Hoolahan - Cheap Rubbish or The answer to our prayers?

[Syteanric 1]

He was sigined as a replacement for Huckerby, which hasnt helped his cause tbh.. but has anyone been impressed by Hoolahan so far?

He''s too left footed and if the ball comes to him on his right he will refuse to kick it and dance around until he can play it left footed.. a decent defender will keep the ball on his weak side and thus render him useless.

Also, he hasnt contributed anything to the first team.... he doesnt cross, cant shoot, and when he cuts inside, unlike taking a shot like Hucks would he then plays a soft pass back accross the box.

So far he looks  a cheap signing out of his depth... but then if you pay peanuts....

or is he an enigma and just waiting to show us what he can really do where he will skin defenders alive and score hatfuls or set them up for others?

I think a stint in the ressies/on the bench might just be the foot up the backside young Wesley needs. either way.. he''s a passenger at the moment and theres no room ofr them in the team.

jas :)

[we8wba 0]

he was good buy for the money you got him for, but he has found his level of ability in our league. if people compare him to huckerby then he will always be cheap rubbish though, as realistically no one will match up to huckerby and his performances for you guys. huckerby gone, so no need to compare the two.

[Shack Attack 0]

Hoolahan - Which one of these two extreme points of view is the correct one? [:|]

[First Wizard 0]

Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!!

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

He is value for money, in that he is not as good as some people thought he was going to be.

By all accounts he had half a dozen cracking games last year (one against us) but had some average ones too.  He also was settled in a team where everyone knew what to do and enjoyed doing it.

At the moment we are still forcing our slightly elipse pegs into round holes so he looks worse than he really is, but he will not be the answer to all our prayers.

 

[Here We Go 0]

 

I wouldn''t say he was a replacement for Huckerby, yes he plays on the left wig, but thats were the similiarities(spelling) end, he is his own player he has  adiffrent style of play to that of hucks. Stop callign him a replacment for Hucks as Hucks can''t be replaced.

Where hucks used his pae to go past players, Hoolahoop uses skill as he isnt the fastest player in the wprld, he jsut needs to find his feet and maybe if he keeps pulling inside we should play him just behind the two strikers with Croft on the right and Fatty Patty on the left maybe then we will see him come good

[Thecanaryfan 0]

Hes not shown much promise so far has he? I think he needs to find his feet in the squad and he will improve but I wouldnt expect a quality player.

[silver fox 0]

I think the Blackpool manager summed it up nicely when they played us recently " don''t dive in and he will just run around and eventually give the ball away".  He hasn''t done anything yet to suggest he is going to crucify defences, but maybe he needs a bit more time.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[Tetteys Jig 830]

More than i''ve seen, but i''m still having an opinion. I think he isn''t fitting into Roeders type of player, as he''s not a battler like Pattison e.t.c, but i do think Roeder should let him have some more freedom down that left wing to express himself like huckerby did when he joined us first to great effect. I think Hoolahan is capable of running at defences and leaving them scared

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]More than i''ve seen, but i''m still having an opinion. I think he isn''t fitting into Roeders type of player, as he''s not a battler like Pattison e.t.c, but i do think Roeder should let him have some more freedom down that left wing to express himself like huckerby did when he joined us first to great effect. I think Hoolahan is capable of running at defences and leaving them scared
[/quote]

 

I agree that he is,but in fairness,he''s got a free role behind the front two and has licence to run at defenders but isn''t really using it.I don''t know whether he''s low on confidence,but he just seems to take the wrong option too often,for example last night he tried to dribble past a man in our left back position in thesecond half and lost it,putting us under pressure.

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

Except the two center backs who have - last night apart - who have looked class, and Sammy Clingan who has looked good.

Hoolihan is being played in a different way to that of when he played for Blackpool and as far as I can see not in the same role as Hucks was, so you cannot compare the two. It is very dificult to see how the ''runts and freebies'' are doing through your radio, but I suppose once your mind is made up there is no going back

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[/quote]

The same daity who appointed you to say in another thread that you were a true/real supporter!

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1400648/ShowPost.aspx

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[/quote]

The same daity who appointed you to say in another thread that you were a true/real supporter!

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1400648/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]

 

Don''t suppose you''d recognise one of those.And its deity.

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[/quote]

The same daity who appointed you to say in another thread that you were a true/real supporter!

