
You are right FarGull, IMHO, the only way we start with two wide players is if either Ince or Andrews doesn't start. It's a trade off, one extra attack option V one extra defensive option, and that's the problem. What we need is for Ince or Andrews, when both playing, to get forward more, one push on and one stay at home. I would be happy to see Ince use his strength to hold off and go past opposing midfielders, just not sure if that part of his game is polished enough just yet. I am not sure why Andrews doesn't get forward more, he has been in the game long enough to have learned a few tricks.
[quote][p][bold]Far gull[/bold] wrote: Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season.[/p][/quote]You are right FarGull, IMHO, the only way we start with two wide players is if either Ince or Andrews doesn't start. It's a trade off, one extra attack option V one extra defensive option, and that's the problem. What we need is for Ince or Andrews, when both playing, to get forward more, one push on and one stay at home. I would be happy to see Ince use his strength to hold off and go past opposing midfielders, just not sure if that part of his game is polished enough just yet. I am not sure why Andrews doesn't get forward more, he has been in the game long enough to have learned a few tricks. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Tue 11 Mar 14

To baldly go says...

Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno.
Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game.
A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front.
Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno. Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game. A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front. To baldly go
  • Score: 6

2:54pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

To baldly go wrote:
Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno.
Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game.
A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front.
I so want to say yes to your idea, I am just not sure that I have the courage to do so.
If we were to do as you suggest then I think I would like to see Lingard given a free role and I would replace Andrews with Bruno. My back three would be Dunk, Upson and Ward. Bruno, at times, comes up with a move that is pure class, and he does that from the right back position, in your set up he just might offer more than Andrews as a threat but also give us the cover that Andrews does.
Yours is a big ask, playing just three at the back tonight would only come about if they had worked on it all week on the training field. I can see the attraction, your points are valid, but I just don't see it happening. What we might see is, a 4-1-3-1-1, with Lingard playing just behind Ulloa, I think that formation would come easier to the players than adopting a three at the back plan.
[quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno. Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game. A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front.[/p][/quote]I so want to say yes to your idea, I am just not sure that I have the courage to do so. If we were to do as you suggest then I think I would like to see Lingard given a free role and I would replace Andrews with Bruno. My back three would be Dunk, Upson and Ward. Bruno, at times, comes up with a move that is pure class, and he does that from the right back position, in your set up he just might offer more than Andrews as a threat but also give us the cover that Andrews does. Yours is a big ask, playing just three at the back tonight would only come about if they had worked on it all week on the training field. I can see the attraction, your points are valid, but I just don't see it happening. What we might see is, a 4-1-3-1-1, with Lingard playing just behind Ulloa, I think that formation would come easier to the players than adopting a three at the back plan. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 1

2:55pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
To baldly go wrote:
Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno.
Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game.
A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front.
I so want to say yes to your idea, I am just not sure that I have the courage to do so.
If we were to do as you suggest then I think I would like to see Lingard given a free role and I would replace Andrews with Bruno. My back three would be Dunk, Upson and Ward. Bruno, at times, comes up with a move that is pure class, and he does that from the right back position, in your set up he just might offer more than Andrews as a threat but also give us the cover that Andrews does.
Yours is a big ask, playing just three at the back tonight would only come about if they had worked on it all week on the training field. I can see the attraction, your points are valid, but I just don't see it happening. What we might see is, a 4-1-3-1-1, with Lingard playing just behind Ulloa, I think that formation would come easier to the players than adopting a three at the back plan.
I said, 'all week,' but it's only been a couple of days, but you know what I mean. -:))
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]To baldly go[/bold] wrote: Here's a point for discussion, Do we need 4 defenders! QPR will only play with one up front and have not scored many goals just like us, so with big Ince as the defensive midfielder why not go with Ward, Upson and either Calderon/Bruno. Look at what Wigan did to Man City at the weekend by playing 3 at the back, that enabled them to have more men in midfield which restricted City playing their game. A 3-1-5-1 system might workfor us,we have pace in abundance going forward if we use them correctly, Buckley, Andrews, Lingard, Lopez and LuaLua with Ulloa not so exposed up front.[/p][/quote]I so want to say yes to your idea, I am just not sure that I have the courage to do so. If we were to do as you suggest then I think I would like to see Lingard given a free role and I would replace Andrews with Bruno. My back three would be Dunk, Upson and Ward. Bruno, at times, comes up with a move that is pure class, and he does that from the right back position, in your set up he just might offer more than Andrews as a threat but also give us the cover that Andrews does. Yours is a big ask, playing just three at the back tonight would only come about if they had worked on it all week on the training field. I can see the attraction, your points are valid, but I just don't see it happening. What we might see is, a 4-1-3-1-1, with Lingard playing just behind Ulloa, I think that formation would come easier to the players than adopting a three at the back plan.[/p][/quote]I said, 'all week,' but it's only been a couple of days, but you know what I mean. -:)) VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Perseus says...

