QuoteHull will probably lose most of their big players. I'm guessing McShane is one of the higher earners, so he'll go, and Hunt will be gone quicker than you can say "administration." Killer will probably go to Ipswich.
What now for the Hull lads? Hunty will surely get a move to someone like Wolves which would be no bad thing. Considering Hull's financial situation they will be keen to get rid of who they can. Cant really see anyone coming in for either Killer or McShane. Perhaps a year or two at the lower level may help McShane improve his overall game.
Hull will probably lose most of their big players. I'm guessing McShane is one of the higher earners, so he'll go, and Hunt will be gone quicker than you can say "administration." Killer will probably go to Ipswich.
mcshane is nowhere near premiership quality.
he reminds me of gary doherty at that level, completely inadequate and error-prone.
must be a thing with irish ginger centrehalves.
I'm starting to change my mind about Macca, he's done quite well for Hull this season.Originally Posted by The Legend
Paul McShane has a great future behind him.
Seriously?
A few interesting stats about Hull and Paul McShane. They have the second worst defence (in terms of goals conceded) in the Premiership so far and are effectively relegated. Paul McShane has started 26 games, and they've conceded 55 goals in those games (an average of 2.12 per game). In the 10 games he didn't start (one of which he was subbed on in the 57th minute), they conceded 18 goals (an average of 1.80 per game).
They've won 15% of games and lost 58% of games when he was playing. They've won 20% of games and lost 50% when he wasn't.
On the other hand, he played the full games when they drew 1-1 with Man City away, held Spurs to a 0-0 away, beat Fulham 2-0 at home and held Chelsea to a 1-1 at home. Also, other players have a worse ratio than him (they've conceded 2.2 goals per game when Sonko has featured for example).
I don't think it really proves anything as to McShane's ability / lack of ability, I'm just interested in the stats
Last edited by Serb; 26/04/2010 at 5:52 PM.
I think if JOS had stayed fit in Paris we’d be going to the WC. His absence and McShane’s introduction gave France something to attack. Cheating aside, McShane’s positioning for Gallas’ goal was poor.
Kelly, Foley and Coleman look like better right backs and JOS and SSL are better CBs. McShane may be a long way from the first team in a few months’ time.
Yes believe it or not I agree with you. O'Shea is less worse than McShane. McShanes defending against Henry was diabolical and he should have never let that ball bounce the area.
He's a young lad who's still learning his trade. Dunne was useless when he was 24 too.
Agreed, if JOSH had stayed on the park, I think we would have not conceded and gone to pens. Centrally we are strong with Dunne, JOSH and SSL all solid options, JOSH can fill in RB or LB when required so all we really need is a solid LB (preferably) and/or RB as well. Coleman looks a prospect and foley and kelly both have improved this season. I think there is certainly more argument for the latter two to be in the squad in preference to McShane.
It isn't a matter of, if Josh stayed on, things had a good chance of being different.
O'Shea got injured so he had to come off, the question is/ was there anybody better than McShane available to come on in Paris?
Many more options now, I hope they present Trap with the open and shut case.
24 does not make him "a young lad". Dunne was never useless. He had the odd howler but was way better, and way more regarded than Mcshane at that age
Sure Dunne was regarded but when he was 24 he was suspended by Man City and his career was in serious jeopardy. Dunne was regarded enough to be given another chance by a manager with a very positive outlook.
I don't think O'Shea is "less worse". I think O'Shea is actully very good.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I remember O'Shea going AWOL for the home game against Italy. WHo knows. Don't forget it would also have gone to penos so 50/50 there.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
I think the main difference between Dunne and McShane is that Dunne had some natural ability to rely on. At a younger age, his "mentality", as Trapp would say, to the game was not as focussed or motivated as it should have been.
McShane cannot be faulted for effort - he unfortunately lacks the little bit of natural ability that Dunne was lucky enough to be blessed with.
In fact, somtimes the harder McShane tries, its more likely some calamity will strike him at any moment.
Quoting years at random since 1975
yeah OF, I know about the pennos, but I have a feeling that we'd have gone into the pennos stronger. Fate was on our side!
PS: that was a close shave for SWFC last night. Goal line clearance in injury time saved you.
This is nonsense - Alex Ferguson seemed to think McShane had a bit of natural ability, and he tends to be a fairly good judge. Most United trainees don't make it at the top level, but they're all drafted because they have the raw materials. McShane is slow and his decision-making is questionable, but the same has been true of Richard for his entire career. McShane was on great form last year until Sbragia recalled him on loan to spite Phil Brown - there's no reason he can't become a really useful player in the future with a couple of years of uninterrupted game time. He might have to go back to the Championship for that, but there's a reason successive Premier League managers have invested in his talents.
Paul O'Shea here used to always write that Dunne had a mistake in him in every game which he really only eradicated in the last year or two (FA Cup semi-final excepted) but I think that at the same age Dunne was a better player. I really hope McShane improves and maybe a good manager will help him do so. Right now though he puts the fear of God into me when I see him in green. Give me eleven McShanes over one Stephen Ireland any day though. I like his attitude a lot.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks