Scott Sinclair - now gone

[silhillvilla]

Sinclair was our best player against Man U, we lost any momentum we had when he went off, and he did well again last night. This could be his year I reckon.

Him , Grealish and Traore.

[KRS]

I think he deserves a go, at least against Sunderland. The question then is who do we drop? Oh and who does he play alongside?

1. Gabby
2. Gestede (sub for Kozak in 2nd half)

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Sinclair was our best player against Man U, we lost any momentum we had when he went off, and he did well again last night. This could be his year I reckon.

For 5 minutes he was our best player. I didn't agree with him being subbed despite doing next to nothing for most of the game but if memory serves, Amavi was our best player. Gana not too bad either. Then there was Richards, Clark, Westwood... Gabby and Ayew were behind him though.

I hope it's his year, he's got a great Pasadenas haircut and seems a genuinely decent sort of chap but don't expect a tribute right now.

[Matt Collins]

Football is a game of opinions and we're all entitled to them

But Sinclair was just not our best player against Man U! Absolutely no way

[LukeJames]

We lost all our momentum when he went off, he started the second half lively, him and Amavi were linking up down the left and killing their full back, after the substition we started going long to gestede and our threat was nullified.

I like him, he's got the movement and back of being in the right place that Gabby just doesn't have, I'd play him upfront with grealish, traore and Gil behind him, geuye and Sanchez holding, I think that's currently our best option.

[Mister E]

Sinclair was largely anonymous against ManUre;did nothing wrong, just nothing noteworthy.

[silhillvilla]

Sinclair was largely anonymous against ManUre;did nothing wrong, just nothing noteworthy.

He was just starting to click with amavi and look dangerous when he got subbed off. It was a bad call by TS

[RussellC]

Sinclair was the liveliest of our forwards against Man Ure, IMO. On the Sky commentary, Gary Neville remarked how we'd completely lost our attacking shape once he went off.

[PaulWinch again]

I genuinely think he is one of the only players at the club with a goalscorer's instinct and he should be in the team for that reason. How he came off instead of Gabby against Man Utd is just ridiculous.

[Risso]

He needs to take Gabby's slot.

[Matt Collins]

Sinclair was the liveliest of our forwards against Man Ure, IMO. On the Sky commentary, Gary Neville remarked how we'd completely lost our attacking shape once he went off.

I'd agree with that. It was an odd sub we made and the other forwards were awful

[LeeS]

There is no question, in my mind, that he offers more than Gabby. A lot more. I dont want to jump on any anti-Gabby bandwagon but we have better players - Sinclair is one of them. He is a finisher, for starters - something Gabby has never been and never will.

[john e]

I have to say that apart from his goals I don't notice Sinclair that much,

having said that goals are rather an important thing and I agree if its a toss up between him and the Gabbs then he must get the nod

[Hookeysmith]

I would bet money that given the opportunity Gabby had at Palace early on Sinclair would have buried

Albeit a friendly - 6 goals in 5 games is a very good return for any player - to not consider him in a team that's currently struggling to score would be a dereliction of duty

[stuart r]

Sinclair was largely anonymous against ManUre;did nothing wrong, just nothing noteworthy.

He was just starting to click with amavi and look dangerous when he got subbed off. It was a bad call by TS

Some folk say "subbed off" instead of just "subbed". Surely subbed being an abbreviation of substituted means no 'off' is required.