CanaryCallum1902 0 Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) Found this a really interesting interview... Like many, I slated Matt Jarvis when he was on the payroll but actually ended up sympathising with him. Came across as a nice guy in this video and hope he does well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AFEpLyRsQY&t=1193s Edited July 19, 2019 by CanaryCallum1902 Typo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Christoph Stiepermann 1,120 Posted July 19, 2019 The interviewer is really good, so much better and more likeable than the more popular TalkNorwich boys, hope his channel takes of soon as he has some good content. First saw him on the Pink Un show and then the Webber interview, asks good questions and lets the interviewee speak, instead of interrupting and making it all about him. Jarvis comes across well. Just think the stresses of being a pacy, slight winger who started playing very young in the robust lower leagues ruined his joints and ended his career prematurely, it wasn't his fault our medical evaluation was inadequate or ignored, im sure he'd have rather been playing the last few seasons over sitting in the treatment room. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gordon Bennett 768 Posted July 20, 2019 He was on Talksh!te for an hour the other morning, came across really well. Just wants to play football. We all get frustrated when players can’t play but can’t get my head round why anyone would slate him or any player for being injured. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 20, 2019 Criticism should never have been directed at Jarvis himself- he can't help he was let down by his body. McNally/Neil/whoever was involved in the deal from our end deserved lots of criticism for it though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rock bus 836 Posted July 20, 2019 Clearly it was a waste of money and a poor decision to sign him When injured. but I have nothing against him. Seems a decent bloke and surely no one can doubt that he’d much rather have been playing than spending all his time receiving treatment and being injured. Yes I know he would’ve been paid a fortune but I still think it was just a shame for him and the club how it worked out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant Holts Moustache 104 Posted July 20, 2019 6 hours ago, king canary said: Criticism should never have been directed at Jarvis himself- he can't help he was let down by his body. McNally/Neil/whoever was involved in the deal from our end deserved lots of criticism for it though. Why should they get criticised? The injury happened almost 6 months after he was signed permanently. Are they meant to be able to predict that player who had never had a serious injury was suddenly going to get one and lose years of his career? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Diane 498 Posted July 20, 2019 16 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said: The interviewer is really good, so much better and more likeable than the more popular TalkNorwich boys, hope his channel takes of soon as he has some good content. First saw him on the Pink Un show and then the Webber interview, asks good questions and lets the interviewee speak, instead of interrupting and making it all about him. Jarvis comes across well. Just think the stresses of being a pacy, slight winger who started playing very young in the robust lower leagues ruined his joints and ended his career prematurely, it wasn't his fault our medical evaluation was inadequate or ignored, im sure he'd have rather been playing the last few seasons over sitting in the treatment room. The interviewer is young Connor Southwell who is one of our ncfsc volunteers, talented lad who makes the interviews about his guests & not him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said: Why should they get criticised? The injury happened almost 6 months after he was signed permanently. Are they meant to be able to predict that player who had never had a serious injury was suddenly going to get one and lose years of his career? Because he was injured when we signed him permanently, we had him on loan for a further 6 months so had no need to hurry the signing through and we certainly didn't need to give him a 3 and half year contract. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant Holts Moustache 104 Posted July 20, 2019 54 minutes ago, king canary said: Because he was injured when we signed him permanently, we had him on loan for a further 6 months so had no need to hurry the signing through and we certainly didn't need to give him a 3 and half year contract. He played less than 2 weeks after we made the deal permanent. He also appeared around 15 more times before the end of the season with no issue. The injury he had has no relevance to his long term injury which happened on the last day of the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,657 Posted July 20, 2019 3 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said: Why should they get criticised? The injury happened almost 6 months after he was signed permanently. Are they meant to be able to predict that player who had never had a serious injury was suddenly going to get one and lose years of his career? The season before we signed him from WHU had had played only 11 games in 46 because of injury. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 21, 2019 12 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said: He played less than 2 weeks after we made the deal permanent. He also appeared around 15 more times before the end of the season with no issue. The injury he had has no relevance to his long term injury which happened on the last day of the season. Ok but that still doesn't answer points two and three. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant Holts Moustache 104 Posted July 21, 2019 13 hours ago, TIL 1010 said: The season before we signed him from WHU had had played only 11 games in 46 because of injury. According to transfer market his only injury that season kept him out for 7 games in August/early September and he was fit for the rest of the season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grant Holts Moustache 104 Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, king canary said: Ok but that still doesn't answer points two and three. You could only have two loans from other Premier League clubs and they wanted another so chose to make his deal permanent. It is easy to say with hindsight that a 3.5 year contract was wrong because he spent so long injured. At the time no one could have known what was going to happen. Signing any player carries the risk that they could get a serious injury. His injury record when we signed him was not that of a player who had struggled to stay fit. In fact he had been injured very rarely and never seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 1,512 Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Grant Holts Moustache said: You could only have two loans from other Premier League clubs and they wanted another so chose to make his deal permanent. It is easy to say with hindsight that a 3.5 year contract was wrong because he spent so long injured. At the time no one could have known what was going to happen. Signing any player carries the risk that they could get a serious injury. His injury record when we signed him was not that of a player who had struggled to stay fit. In fact he had been injured very rarely and never seriously. A 3.5 year contract for a player who was approaching his 30th birthday is a bit unusual though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said: You could only have two loans from other Premier League clubs and they wanted another so chose to make his deal permanent. It is easy to say with hindsight that a 3.5 year contract was wrong because he spent so long injured. At the time no one could have known what was going to happen. Signing any player carries the risk that they could get a serious injury. His injury record when we signed him was not that of a player who had struggled to stay fit. In fact he had been injured very rarely and never seriously. Personally I'd suggest signing a player on a 3 and a half year deal in order to loan someone else in for 6 months is an obvious example of bad management. The deal probably cost around £7-8m including wages- to spend that simply to free up a loan spot is a great example of why McNally and Neil deserve criticism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,503 Posted July 21, 2019 But if the Bamford loan had worked out and we stayed up partially due to his goals then the 7m would have been nothing. Small margins, this one went wrong and like all clubs we will get some wrong again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 21, 2019 31 minutes ago, hogesar said: But if the Bamford loan had worked out and we stayed up partially due to his goals then the 7m would have been nothing. Small margins, this one went wrong and like all clubs we will get some wrong again. Yes but we got far more wrong than right that season- our transfer strategy was a disaster that actively hamstrung the club for several years afterwards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,703 Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, king canary said: Yes but we got far more wrong than right that season- our transfer strategy was a disaster that actively hamstrung the club for several years afterwards. In terms of the first team and what it gave us on the pitch, I agree with you. But we did pick up Godfrey and Maddison in mid-season, and that investment in youth is paying dividends now. Edited July 21, 2019 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,456 Posted July 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said: In terms of the first team and what it gave us on the pitch, I agree with you. But we did pick up Godfrey and Maddison in mid-season, and that investment in youth is paying dividends now. Fair, should have put first team strategy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hogesar 9,503 Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, king canary said: Yes but we got far more wrong than right that season- our transfer strategy was a disaster that actively hamstrung the club for several years afterwards. Oh yeah totally agreed on that front. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites