Jesus I'd actually forgotten that we had him. Shows with players back what a strong squad we have!
Adkins obviously feels that he isn't good enough or perhaps there are things going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, i.e. attitude etc.
I forget where, but i have seen an article suggesting that IF we go up then we want to take Falque permanently.
Too risky throwing him in imo. He looked massively out of his depth against Leicester, but the whole team were crap that day.
Swear i heard he had an injury for a few games and thats why he hasnt even been on the bench.
In regards to Falque, I must admit I wasn't impressed with him at Leicester but it's hard to judge him from one game, one game where the whole team were brick anyway but I'm sure Adkins has his reasons as to why he ain't involved.
He's clearly a good player but it's difficult for a young player who perhaps doesn't speak perfect english to come into a team and gel straight away, and with Puncheon coming back into the fold he's fallen further down the pecking order.
He was obviously brought in to strengthen the depth of the squad and Adkins probably feels it's better to play the players we actually own rather than come to rely on one who will not be here very long.
But problem with that is we haven't got the space on the bench for an untested youngster, with the 5 sub ruling - if we were allowed 7 subs I would agree but space is limited right now
Falque may not get another chance, too much at stake, and every one back fit. If, and a big IF we are in a position where we can relax then he may feature, but then it may be more fringe players and longer term squad players that would get a run.