Wildschut

[ec-p 107]

This is becoming a bit of a mystery, approaching Becchio proportions. Not mentioned on our injury list, so assume he''s fit.

Where is he? IMO a better option than Watkins. Not saying he''s the answer to all our woes but a real handful to play against.

I keep hoping that one of the journos will ask Farke what''s going on there but have heard nothing

[Salopian 1]

At least he is prepared to run at defences and put himself about. Many of us thought at the time he arrived that he was overpriced and not good enough, however.

Perhaps he would be better if he was given a run in the team to build his confidence.

[JF 694]

Too direct for the desired style of play and not a tippy tappy type player

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Too direct, yet we have been crying out for some directness at times.

Sometimes you just need a player to pick the ball up and drive at the defence

[Guest]

Trouble is, who would he cross it to?

[ron obvious 1,661]

Trouble is, he runs directly into blind alleys.

He''s too easily worked out by the opposition, & until he acquires (or regains) some subtlety to his game he''s pretty useless.

[Alfie54 83]

Certainly looks like Farke doesn''t fancy him

[Van wink 2,994]

JF wrote the following post at 01/01/2018 11:39 AM:

Too direct for the desired style of play and not a tippy tappy type player

Wonder how he would do as a striker?

[AJ 1,330]

Jerome was fit but missing in our last game leaving us with no strikers on the bench. Wildschut being missing just as odd as on his day he''s a match winner

[king canary 8,406]

I don''t really rate Wildschut - he is fast but has no actual end product.

However his pace and running could be useful off the bench at least- I can only think that others suggestions about appearance numbers is correct.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="king canary"]I don''t really rate Wildschut - he is fast but has no actual end product.

However his pace and running could be useful off the bench at least- I can only think that others suggestions about appearance numbers is correct.[/quote]

Totally agree, end product is woeful but he''s kind of useful if you want to unsettle the opposition in the hope it''ll create space for others.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

He’s a weapon and offers something different.

Had a cracking game against Sheff Utd and then dropped!? He was defiantly part of Farkes thinking early part of the season... somthing has happened.

It was mentioned on here about some appearance related fee to Wigan If he plays again. Could be somthing in that.

[westcoastcanary 173]

If it was to do with an appearance-related fee, what would be the point of having him on the subs bench? 

[yellowandgreen 34]

Let''s be honest he is not good enough.

[Feel The Force 0]

Looks like we might know who went to the press with the moan about too much training.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="yellowandgreen"]Let''s be honest he is not good enough.[/quote]

Love these comments.. and who is exactly heads and shoulders above him?

[Capt. Pants 4,782]

Neil didn''t pick him, nor did Irvine and now Farke doesn''t either. Probably safe to say he doesn''t impress in training.

[JF 694]

Capt. Pants wrote the following post at 01/01/2018 8:31 PM:

Neil didn''t pick him, nor did Irvine and now Farke doesn''t either. Probably safe to say he doesn''t impress in training.

But when he has been given a chance in the starting 11 this season he has impressed more often than not. Points are not put on the board in training. Paul McGrath would have had a pretty poor career based on the weeks training!

[king canary 8,406]

Has he delivered on the pitch though? No more so than Murphy who some have been advocating selling.

I''d imagine he''ll be sold if a decent offer comes in in January - there has been some suggestion he''s on some fairly high wages.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

I think it was one of the journos that mentioned it at some point or I read it somewhere but apparently pre season the squad went out for burgers at a well known local burger joint to welcome the new signings with their families, Yanic is alleged to have nailed his way through 3 burgers which I''m guessing Mr Farke wouldn''t have been overly pleased with while trying to get his new team fit for the start of season, also on twitter spotted again in the burger joint an hour before the burton game after not being picked to travel with the squad.

We only see his performance on a match day and I''ve always thought I''d like to see more of him but if his diet isn''t great it could be his levels drop after a couple of hours of training and a possible reason the manager doesn''t fancy him as much, who knows

[Stone 0]

He seemed to feature regularly enough during our ''run'' in Sept / Oct. He''s technically limited, I don''t think I''ve ever seen him put a decent cross in, but his speed, strength and direct running can unsettle defences and help push teams back - think about his role in Maddison''s winner at Ipswich.

I would have thought a game like Burton, if we insisted on so many changes, would have been perfect for him. I cant help but think we''d have looked more balanced and dynamic with him starting in place of Vrancic or Hoolahan?

I think on that basis it''s safe to say his days must be numbered under Farke. It''s a shame because I feel the side often lacks pace and power which he could provide, even if fleetingly.

[king canary 8,406]

@Stone

Yeah, there is definitely an argument for him to have started against Burton. Rather than trying to recreate what we had v Birmingham but without Maddison and Pritchard, we could have switched to proper wingers with Yanic on one flank and Watkins on the other.

[Stone 0]

Although, referring to your own point @KingCanary..

He''s not regularly delivered enough on the pitch, despite having a few qualities I feel we lack. If he''s on decent wages and unfancied by the coaching staff then it''ll be no surprise to see him on his way.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

Burton defend so deep and with some many men that Yanic would have been pretty useless - no space to run into and crosses easily dealt with by their 5 man defence.

Yanic is great running at defenders, but most of the time does absolutely nothing at the end of his run, either spooning a cross out for a goal kick or misplacing a pass. Has been reported several times since the summer that Norwich are looking to move him on and discussions with Hernandez, another right footed winger who likes to cut in from the left, suggests that Yanic''s future at Norwich is short. Wouldn''t be surprised if he gets a loan to a League One club - which is probably his level.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

One thing I will say for Yanik, when he gets the ball and runs with it the crowd get going, that can win you games on it''s own apparently

[king canary 8,406]

@Bethnal

Another tick in the box for the Alex Neil transfer policy- we must have spent at least £3m (I know report vary) on a hugely one dimensional winger.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,399]

@King Canary

Yes, it was a weird transfer at the time, but guess Norwich were scrabbling to replace Brady - but brought in an entirely different type of winger. Luckily the reported numbers were well wide of the mark but January does make clubs go a bit soft in the head.

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

Neil also spent 3 million on a player now banded buy fans as a 25 million pound player, swings and roundabouts

[ec-p 107]

And didn''t play him!

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

Sent him on loan for first team experience, what position in the league were we under Neil? What position are we now?