I paid £42 for my ticket so I expect will Buckley to play. I would not mind a surprise inclusion of Brezovan in goal ???
I paid £42 for my ticket so I expect will Buckley to play. I would not mind a surprise inclusion of Brezovan in goal ??? Perseus
  • Score: -6

4:08pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Far gull says...

VegasSeagull wrote:
Far gull wrote:
Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season.
You are right FarGull, IMHO, the only way we start with two wide players is if either Ince or Andrews doesn't start. It's a trade off, one extra attack option V one extra defensive option, and that's the problem. What we need is for Ince or Andrews, when both playing, to get forward more, one push on and one stay at home. I would be happy to see Ince use his strength to hold off and go past opposing midfielders, just not sure if that part of his game is polished enough just yet. I am not sure why Andrews doesn't get forward more, he has been in the game long enough to have learned a few tricks.
I think Vegas ,Andrews sees himself as organiser ,to old to do that running lark,hence his nickname now pointer. He is good at pointing where others should be or where he used to be able to get too. His best game for us was cup v reading with youngsters all round him who did all the running.
In time Ince will get forward more but to early in his conversion from centre back imho.
Ince will be by next season an attacking. Bridcutt ,I just hope we go up next season to be able to hold him for a year in prem as I feel he is and will interest many top flight sides he is going to be that good.
[quote][p][bold]VegasSeagull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Far gull[/bold] wrote: Do smile to all those wanting us to be more attacking,and yet most include Andrews who misplaces more passes in one game than quiz master of mastermind has seen in one game. Sorry not mobile or attacking enough for me . We have in Ince the only defensive midfielder we require In match as was proved in Wigan game. Inability to convert chances in that game was our downfall but the fact is another attack/ forward thinking and passing midfield in there would be better,just use Andrews as cover for Ince not along side please it's just to defensive minded and we need goals . Last season Hammond chipped in a few from there . Forgot he's playing for the league leaders Leciester this season.[/p][/quote]You are right FarGull, IMHO, the only way we start with two wide players is if either Ince or Andrews doesn't start. It's a trade off, one extra attack option V one extra defensive option, and that's the problem. What we need is for Ince or Andrews, when both playing, to get forward more, one push on and one stay at home. I would be happy to see Ince use his strength to hold off and go past opposing midfielders, just not sure if that part of his game is polished enough just yet. I am not sure why Andrews doesn't get forward more, he has been in the game long enough to have learned a few tricks.[/p][/quote]I think Vegas ,Andrews sees himself as organiser ,to old to do that running lark,hence his nickname now pointer. He is good at pointing where others should be or where he used to be able to get too. His best game for us was cup v reading with youngsters all round him who did all the running. In time Ince will get forward more but to early in his conversion from centre back imho. Ince will be by next season an attacking. Bridcutt ,I just hope we go up next season to be able to hold him for a year in prem as I feel he is and will interest many top flight sides he is going to be that good. Far gull
  • Score: 1

4:24pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

FarGull I agree, Ince is showing all the signs of being a very good player. I am not so sure that next season will be the time when a top club comes calling, and if they did, I think they might see him as a work in progress so not too many appearances. I am hoping that the lad will take an honest assessment of his career to date and not go looking for fast riches, one more season with us, or perhaps to be more accurate, one more year with Oscar, could make all the difference.
FarGull I agree, Ince is showing all the signs of being a very good player. I am not so sure that next season will be the time when a top club comes calling, and if they did, I think they might see him as a work in progress so not too many appearances. I am hoping that the lad will take an honest assessment of his career to date and not go looking for fast riches, one more season with us, or perhaps to be more accurate, one more year with Oscar, could make all the difference. VegasSeagull
  • Score: 1

4:31pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Falmer Wizard says...

Hoping for an attacking pacey selection for our team but no point if Ulloa is left on his own up front,give the supporters a treat for turning out for an evening match.
Hoping for an attacking pacey selection for our team but no point if Ulloa is left on his own up front,give the supporters a treat for turning out for an evening match. Falmer Wizard
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Tue 11 Mar 14

Conelli98 says...

Is Orlandi injured?
Is Orlandi injured? Conelli98
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Tue 11 Mar 14

VegasSeagull says...

Conelli98 wrote:
Is Orlandi injured?
I think the answer is yes, along with Stephens, how bad I am not sure
[quote][p][bold]Conelli98[/bold] wrote: Is Orlandi injured?[/p][/quote]I think the answer is yes, along with Stephens, how bad I am not sure VegasSeagull
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree