Brilliant, well done, congratulations on stating the bleeding obvious oh creature of mighty intellect - take any prize from the bottom shelf. Still don't get why it is in anyway relevant to this debate however, Wes clearly has a lot to offer us and if you seriously think he hasn't then perhaps you are an even bigger - no, I'll just leave that setence there I think Let me put your little scenario it another way. If you asked Arsene Wenger right now if he wishes that RVP was still an Arsenal player this season then what do you think he'd say? Do you think he'd be pleased that he had successfullly identified that RVP's "sell by date" had arrived ("arrived" and not "passed" you understand, I won't be making such a horrendous mistake like that again!) last season and that he had been fully justified in making the choice to sell him to ManUre so he could go off and score 30 goals and bring home the title for Arsenal's big rivals? Or do you think he might be regretting making such a bad choice in selling him and might now be wondering if he really had met his "sell by date" after all? Same with Cantona, do you think with hindsight that Howard Wilkinson is pleased that he identified that Cantona's "sell by date" had arrived and that he was able to cash in a million quid for Leeds United in exchange for two decades of domination by their fiercest rivals Manure? Or do you think neither Wenger nor Wilkinson had any choice or say whatsoever about whether their star players moved on or not? My point here is that the two examples you used have back-fired spectacularly on both the clubs who had supposedly identified these "sell by dates" that you keep going on about, and anyway I still just don't get your point because you are talking about us choosing to sell Wes, rather than him deciding his future lies elsewhere - which is what clearly happened with both RVP and Cantona
I mentioned this on another thread, but I think the 4-1-3-2 from saturday, but with Pilks in for Wessi, could be our best formation for home games for a little while now. I personally thought Howson had a pretty good game, and offers more defensively than Hoolahan could in that role. So whilst Hoolahan may not have a regular starting berth at home, he'd still make a good impact sub when we're chasing the game, or when we're looking to close the game out and ditch a striker. Away from home, the 4-4-1-1/4-2-3-1 depending on how you want to call it, still looks like the best formation to me, assuming everyone's fit and in form. In the majority of away games, we'll be happy with a point, and I think that formation offers us an excellent defensive platform - we've not had the most 0-0's, and 8 clean sheets this season for nothing. If we can keep the opposition out when we're away, then we've got a good chance. The formation itself isn't necessarily defensive either, as the 10 game run shows, so it has the flexibility on the counter attack, etc, so we can still threaten. Talk of a 4-3-1-2 to include Wes might well work, but I think we'd have to sacrifice width to achieve it. Playing 2 wingers leaves Johnson/Tettey as the only truly defensive minded player, and I think we'd end up swamped a little. Maybe Surman in for Pilks?
Munky, let me put it to YOU another way! If you have a World class player whose contract is running down, and you've made the best offer you can for a new contract, but said player does not wish to sign, do you keep him till the end of his contract? Or do you sell him while you can? Either way you're not going to have that player eventually, so you cut your losses and get what compensation you can! Is that not his "sell by" date?
Suffice to say I wouldn't want you on a jury if I was on trial. You have a habit of changing words of statements and twisting the context to make an argument of your own instead of reading what is actually said. I have highlighted the elements you have introduced to the argument that I never mentioned and to be honest are also irrelevant. They didn't identify it, it happened. Whether they liked it or not, whether they regret it or not does not matter. Club and player could not/did not reach an agreement so the sell by date was effectively enforced by one or both parties.
Ok, so can you now tell me what on earth that has got to do with Wes Hoolahan, comfortably one of the most technically gifted and most important members of our squad over the past five years who has recently signed a contract extension, has shown absolutely no desire to leave, has started virtually all our games this season and up until Christmas looked a very good bet indeed for the Barry Butler award?
The positive of his signing a new contract is, if the club did decide to cash in on his slip down the pecking order, his price will be significantly improved!
Oh, sorry because I was of the understanding that you had made it quite clear that Arsenal and Leeds had chosen to move their star players on - did you not say this? Or is it just silly old me making up words again? ps. do you want to borrow my spade or are you ok digging away with that one for now?
I don't think for one minute that he will be sold, but it is a valid point! For the record, can I say, I like the fact that people on here can hold, and discuss opposing points of view, but I would prefer not to have name-calling and abusive smileys thrown at someone because their opinion differs from yours! I now only use the slaphead smiley with regard to myself, now that SN23 and WloH have gone!
I was under the impression that the whole reason Jacob Butterfield was brought into the club was to be a kind of 'understudy' to Wes, in view of their respective ages. Although having seen him shunted out on never ending loan deals, I now wonder whether I've grasped the wrong end of the stick? If we survive - which, thank the lord, is looking much more doable after Saturday, I'd expect to see personnel changes predominantly to the attacking mid, wide and striking departments in the summer - at which point no one's position on the payroll is assured.
With all due respect Dave, I haven't seen any name calling here at all. I have said that some of the comments and suggestions made are (in my opinion) ridiculous, and I'll stand by that, because to me they are, but I certainly have not resorted to name calling in any way. I have however used one slaphead smiley (just the one, in my very first post on this thread) which is hardly what I'd call "abusive" and as it is one of the smileys available on this forum I will continue to use it as and when I feel fit thanks. I could actually have used it a dozen times throughout this debate, however I chose not to as I appreciate some people are rather over-sensitive to these things, so if anything I think I should be applauded for biting my tongue rather than being castigated for it By the way if any grown up person truly is offended by such an abusive action as to add an emoticon of a little yellow smiley face slapping it's head under the guise of a "d'oh!" then I'd politely suggest that they grow a pair
Having started the thread I will try to answer my own question. No way is Wes surplice to our team selection IMO. I personally would play 4-1-3-2 at home,with "the beast" in front of the back 4 and Wes in centre midfield. Away I would go 4-1-4-1,again with BJ in front of back 4,Wes in centre again with Tettey and Holty on his own up top. BJ would have to be restrictive in not going forward. Wide players would be Snods and Pilks. Back 4 picks itself (Whittaker could come in)
I just can't believe that the idea of selling him was brought up. He was a sub a lot last year and came on and made significant contributions. Just because he is not necessarily guaranteed a starting slot does not put him in the up for sale category. Seems very simple and straightforward as the game is about a squad not just the starting 11.
Well said its about having squad with different skill sets, currently we have no-one is remotely similar to Wes. It's about having options and players that can change the game plan, when its not working. Nobody in this squad has their place cemented in the starting eleven, personally I think the competition for places is an excellent thing neither do I have concerns about squad rotations. If your not playing well or putting in the effort at training then it's simple your going to lose your place until you pick up form again.
Of course it is mate, you are absolutely 100% spot on and I can't believe we've even been having this debate this morning - though I have to say, I have thoroughly enjoyed it Incidentally, lost amongst the tit-for-tat responses today, and at the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I think I made an excellent point in post #25 that nobody seemed to pay attention to. Ah well.....
Just re-read #25 The only problem with the "gung ho 3/4/ or5 up front is, it can bite you on the bum with a quick break away by the opposition!
Oh absolutely, and I'm not for a second saying that it's the way forward - especially not in the PL where we wouldn't be able to bully teams like we did in League One and the CCC - but my point was more that we shouldn't get too caught up in the formation that starts the games as games are invariably won/lost in the final 15 minutes or so when the line-ups and formations are likely to be completely different from that which started the game. That's why we need as many options in the squad as we can, and that is why the concept of selling Wes simply because he may not fit into our desired starting XI at the moment is quite frankly absurd
