The club has got to the point where we really must target quality over quantity. Our squad is just about big enough but we do require more quality, and I would rather wait until the summer to bring in players or said quality then just fill squad space for the sake of signing someone now.
rob, i have no idea if he's available or not. i didn't know villa had claimed an interest either. i just think we are crying out for someone who offers both creativity and drive from midfield. kiyotake offers both. his set pieces are top notch too. in my opinion if we are going to improve next season we will need a player like this (it doesn't have to be him - he's just the one that jumps in to my head) and unfortunately if you want to get it right, it costs big money. by being able to play across the midfield he would also offer, unlike hoolahan, flexibility, and could feature in a variety of formations. the issue with wes is that he really only works when played behind two strikers and how often are we able to accommodate him in the premier league? he can't play behind one striker - he simply doesn't offer enough. we need someone who can do more than just a few tricks and some neat passing. we need creativity, pace and drive as well as the neat passing. it costs.
Hi bors, if Hoolahan wants away then let him go but for a realistic fee. If Villa are interested in signing Hoolahan then make sure the money is up front before transferring him. No point in keeping a player on the books who will not be producing his best. No man is indispensable. Leeds used to be our reserve team, Villa look to be taking up that mantle. Been a model player for our club and if he does depart, wish him well.
Sorry, I didn't mean that he was the wrong choice - I completely agree that he looks fantastic! Lambert tried to buy him in the summer, but admitted he's not looking at him this January. I'm not convinced we need a pacey attacking midfielder (obviously if that comes with the package, great), but otherwise I agree generally. I appreciate what everyone is saying about quality and I absolutely endorse bringing that in! The only thing I would say is that one of our strengths over the past couple of seasons has been that we haven't had stand out player on whom we rely to make us tick. I, personally, would prefer we bring in two players of Hoolahan's style for £4m-6m each, who can then (a) cover each other if one gets injured and (b) compete for their spot. These two players don't necessarily have to have exactly the same style, nor do they need to have the same qualities, but they do need to be competing for similar positions. This is my understanding of Hughton bringing in both Hooper and RvW, as well as Elmander, for instance. I realise that bringing in two requires letting two go, but I think we can afford to do that. I just don't want to be in the position of, say, Watford (to take the example above), where they have so heavily relied on one play maker who then ruins their season by getting injured (obviously not literally his own fault!). The important thing is to get value and get each player bringing something to the team that they excel at. That is tricky for that sort of sum, but I don't think it's unachievable - as Hughton has repeatedly shown us. And of course the other advantage of spending that sort of sum (as well as both players) is that it hedges our bets in case one fails to settle. I'm a big advocate of not running before we can walk, and I just worry that if we bring in pure class at this stage, while I don't object to it per se, it does open ourselves up to being imbalanced.
good post rob, and on reflection i think you might be right about bringing in a couple rather than one potential star
Don't get me wrong, some real class would be fantastic (especially Kiyotake) and of course I wouldn't object, it's just I'm not sure it's necessarily what we need in the short term to get our team functioning again. My view is that Hughton has, over the last two seasons, tried to move us away from (a), firstly, the rush, manic, panic and maverick nature of Lambert's side to (b), secondly, a structured, build from the back, counterattacking side to (c), finally (but not yet), a smoothly co-ordinated passing side, with structured defending. I assume he felt we couldn't move directly from (a) to (c) directly. And in order to do that, I think with each step you need to add depth in the new style within your playing ranks - it's fine signing Mesut Ozil if you're Arsenal, but signing Shinji Kagawa when you're Man U just doesn't work unless it comes with several others in the same bracket. I must admit, I've not been confident that Hughton could or should do it. I felt after the debacle in early December that he should be moved on. But given that the board are behind him and I feel we have a clear statement that the team are too, I think I might as well try to work out what he's trying to do and see if I agree. Time will tell if the above is correct, but for me our early season style, before key players were knocked out, suggested this was where Hughton was moving us. We certainly don't put anywhere near so many crosses or long balls in as last year, but because we don't have the right players, this has recently been causing more problems.
Wes is our longest serving player I think, and its a shame that he feels that he has to force himself out of the club like this through statements to the media. I think he deserves a little more respect from the managment after what he has done for us, and he clearly just wants to be playing regular football in the latter years of his career. Fron his point of view, how frustrating must it have been for him to sit on the sidelines and watch some of the absolute dogshite that we have served up this year, and yet he has had hardly a look in. Obviously I understand his limitations and why Hughton may not want to play him but if he wants more football I think we should let him go and get it rather than angering him and tarnishing his reputation with us, and let him leave on a good note atleast.
