Me too. I was really just saying I don't agree with those who portray Wes as a keep-at-all-costs player. Like Holty he's part of our history not our future.
isn't that player Fer, when he is played in the right position? we just haven't seen enough of it yet
I think Fer's better played deeper and breaking forward. Players like Wes are equally good creating whether they've got their back to goal or running forwards.
Our best balance of midfielders was Tettey, Fer and Howson. Which I think let all three play in their best roles.
I agree. Of our current squad, only Snodgrass might fit the bill although the Leeds fans keep telling us that Howson is best played "in the hole". But really we need to bring someone in.
I agree we need someone else in, but I can well imagine Howson is best "in the hole" - his best game was basically played there against Man City.
There's not a huge amount of evidence to say you were correct either Robbie. Building a Premiership teams attack around a 20 year old in your first season up, even now I'd find it difficult to accept and I like Lansbury. I'd view him as I view Howson, adequate but not one to build the attack around, not in a position of such importance and certainly not 3 years ago. Lambert did build the attack around him (Hoolahan) and we scored a heck of a lot of goals. Hughton hasn't and now we don't. I think there is far more evidence it was correct to build a team around him than to have picked Lansbury. What I would say in your defence is Lansbury is now only 23 and obviously has more of a chance to develop into a player good enough for the role.
The context of my comment about Lansbury/Hoolahan was indeed future team building rather than anything to do with our first season back in the PL. I've a feeling there was a rumour about a bid for Wes and the debate was about keeping him or taking the money. Yes, he played a crucial part in the Lambert years, which were all about making the most of what we had and could afford at the time. Now we have moved on, and if an opportunity opens up for Wes I think he should take it, and the club should let him go (as with Holt).
Kind of agree. Really don't want him to go, but at 31, if hughton will only play him once every 3 games, just as he breaks into the ROI team, then I hope for his sake he goes elsewhere. I think it's safe to say Hoops wants out (or at least wants first team football) - for what he's done for us over the years, I hope he gets his move.
Happy for him to get his move, he's been an excellent servant, however not until we've brought at least one, if not two midfielders in. We're short enough of bodies in midfield as it is.
It's not so long ago that anyone suggesting that we needed to strengthen in midfield was laughed out of court. Now I doubt if anyone disagrees. It's a sign of the progress we've made that what was thought of as our strength is now recognised as our main weakness!
I remember saying that at the beginning of last season, wondering how we were going to keep all our midfield stars happy. Now we appear to be keeping them happy by loaning them to the bottom of the championship. Hmmm.... Also seen WBA have appointed Pepe Mel. Seems a bit odd that they initially disagreed over Mel wanting to bring in his own staff, whilst WBA wanted the current staff kept on.
Wasn't that the reason West Brom didn't appoint Hughton when Hodgson took the England job? CH insisted on Calderwood going with, so they went for Clarke instead. They've had to give in this time it seems. They were in danger of having nobody left to appoint! Mel must be a bit of a gamble. Be interesting to watch what happens now. [Edit] In fact it seems Mel is the one who has given in. Even stranger!
Seeing the opinion of Betis fans online, they were sad to see him go. Apparently he's the type who'll make the most out of his squad, rather than having a fixed ideal to adapt the squad to. Very odd that he's given in and not brought any backroom staff with him, seems very odd for the board to stipulate that kind of thing, most of the time it's just assumed they'll bring their own staff. I guess we'll see if it makes things any more difficult for him. Looks like he's going to have some money to spend in January though, which Clarke wouldn't have done. Also worth pointing out it's taken WBA a month to get who they believe is the right man, based on that timescale, sacking Hughton or Allardyce now would likely mean no new manager before the end of the transfer window.
http://www.insidefutbol.com/2014/01/09/inter-defender-andrea-ranocchia-snubs-norwich-city-interest/120457/ heres and interesting one for people, its reported in Italy we've had a €10m bid accepted for Andrea Ranocchia from Inter Milan. However the player has decided he's not interested, which doesn't surprise me given he's currently also linked with Chelsea. He's highly rated and has played the majority of the season for Inter. If this is true it's very interesting to see the standard of player were aiming at, we would be a strange club from him to be linked with if its all and agent trying to stir things.
If that's true, we must have some serious cash available 10 million euros is a big chunk for someone, would that be more than wolfswinkel? Also CH must see centre back as a place for serious investment / improvement
Having a read of this article, sounds like we dodged a bullet. Awkward on the ball, doesn't recognise danger, gets caught in possession frequently and ignores simple passes. And has lapses in concentration - all in a league where you get more time on the ball. However this article seems to suggest he's remarkably confident in possession, and "not afraid to take on an opponent in order to play safely out of defence". He's tall so wins aerial battles comfortably (70% last season) in both penalty areas and makes good interceptions. But once again, "prone to comical lapses of judgement and lapses in concentration" rears it's ugly head. Squawka reckon he wins 81% of his take-ons, but having a defender lose the ball 1 time in 5 he tries to take a player on could well result in a lot of easy chances for the opposition. Having said all that, he regularly makes the Italy squad, and transfermarkt think he's worth £14.5m, so he's got to have some good points? On a more positive note, potentially having €10m to spend is a pleasant surprise. I'd rather we spent it on an attacking midfielder, but Hughton's safety-first approach I guess means a defender was always the more likely route to take, and you probably get more value for money signing defenders too. If Turner's out for a while we'd certainly need one! It does seem like our approach for January transfer windows is now to put very ambitious bids in to stir things up, and hope at the end of the month the lure of the Premier League means we get our man. Didn't work for Hooper or RvW last January, or Alderweireld in the summer, so I'm hoping we've learnt and have back-up ideas!
ah now i think about it, we've come across this from the italian press before, I think they wrap the value of the new contract into the term 'Deal' so it could be say €6m and €4m paid to the player over 3 years. I have no idea but i wouldn't be surprised.
Ah that's a fair point, we had that in the summer with Quagliarella. Surprised the club were allegedly happy to let him go for that kind of price though, judging by the transfermarkt valuation and that Chelsea are meant to be interested.
If it's to be believed, this is the 2nd highly regarded defender to turn us down... Are we trying to bite off more than we can chew?
