Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Kinsella Junior

«1

Comments

  • harveys_gardener
    harveys_gardener Posts: 7,038
    Well we are a bit short of right back cover. Won't be dear.
  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,319
    Dont look much like his Dad
  • TelMc32
    TelMc32 Posts: 9,055
    If he's half the player his dad was, he'll have a very good career.
  • cfgs
    cfgs Posts: 11,476
    With that shirt and his hairstyle.......is it the 1980s all over again?
  • Fanny Fanackapan
    Fanny Fanackapan Posts: 18,738
    I have a photo of Liam with Kins & c'tee members of NWKA when we sponsored his shirt the first season he joined us.

    Must have been around 3 or 4 then.
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,753

    Dont look much like his Dad

    I can see the resemblance. Also, it sounds like he playes a bit like him: 'He has energy and enthusiasm is abundance'
  • AddickFC81
    AddickFC81 Posts: 4,053
    Not so much in the hair but certainly in the facial expresions
  • Addickted
    Addickted Posts: 19,456
    Does he take corners from the edge of the 18 yard box?
  • Sign him up NOW!
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,851
    I think there's more resemblance in this photo!
    image
  • Sponsored links:



  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,344
    Frankie Muniz?
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225
    Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,792

    Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.

    Walsall won 2-0 and he got the first ;-)
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,225

    Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.

    Walsall won 2-0 and he got the first ;-)
    So he got the winner
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,792

    Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.

    Walsall won 2-0 and he got the first ;-)
    So he got the winner
    No because, had he not scored, Walsall would still have won. Therefore his goal can't be deemed the winner.
  • Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.

    Walsall won 2-0 and he got the first ;-)
    So he got the winner
    No because, had he not scored, Walsall would still have won. Therefore his goal can't be deemed the winner.
    Plus had Burton equalised... It would have meant nothing
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,633
    edited October 2015
    He scored the opener, the question is did he punch the air after the win?
  • Talal
    Talal Posts: 11,490

    Scored his first goal and the winner today for Walsall.

    Walsall won 2-0 and he got the first ;-)
    So he got the winner
    No because, had he not scored, Walsall would still have won. Therefore his goal can't be deemed the winner.
    Except a whole different set of events would have taken place had his shot (header or whatever) been missed, so it wouldn't necessarily have finished 1-0.
  • Woah woah woah, let's apply some logic to this:
    The winning goal is the goal that stopped it from being a draw and made it become a win.

    In this case, the first goal of a 2-0 win is definitely the winner.
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,792

    Woah woah woah, let's apply some logic to this:
    The winning goal is the goal that stopped it from being a draw and made it become a win.

    In this case, the first goal of a 2-0 win is definitely the winner.

    Yes but, logically, in a 2-0 win the first goal is as irrelevant as the second one, because they would still have won 1-0 had either not been scored. Therefore neither goal is the winning goal.
  • Sponsored links:



  • TelMc32
    TelMc32 Posts: 9,055
    If the Pope shat in the woods, would that make the bear a Catholic?
  • Woah woah woah, let's apply some logic to this:
    The winning goal is the goal that stopped it from being a draw and made it become a win.

    In this case, the first goal of a 2-0 win is definitely the winner.

    Yes but, logically, in a 2-0 win the first goal is as irrelevant as the second one, because they would still have won 1-0 had either not been scored. Therefore neither goal is the winning goal.
    Your opinion is ugly and wrong.
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,127
    Sign him up.
  • The Peacock lad slipped through the net, lets not make the same mistake again eh?
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,792

    Woah woah woah, let's apply some logic to this:
    The winning goal is the goal that stopped it from being a draw and made it become a win.

    In this case, the first goal of a 2-0 win is definitely the winner.

    Yes but, logically, in a 2-0 win the first goal is as irrelevant as the second one, because they would still have won 1-0 had either not been scored. Therefore neither goal is the winning goal.
    Your opinion is ugly and wrong.
    Yes but fortunately I am handsome and right.
  • At 1-0 it's still squeaky bum time till the end 2-0 is a comfortable cushion so both goals are as important as each other
  • Exiled_Addick
    Exiled_Addick Posts: 17,168
    edited October 2015

    Sign him up.

    If he's half as good as his Dad he'd still be twice as good as anything we have now so I'd say get him in.

  • AddicksAddict
    AddicksAddict Posts: 15,792

    At 1-0 it's still squeaky bum time till the end 2-0 is a comfortable cushion so both goals are as important as each other

    Except everyone knows two-nil is the hardest score to defend so the second goal really makes it squeaky bum time.
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,561
    The other team didn't score so, even if Walsall had scored eight, they only needed to score one to win so young Kins did score the winner.
  • This is dumb. The winner is a goal that definitely makes the difference between a draw and a win. If a team wins by more than one there is no winning goal.