Wes

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="morty"]Oh and Lincoln, would that be the same Hughton that never knew how to get the best out of Wes, or where to play him?

[:)]
[/quote]

The radio pundits said he was covered by 2/3 Brighton players most of the time. So difference of views.

Hughton specialised in negative hence he knew how to stop not how to use

[morty 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="morty"]Oh and Lincoln, would that be the same Hughton that never knew how to get the best out of Wes, or where to play him?[:)][/quote]

The radio pundits said he was covered by 2/3 Brighton players most of the time. So difference of views.

Hughton specialised in negative hence he knew how to stop not how to use

[/quote]Or are said radio pundits the same as a few on here that just can''t accept Wes DOES have off days maybe?And I still disagree, if he had 2 or 3 players on him most of the time then that would have left room for other players to exploit.I''m telling you, he did not have "2 or 3 players" on him most of the time.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="morty"]Oh and Lincoln, would that be the same Hughton that never knew how to get the best out of Wes, or where to play him?

[:)]
[/quote]

The radio pundits said he was covered by 2/3 Brighton players most of the time. So difference of views.

Hughton specialised in negative hence he knew how to stop not how to use

[/quote]

Or are said radio pundits the same as a few on here that just can''t accept Wes DOES have off days maybe?

And I still disagree, if he had 2 or 3 players on him most of the time then that would have left room for other players to exploit.

I''m telling you, he did not have "2 or 3 players" on him most of the time.
[/quote]

So their views are biased and yours aren''t....OK

To me Wes is to quote (when he is good he is very very good and when he''s bad he''s horrid)

Replacing him with Redmond worked, although again on the radio they said he was doubled up on

[Highland Canary 76]

Wes didn''t get into the match but I didn''t feel he had two or three players on him all the time. He might have simply been jaded from his international exploits. The Redmond change worked and I''d like to see both start against Wednesday who undoubtedly will try to ''park the bus''. Dorrans misses out for me.

[morty 0]

My views aren''t biased in the slightest butler, they are realistic.

Biased is refusing to accept the possibility that a player has off days, and trying to find any reason why, rather than accept what you see with your own eyes, or somebody else''s commentating on the radio.

[morty 0]

My views aren''t biased in the slightest butler, they are realistic.

Biased is refusing to accept the possibility that a player has off days, and trying to find any reason why, rather than accept what you see with your own eyes, or somebody else''s commentating on the radio.

[westcoastcanary 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"]...... Funny how our decent performances appear to be intrinsically linked to when a certain player is also playing decent. Shows how average we can be without wessi on top form.[/quote]Ah, the blindness of love! It''s not true that we only perform well with Wes in the team. It''s rather that, when Wes IS in the team, we only perform well if HE performs well. That''s why it would be a huge mistake to build a team round him (or round any other single player for that matter).

[hogesar 9,657]

His performance is as much reliant on the movement of others as it is his own game. I dint think he should be dropped when he has one game where things dont quite work out. If hes terrible, fair play but this season has shiwn how much better we look in general with him in the team.

[ruthers1 0]

I''ve never read so much claptrap as is evident in this thread.

There''s only 3 things you need to know about Hoolahan:

1) He''s consistently inconsistent - never plays 2 good games in a row for City.

2) The reason team mates can''t read him is because he doesn''t know what he''s trying to do himself half the time!

3) He''s better coming back in the team after being dropped for a few games.

On this last point Lambert realised this better than anyone. He would leave him out once he went off the boil and then bring him back in knowing he would be desperate to make an impact. But he never played him consistently because of his chronic inconsistency.

[morty 0]

[quote user="ruthers1"]I''ve never read so much claptrap as is evident in this thread.

There''s only 3 things you need to know about Hoolahan:

1) He''s consistently inconsistent - never plays 2 good games in a row for City.

2) The reason team mates can''t read him is because he doesn''t know what he''s trying to do himself half the time!

3) He''s better coming back in the team after being dropped for a few games.

On this last point Lambert realised this better than anyone. He would leave him out once he went off the boil and then bring him back in knowing he would be desperate to make an impact. But he never played him consistently because of his chronic inconsistency.[/quote]Good stuff[Y]

[hogesar 9,657]

But until yesterday he hsd more than 2 good games in a row...

Even when our results, his assists and performances speak for themselves, people dont llike admitting it.

Hes a player anyone in this division would rather have playing for them than against them.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]But until yesterday he hsd more than 2 good games in a row...

Even when our results, his assists and performances speak for themselves, people dont llike admitting it.

Hes a player anyone in this division would rather have playing for them than against them.[/quote]Why would people not like admitting it?Personally I would be delighted if Wes won every game for us single handed, and I give him every credit he deserves.But there are a group of people that cannot recognise, in any way, his limitations, tactical sacrifices that need to be made to accomodate him, and most of all, the fact that he has regular off games. And when he does it is someone elses fault, not his.There is a middle ground to be had here. If he was as good as some people here make him out he would be pushing Messi for his place.

[mrs miggins 0]

He can have more than 2 good games in a row as he''s shown this season and under Lambert; hence why he created a team around him. I''m not Hoolahan''s biggest supporter because he is indeed unpredictable, but you can''t just lie and say he hasn''t been consistent recently. Since AN has come in, like Lambert, Wes is playing his best football again. He deserved his start in the last game, but you can''t blame Brighton for ''sticking 3 markers (players) on him.'' (as they reported on the radio).

[morty 0]

He did not have 3 players constantly around him.Both myself, and Highland, who were at the game have already said this.Yes, he has played well recently, he was indifferent yesterday.

[mrs miggins 0]

As I don''t go to away games (or very few at least), they said on the commentary he was man marked by three players. Tbh though it wouldn''t surprise me if this was false, when I listen to it after watching a home game I often disagree with them.

The main point though was that he deserved that start, or at least gave the impression that the manager can''t leave him out due to his form - which has certainly lasted more than 2 games. I''m not saying the sun shines out of his @rse, I''m saying, just like other players like Olsson and Whittaker; they deserve a lot of credit for stepping up to the plate recently/since AN has come in.

[hogesar 9,657]

The only point im making is just because he was in different yesterday doesnt mean he should be dropped tomorrow.

His inclusion creates some formation limitations. Thats about it.

Generally speaking, I much prefer the look of us as a cohesive team when he is playing, hence my unwillingness to drop him unless truly deserved.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]The only point im making is just because he was in different yesterday doesnt mean he should be dropped tomorrow.

His inclusion creates some formation limitations. Thats about it.

Generally speaking, I much prefer the look of us as a cohesive team when he is playing, hence my unwillingness to drop him unless truly deserved.[/quote]Completely agree dropping, but the point I would also like to make is that when he is in the team he has to be a focal point player, everything goes through him, which means if he has a bad game it all goes to ratsh1t.Its a very fine line, he has to be on complete 100% top form for it to work, if he drops to 80% it becomes very sluggish and easy for the other team to neutralise.

[hogesar 9,657]

Yep get you completely Morty. I think the only real difference here is of opinion where I find him slightly more integral to the team than you do, which is perfectly fine.

After all, I also said David Fox was! [;)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Yep get you completely Morty. I think the only real difference here is of opinion where I find him slightly more integral to the team than you do, which is perfectly fine.

After all, I also said David Fox was! [;)][/quote]I can''t believe you have dropped a Fox bomb[;)]

[hogesar 9,657]

So long as no one mentions where he is currently plying his trade, im sure I can get away with using him to defend my view....

Or not

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]So long as no one mentions where he is currently plying his trade, im sure I can get away with using him to defend my view....

Or not[/quote]Ha, yes, moving on......[;)]