I
indianspur
Guest
I'd much prefer keeping Kane, who I think is more technically adept and more intelligent (football-wise) than Wickham.
but they are different types of players so we could have both. Its not an either/or situation
I'd much prefer keeping Kane, who I think is more technically adept and more intelligent (football-wise) than Wickham.
but they are different types of players so we could have both. Its not an either/or situation
Are they? From what I've heard of him, he sounds like a less able version of Kane....?
Didn't he pick up a bad injury and missed a while with that?Exactly the sort of signing we should be going for as an under the radar type one that will hopefully blossom. Looked good when he first broke onto the scene, then went very quiet for a couple of years before having a great last few months last season. 21 years of age, 6ft 3 tall, chance to develop at a bigger club over a 4-5 year contract where we should begin to see the best of him.
For me, well worth a £6m-£7m bid. I don't see how Sunderland can really turn it down if he won't sign.
No thanks. A waster IMO…not got it mentally...
No thanks. A waster IMO…not got it mentally...
interesting. do you know him?
So what if he spent £17.5k on a bottle of champers if he is on £75k a week its no different to somebody on £1k a week spending £300 on one
exactly - the sign of a macaron
Funny you say that because I always think Kane thinks a bit too much. He's a bit 'huff and puff' for me. That said, not a massive fan of Wickham.I'd much prefer keeping Kane, who I think is more technically adept and more intelligent (football-wise) than Wickham.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.