Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
CanaryCallum1902

MFW - Matt Jarvis Interview

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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
Posted (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 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×