Page 1 of 8
Bring pacheco into starting line-up? - Would you?
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:46 pmby Fauxy
The times are difficult, and with Johnson, Benayoun, Gerrard and Torres out.. our attacking options are now limited.
I would personally bring him in and play him as a 2nd striker in the Gerrard sort of role 
The arguments against bringing him on are maybe that he is too in-experienced and hasnt had a proper test in the PL. But I think he would be a good option
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:50 pmby killerp
Fauxy wrote:The times are difficult, and with Johnson, Benayoun, Gerrard and Torres out.. our attacking options are now limited.
I would personally bring him in and play him as a 2nd striker in the Gerrard sort of role
The arguments against bringing him on are maybe that he is too in-experienced and hasnt had a proper test in the PL. But I think he would be a good option
I know most people don't like him but what about Babel??? while we still own him, play him up front as cover for Torres, he cannot be worse than ngog or pacheco?
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:53 pmby roberto green
There is nothing to lose by doing so.What I have seen of him he looks like he has potential and he certainly can't be worse than Babel or Ngog
Posted:
Thu Jan 14, 2010 11:58 pmby made in UK
That would be too logical wouldn't it? (Bringing in Pacheco)
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:41 amby anti-hero
If we didnt, then what would be the point of having him in the team anyways?
this is his chance to finally show his hunger and his ability.
on a different note, whatever happened to el zhar? if i remember correctly, he can play as asecond striker and an attacking midfielder. if yossi was out i always thought at the very least he could get a run out since they both play the same position.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:42 amby bunglemark2
anti-hero wrote:If we didnt, then what would be the point of having him in the team anyways?
this is his chance to finally show his hunger and his ability.
on a different note, whatever happened to el zhar? if i remember correctly, he can play as asecond striker and an attacking midfielder. if yossi was out i always thought at the very least he could get a run out since they both play the same position.
Injured....
Oh, and eh, he's cr@p as well....
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:05 amby ConnO'var
I would say that we don't have much choice right now but to bring him into the 1st team.
From what little I've seen of him, I think he could well be just the type of player we need at the moment. Only time will tell if he has the mental fortitude to succeeed but I do think he has enough of the technical traits to be a solid footballer.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:32 amby Octsky
Looking at Rafa, he wont give kids a chance if he has a choice,
if he is willing to give kids a try out, we will have saved 25mil on Dossena and Johnson.
I am not saying Johnson is bad, but he is not essential to solve our crisis problem now.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:44 amby LFC2007
Yes.
We should've tried this a while ago.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:56 amby akumaface
I agree to bring in Pacheco long time ago as he had shown very good awareness, movement and ball control. But bringing in Pacheco alone wouldn't be enough. We need some drastic changes and should only play with players that care enough to play hard. It would be difficult for Pacheco as he might get too much pressure at the moment but this is a good chance to see what he is made of. Maybe insert him and Maxi would be able to see some spark. For the lone striker, I would prefer Ngog at the moment. Take out Lucas and Kuyt and put in Mascherano and Maxi. Put Gerrard back in Middle and put Aqua on the bench.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:32 amby red till i die!!
id reckon pacheco would relish his chance to get in there and make a name for himself.
at the moment we need a player who will run at the opposition back 4,beat a player,keep a clear head and pick a spot.
hes creative and we sadly need it.
here's hoping we see him against stoke.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:34 amby Rush Job
Yes.
I`d have Eccleston in as well.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:55 amby shawnk
Come to think of it, I'm kind of eager now to watch the match mainly to see how the team perform without the first core team players. I think we are going to see a different midfield engine and from there hopefully it raise some eyebrows for Rafa to understand what he has been ignoring/missing.
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:43 amby agoodmentality
yes i like the kid,, i also liked Nemeth
Posted:
Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:52 amby Owzat
Let's be open minded about this, we've had times without key players before and struggled without so why not try something different? It's not as if we'd be throwing him in at the deep end against one of the big(ger) clubs
But doesn't this merely highlight the fact that, as mentioned in the criticism of not doing so earlier and spending £25m on TWO full-backs, Rafa doesn't seem keen to give youth a chance - even off the bench and even when it is a player he brought here?!?!? The problem with Rafa's substitutions goes much further than just timing, it is just so bad it makes me almost wish he didn't bother.
Bench options - largely defensive, having a GK, full-back, CB and Spearing on the bench out of seven is just wasteful. I think the idea of seven was to give more options, Rafa just puts an extra defender or two on the bench. When he had five options he'd have had only the GK and CB. So he then takes off Degen and brings on SKRTEL 
Timing - too late, normally around minutes 66-70. It comes across as an afterthought, as if we are playing well. Doesn't matter when if you are 2-0 up or even 1-0 up and playing well, but when we're behind or not playing well he still dallies. Sometimes it takes a goal around the 65 minute mark before he changes anything. Some seem to be token substitutions serving no purpose other than to perhaps waste time. Maybe with no real big artillery on the bench Rafa knows what he does won't make any impact so gives his starting XI more time, in which case why make a change at all!?!??
Purpose - is it clear how some of his substitutions are going to change a game? Bringing on Dossena/Aurelio for instance, either at LB or LM, how is that going to make a difference? I guess there is always fresh legs, but then surely all players on the bench have fresh legs but not all the changes make sense
Predictability - I'd love to know how many times it has been LM for LM as the first (choice) change ie when it isn't an injury replacement. As I've said before, he doesn't want to take off his darlings so he's narrowed down the options straight away, not often is it a defender/keeper, Torres, Gerrard, Kuyt or Mascherano so that only leaves like Lucas and whoever is playing LM. (in case anyone ever wondered why it is often the LM, that is the only remotely logical reasoning I can come up with, it's who he doesn't want to take off more than who is having a bad game)
Formation - it isn't often he changes the formation with his substitutions, usually straight swaps, which doesn't help our cause if we're playing badly as you can only bring off three players and, even if Gerrard or Torres aren't playing well it won't be them, you know it isn't going to make that much difference. He likes to maintain the 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 / whatever you want to call it formation and some of that is the problem, the substitutions don't shake things up and pose different problems, it merely puts a player not deemed good enough to start onto the pitch and the limitations of the formation stay the same. Sometimes it isn't just the personnel not working, it can be the formation and how that 'works'. And we don't always need two DMs on the pitch, even if we played two behind the striker and one DM it would be SOMETHING DIFFERENT. For me taking Mascherano off would one of the first things I'd consider, he is the most defensive of the midfield and attacking starters and not exactly creative. That isn't to say you couldn't take off Lucas or go three at the back, but normally if you want to be more attacking you sacrifice one of your least attacking and most defensive options. I'm no fan of three at the back, not for us anyway, so that only leaves the deepest midfielders. I know plenty have reservations about taking him off, but if we're not winning and we want/NEED to score goals then how likely is it Mascherano will facilitate that? More likely he'll push up and fire wildly over than contribute a goal or to one
Logic - how often have we all sat watching and thought "WTF?!? Why is he taking off (eg) Benayoun when so and so is having such a stinker!?!? I know plenty on here don't like Kuyt much, perhaps if he got taken off when he is having a stinker (it happens, not as often as some make out but it does) then he'd get less stick.