People who say "Wes deserves more respect from the management", do you just mean he should be player, and if he is not it is being disrespectful? That is just rubbish! I agree with you Rob to an extent, it can be risky to put all your eggs in one basket, but likewise we do need quality and not just fill squad positions with players who are no improvement. I would like us to spend a bit on a player who can make a difference now, if we take your values Rob, say £8 million. Then spend another £4 million on a young player who could fill in when required but is one for the future. We need to be careful we don't end up with an ageing squad in a few years time (not a problem now). You look at many sides who struggle and often they have older squads, paid a lot and often were overrated at one point or another.
Yeah, I wasn't clear - that would work and is exactly what I had in mind. It's essentially what's happened with Redmond. Although he's ended up actually playing too much because of injuries. Or take Hooper and RvW - we could have splashed out c. £12m on a single striker, which would have been great, but I actually think we're better for having two even though one is considered, externally at least, not to have been a success. I've got no problem with older squads - Fulham have done well for years using experience properly, but you have to make sure you are careful with the contracts given and don't upset the team. If anything, Fulham's mistake seems to have been signing Berbatov, without adequately considering the effect on the other players (I still don't think they'll go down this year, mind).
I agree it's a shame but look at it from the club's perspective. They have a player under contract. All players understand when they sign contracts for very lucrative wages that a position in the starting 11 is not guaranteed. No club is offering the club the money that it would take for it to be mutually beneficial to end that contract. Frankly I don't want to be paying even more money per ticket so that the club can be benevolent towards players that think they should be getting more game time, if indeed that is the reason. If they don't want to be held to the length of a contract, don't sign it. Sign a shorter one instead.
I have to say I don't really get the respect comments etc. He is an employee who gets shed loads of cash, and wants to try and ensure that he gets more cash (who wouldn't) but if the reality of the situation is that it will cost Norwich money by giving him a contract extension, which I presume would be a substantial sum, then it makes no financial sense. if this was years ago and footballers still needed testimonials then I would have a different attitude, but I imagine Mr Hoolahan makes in the region of million a year- my heart hardly bleeds for the wee fella
I've always thought that Shaun Maloney was a good option for the "Wes-type role". I know he's been pranged for a while this year but anyone else think he'd do a good job ?
I like Maloney and was surprised he stayed with Wigan after relegation. Not sure about his injury record though. I suppose it depends what sort of player we are aiming at?
Not for the first time do I find myself not understanding the general sway of the argument of the majority here. I am told a) Villa are in real danger of relegation. b) Wes is over the hill/ no longer up to Premiership standard/ not worth a place in our team/inconsistent/needs replacing in our squad etc etc c) We must not sell Wes to Lambert. Surely there is a contradiction there? If a and b are correct then we should be begging Villa to take him to make their plight even worse. My own views. a) On current form and with their easier run in Villa are not in serious relegation trouble. Lambert is turning them round and has a promising crop of youngsters both in the squad and in the academy. He needs short term motivation in the dressing room( Holt ) and medium term attacking experience in midfield to bring out the best in his front men ( Wes ). b) Wes is still one of the best players in the squad and the most creative we have had for years. c) We should not sell Wes - we should play him. Hughton is not playing him because he does not fit in with the defensive systems and tactics CH wants to employ and neither CH or the defenders comprising his backroom staff know any better. It might well keep us up but it leaves Wes out in the cold. CH daren't sell Wes to Villa in case Lambert brings the best out of Wes again leaving CH with uncomfortable questions to answer.
I agree that he is the most creative player we have had for years and still is on his day- the problem is his day doesn't come along very frequently. I also agree that Villa are not relegation candidates, but more than happy for Wes to go Villa, if that's wants and if Lambert can get the best out of him and contribute to beating our relegation rivals, then great
Terrible source, but apparently Fulham might be keen on Wessi too: http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/ful...fight-for-canaries-playmaker.php#.Ut_hpRDFKUk
Haven't read all of this, but my view on Wes is: a) £750,000 is nowhere near enough for him to move (what would we get for that?). b) I hate any team 'tapping up' another team's player, and to allow him to leave would encourage this in future. c) We shouldn't let any player go to a rival at this time if we can help it. d) We don't know why he hasn't been picked (there could be a lot of reasons). I fully back the board's decision on this and hope they stick to it.
I hope we sell him to Wolves or Tranmere or someone. He's just a fading player trading on past successes
