Apparently our supposed interest in Mulumbu is being driven by our new head of recruitment The desperate, deadline day email mentioned in the article doesn't really fit with our recent policy of getting deals done early, but hopefully that's more related to the club and not the man himself.
Just seen this : Mulumbu from west brom signing on a free to Norwich on Wednesday - straight from his agent #wbafc #ncfc From here, though I can't obviously vouch for it's authenticity. Good news if true www.thefootballsocial.co.uk/west_brom/bigstories/
I've seen some negative comments online about him joining, although less of that on here. He looks like a great addition to me if rumours are true. By the way it appears to have come out of nowhere to being talked about as a done deal, I do suspect there's some truth in it. If we're looking for solid signings, plus a couple of unknown quantities, surely that'd be us done for solid midfield additions, unless someone versatile like Brady comes in?
The negative comments are presumably entirely around the idea that we shouldn't be signing a supposed West Brom "reject"? Because if they've seen him play, and thought carefully about why he's on a free from West Brom (i.e. he doesn't suit Pulis's style and he wasn't signing a contract) then they'd be a bit happier about it.
Not sure I've seen too much negativity surrounding this? Unless some people think we should be throwing our new found £120m at WCT? Mulumbu is a solid, if unspectacular performer, who gives his all. Exactly the route we should be looking to go down, imho.
Sorry for the delay Cromer, I've been out all afternoon. I personally think it is wrong to write off Rusty, I'm fairly sure he will be a regular under AN and I'm happy that he is a good leader on the field!
I wouldn't say he was being "written off"? I read it to mean an upgrade, which - forgive the heresy, I do tend to agree with. Especially as it's unlikely Turner will ever feature for us again and Ryan Bennett is unfortunately the new sicknote. Martin will doubtless still have a massive role to play, but as a first choice CB?
Rusty reminds me a bit of Drury, who always seemed to return to first choice LB option when others were brought in to challenge him. I'd like to see if Rusty can rise to the challenge again. If we're going to progress as a team, realistically no player should feel completely safe. Whilst continuity is important, when we have opportunities to bring in quality players at a reasonable price, then we should. The quality of our current squad means that we're not desperate to improve really any position.
Lots of issues going on here. DH emphasised the importance of 'competition' for places, which I have always thought is a good thing, but I'm beginning to wonder about that. For competition to exist, the players need to be of a similar ability and application. Garrido was notionally competition for Olsson, but was that ever really the case? I suspect the modern game is moving towards 'options' rather than 'competition'. Instead of competition next season, Olsson may face an 'option' challenge from someone like Robbie Brady where AN must decide which way he wants to go. Very few pairs of players are sufficiently exactly similar, so AN will choose the 'options' he wants against a given opponent. IMO, there will be few occasions on which AN chooses to play with two wingers, which will be a big disappointment for the die-hard 4-4-2 proponents. Instead of that, we will probably see a more fluid variation around a five man midfield and a single striker. Players who can adapt to that 'fluidity' will be chosen more often than those who don't. Redmond could play as a RW in a 4-2-3-1 or he could be given a more fluid role in a 4-3-2-1 formation alongside Wes. The one position that might be less prone to this is CB, although even there players will have to adapt to the changing roles of the FBs and the CMs in front of them.
Rick, whilst I agree we want options, a squad at the same level as our current first team is not going to sit as comfortably in mid-table in the Prem as we'd like. It follows then that we'll need to sign a higher calibre of player than we currently have. Of course options are important, and there'll certainly be a balance between higher quality and improved options, but I don't see why any position shouldn't be looked at, in light of the money we've got to improve the squad. I'd feel comfortable us fielding our current strongest side in the Prem, but our additional "options" shouldn't be coming in to sit on the bench.
Perhaps I didn't express myself very well, DH, but what I was trying to say is that abilities aren't the only deciders these days. We are never going to compete with bigger clubs on ability alone. Thus, having two players of similar ability in the same position means that one will be on the bench. If, however, in Olsson's case, the other player is Brady, then AN might go for Brady because he offers more options for 'fluidity' in that he can change the shape of the team without requiring a substitution or, against some opponents, both could start in the same team (as never was likely to happen with Garrido and Olsson). In Martin's case, however, the option might be more an issue of different abilities between him and RB depending on the attack they are facing (ie. a small, quick forward or a big, burly CF). What really impresses me about AN is that he seems to be right on top of this change in the game and is ready to exploit the opportunities it provides while other, older managers are more set in their ways with a more 'traditional' approach. AN knows that he needs another 'option' at DM, but he doesn't just want another Tettey. Instead, he could want another DM option who can play long through balls in the way that Mulumbu can but Tettey often finds difficult to do. Now you could say that is an issue of ability, but I'd say it's a difference in 'options', as Mulumbu might not be as good at breaking up attacks as Tettey is. AN has to decide who is the better option for a particular opponent.
I like where you're coming from here, Rick, even if it isn't rocket science. There's been talk - me included, of a solid, balanced squad having "cover in every position". Which is correct, but as with your cited case of Olsson and Garrido, there was never a chance of them both starting. But if the boss can see, for example, an opposition player tiring, limping, whatever, then to replace a solid full back with an enterprising and swift wing back type may well cause them problems. Christ, if Hughton had followed this philosophy, we wouldn't have effectively had 10 (TEN) points out of 12 from the binners this season His late, late, like for like subs used to really piss people off.
I think that both dh and rer have valid points. Realistically I don't see Neill bringing in anyone who isn't capable of making a start and an improvement to what we have but the point of the modern squad system is to give a creative and capable manager the opportunity to affect the flow of the game by altering the personnel deployed and system utilised. We only have to look back to when Lambert was here to see how a canny substitution can influence a game. I don't think Neil has yet had the chance to prove himself in this area and it will be interesting to see how he applies tactical sub's from a position of having the weaker bench than last season when he had a hugely strong squad relative to virtually the whole of the rest of the league.
I agree that options are a great advantage when substitutions are made, but they also have a value in the starting line-up. I mentioned different options for Redmond, but you could also include Olsson who can range from FB to WB to LW during a game, according to what is needed at the time. Players like Garrido and Drury would have more difficulty with that. This flexibility also applies to Whittaker to a lesser extent, which I would say is why he has stayed in the line-up. One reason Elliot Bennett may well stay on is that he offers a different option to Redmond in that he can play RW or a floating role to an extent but also is much better defensively when tracking back to support the RB or even play RB himself. AN obviously likes that flexibility in players, as is shown in both Dorrans and Andreu coming in to provide further options in more than position. Howson can play as a CM or an AM which adds flexibility wherever he is playing. Grabban and Lafferty also offer different options and I'd suggest that if Lafferty only wants to be considered as a CF, he may well not stay around. I think this approach could also be behind players targeted like Brady and to a lesser extent Mulumbu, who can also play on the left, I believe. Further additions may also reflect this flexibility. Even at CB, it's an advantage to be able to play as a FB as well when you are drawn out of position, but also to cover injuries or suspensions at FB.
Just spent the last hour reading through this thread with just 1 potential signing Mr Mulumbo. I guess the Twitter crew are exercising their more than 140 character freedoms ?
And Ipswich are currently considering a £4m joint offer for Tyrone Mings and Teddy Bishop from us. Apparently Bishop would go back on season loan for them.