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1400648/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]

Dont worry Wiz, By Beaseants reckoning it''s ok for Norwich to lose at home to a ten man QPR because they are strong, well organised and commited side. I dont think his opinions are worth your time to be perfectly honest.

[Lurd 0]

[:@][quote user="Shack Attack"]

Hoolahan - Which one of these two extreme points of view is the correct one? [:|]

[/quote]

 

Because that''s the only way it can be! You must either love or hate someone! It can only be black or white, there can be no grey areas on here.[:@][:@][:@]

[Lurd 0]

[:@][quote user="Shack Attack"]

Hoolahan - Which one of these two extreme points of view is the correct one? [:|]

[/quote]

 

Because that''s the only way it can be! You must either love or hate someone! It can only be black or white, there can be no grey areas on here.[:@][:@][:@]

[Lurd 0]

[:@][quote user="Shack Attack"]

Hoolahan - Which one of these two extreme points of view is the correct one? [:|]

[/quote]

 

Because that''s the only way it can be! You must either love or hate someone! It can only be black or white, there can be no grey areas on here.[:@][:@][:@]

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="thecanaryfan"][quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[/quote]

The same daity who appointed you to say in another thread that you were a true/real supporter!

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1400648/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]

Dont worry Wiz, By Beaseants reckoning it''s ok for Norwich to lose at home to a ten man QPR because they are strong, well organised and commited side. I dont think his opinions are worth your time to be perfectly honest.

[/quote]

 

No,just ignore me. Just like you ignored the bits of my post that give the lie to the conclusion that you needed to reach.I also would like to withdraw my comment that you are a moron on another thread.You''re not actually bright enough to deserve that epithet.

[Don,tPanic 0]

I think he,s out of his depth, mainly because he is way too small and very very 1 footed................a poor signing

[barclay seats 4849 0]

Really disappointed in Hoolahan...looks out of his depth....really only good enough for league one in my opinion,,,and saddly ...............the rest of the team didn''t look much good either last night.

I am worried that we will have another season of frustration,,,,, where are the heroes Roeder ???

I am now having to refrain from a tirade of chidish abuse towards the manager and board,,,,,best I get my coat !

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="thecanaryfan"][quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

 

You''ve only seen the Spurs game, by your own admission.Who exactly appointed you the God of football analysis?

[/quote]

The same daity who appointed you to say in another thread that you were a true/real supporter!

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1400648/ShowPost.aspx

[/quote]

Dont worry Wiz, By Beaseants reckoning it''s ok for Norwich to lose at home to a ten man QPR because they are strong, well organised and commited side. I dont think his opinions are worth your time to be perfectly honest.

[/quote]

 

No,just ignore me. Just like you ignored the bits of my post that give the lie to the conclusion that you needed to reach.I also would like to withdraw my comment that you are a moron on another thread.You''re not actually bright enough to deserve that epithet.

[/quote]

Whatever you say Beauseant. [|-)]

[clibit 0]

Blackpool fan here. I think the Hoolahan debate, which raged among our fans in the second half of last season, is an interesting one. I was a big fan, but he certainly has his limitations - he is totally one footed, he has no pace, and he can''t shoot!

But he has some big strengths too, if he is used correctly. It took Grayson some time to work that out, and I noticed that Roeder said he wanted to use him behind the front two, when he signed him. It sounds like a logical use of his talents, but I''ve seen him play a lot of games, and he is not at his best in that role. He is not really a left winger either! Due to his lack of pace mainly. And his preference for drifting across the pitch and being more involved. He is more of a playmaker. At Blackpool he dropped deep a lot and took the ball from defenders and moved about the midfield looking for possession and to create openings for the strikers. He is not the modern, athletic kind of player like huckerby but, used right, can make a big contribution. You would think central midfeild would suit him, and it might, but Grayson always used him as a left sided player whilst accepting that he wouldn''t get to the bye-line, or even attack much at all. He''s unorthodox, which may not suit Roeder - who may make him a scapegoat and slag him off if things aren''t going well. Not the sign of a good manager, methinks.

