skybluesam66
Well-Known Member
Mcpake - maybe another long term injury
couldnt make it up
couldnt make it up
poor mcpake, he has bags of skill and potential, but also seems to hav the body of an anemic school girl.... I say cut him loose, we don't need a "senior" player who can't look at a ball without getting injured..
Bags of skill??
Same problem as McNamee pretty good player but constantly injured, we have to let he go... oh we've just given him a new contract
Still, he can put his feet up in front of the tele and switch on the Racing Channel. If you read his Twitter feed that's all he seems to do!
Shame, as I liked McPake. When he's fit - I can just about remember that - he's a right terrier.
Mcpake didn't get a 4 year deal, he got a one year extension to his current deal which was expiring in the summer according to the telegraph.A great defender but useless to us off the pitch.
He's one of my favourites, but I don't think it's worth keeping him... especially not with a 4 year deal :facepalm:
on the positive side Hussey, Wood and Crainie might be available for the West Ham game.
McPake simply isnt up to the rigours of playing in the Championship - and to be fair we have never been able to play him in a long run of games (say 20) to see how consistently good he is. Its a shame but I would not have given him that contract yet when he hasnt proven fitness- I think that was an error on AT's part. We had all season to assess him because with his injury record few would have been chasing his signature
James mcpake is undoubtably our best defender, just been unlucky the past year through injury, when he's back to his best you'll all see how wrong youse were to knock him when he was down.
Look at gerrard, been out for ages, came back and is injured again, but the liverpool faithful still stand by him instead of slating him because he's had an injury,
Mcpake picked up his injuries playing for us, so we have to deal with a player being out
He played all the games alongside Wood during that long unbeaten run under Coleman-wasn't it 9 or 10 games? Then he got injured, and we went on a run of 10 games without a win. I think that statistic right there demonstrates how good he can be, and that to me-and most pundits (including Bobby Gould, who waxed lyrical about him)-is a top Championship defender.
I think the problem is the cumulative effects of so many injuries and so much time off means that he's miles away from being that player now. Maybe the one year extension to his contract reflects the expectation that he won't actually get back to full fitness this season? The point of conjecture for me isn't whether the McPake of old is a player worth having, or even worth waiting that long for-it's more a question of whether he can ever get back to that level again, especially if he just carries on picking up more knocks. Each one he gets just makes a full and proper comeback seem less likely, sadly.
I used to think he was decent, reliable, and one of oir best defenders. However after Saturday, you can tell all his injuries have caught up with him. He was awful. Especially for the 2nd goal i think it was when he attempted an over-head clearance while that huge bulldozer of a centre forward was behind him. What he was thinking ill never know.
He is definately atleast 4th choice now, if not 5th as id say Cameron is probaly ahead of him because he's more reliable fitness wise (then again who isnt).
I'm more reliable fitness wise and thats not joking. The guy has to look at a pair of boots and he's out for 6 months.
McPake is a notorious slow starter getting back into things after injury. Usually after games back in the side he then looks really solid.
That begs the question - why don't we send him out on loan for a month to get fit and make his mistakes elsewhere? And before anyone points out we're down to our bare bones, we've only picked up 1 point since his return, which would have been 3 if it wasn't for his shoddy defending against doncaster.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?