 

[Mr. Bump 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Cheap, but sub standard replacement for Hucks, in fact, they are all cheap, sub standard signings!![/quote]

Wizard, I have more respect for you than most but earlier in the season you were saying that the only signing you were pleased with is Hoolahan. Please do not jump ship all the time. [:(]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Larry David"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

Hoolahan - Which one of these two extreme points of view is the correct one? [:|]

[/quote]

Because that''s the only way it can be! You must either love or hate someone! It can only be black or white, there can be no grey areas on here.[:@][:@][:@]

[/quote]

Of course, how silly of me [;)]

What happens if I prayed for cheap rubbish the day before he signed for us [^o)]

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="clibit"]

Blackpool fan here. I think the Hoolahan debate, which raged among our fans in the second half of last season, is an interesting one. I was a big fan, but he certainly has his limitations - he is totally one footed, he has no pace, and he can''t shoot!

But he has some big strengths too, if he is used correctly. It took Grayson some time to work that out, and I noticed that Roeder said he wanted to use him behind the front two, when he signed him. It sounds like a logical use of his talents, but I''ve seen him play a lot of games, and he is not at his best in that role. He is not really a left winger either! Due to his lack of pace mainly. And his preference for drifting across the pitch and being more involved. He is more of a playmaker. At Blackpool he dropped deep a lot and took the ball from defenders and moved about the midfield looking for possession and to create openings for the strikers. He is not the modern, athletic kind of player like huckerby but, used right, can make a big contribution. You would think central midfeild would suit him, and it might, but Grayson always used him as a left sided player whilst accepting that he wouldn''t get to the bye-line, or even attack much at all. He''s unorthodox, which may not suit Roeder - who may make him a scapegoat and slag him off if things aren''t going well. Not the sign of a good manager, methinks.

 

[/quote]

sounds like your describing a defensive Midfielder! Or "Liberio" i believe they used to call them on the continent. perhaps thats his best role for us...

Shack attack and Larry David really contribute their thoughts on Hoolahan brilliantly in this thread! they dont say he is good, they dont say he is bad.. ergo logic decides he is Average then... which is what a lot of people in this thread have said.

jas :)

[clibit 0]

Well the obvious answer to the original question (cheap rubbish or the answer to our prayers?) is neither. It''s somewhere in the middle. There were quite a few of our games last season when he was the best player on the pitch. But he is a player who will not make an impact on his own, like Ronaldo, or even Huckerby, he needs to fit into a system that suits his style of play. Which involves quick passing and movement, keeping the ball down etc. rather than long ball, target man etc.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

sounds like your describing a defensive Midfielder! Or "Liberio" i believe they used to call them on the continent. perhaps thats his best role for us...

Shack attack and Larry David really contribute their thoughts on Hoolahan brilliantly in this thread! they dont say he is good, they dont say he is bad.. ergo logic decides he is Average then... which is what a lot of people in this thread have said.

jas :)

[/quote]

A ''libero'' is a sweeper not a defensive midfielder. Ergo you don''t know what you''re talking about.

I refuse to contibute my thoughts to such a ridiculously titled thread...........so there [:P]

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

sounds like your describing a defensive Midfielder! Or "Liberio" i believe they used to call them on the continent. perhaps thats his best role for us...

Shack attack and Larry David really contribute their thoughts on Hoolahan brilliantly in this thread! they dont say he is good, they dont say he is bad.. ergo logic decides he is Average then... which is what a lot of people in this thread have said.

jas :)

[/quote]

A ''libero'' is a sweeper not a defensive midfielder. Ergo you don''t know what you''re talking about.

I refuse to contibute my thoughts to such a ridiculously titled thread...........so there [:P]

[/quote]

so start a new thread with a more grown up title then Shacks discussing the same issue, thats not beyond a man of your supreme intellect is it?

jas :)

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

sounds like your describing a defensive Midfielder! Or "Liberio" i believe they used to call them on the continent. perhaps thats his best role for us...

Shack attack and Larry David really contribute their thoughts on Hoolahan brilliantly in this thread! they dont say he is good, they dont say he is bad.. ergo logic decides he is Average then... which is what a lot of people in this thread have said.

jas :)

[/quote]

A ''libero'' is a sweeper not a defensive midfielder. Ergo you don''t know what you''re talking about.

I refuse to contibute my thoughts to such a ridiculously titled thread...........so there [:P]

[/quote]

so start a new thread with a more grown up title then Shacks discussing the same issue, thats not beyond a man of your supreme intellect is it?

jas :)

[/quote]

I''d rather stay here and ridicule your thread title if that''s OK with you [:D]