Alienating Hoolahan

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Mr. Bump"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Can someone dig out his goal/assist stats for last season?  I guess if he`s as wonderful as some on here are saying they`ll be pretty good.  Won`t they......? [^o)][/quote]
Can someone dig out Jamie Cureton''s goal stats for last season?
[/quote]

 

18 appearances, 1 goal, but of course he''s a confidence player/ hasn''t got a big man alongside him/hasn''t had enough starts *

* Please delete everything other than your own blind mantra to excuse his total inadequacy.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

He got 2 goals. Come on, let''s stop this blind vendetta agains Jamie Lad, at least do him justice with the stats [;)]

[Smudger 0]

I think the fact that Hoolahan is still with us (much like Doherty), kind of proves that there is no manager out there crazy enough to sign either of them.

When are people going to get a grip and realise that these two players are utter crap and don''t ever warrant the chance of pulling on a yellow & green shirt ever again?

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

I think the fact that Hoolahan is still with us (much like Doherty), kind of proves that there is no manager out there crazy enough to sign either of them.

When are people going to get a grip and realise that these two players are utter crap and don''t ever warrant the chance of pulling on a yellow & green shirt ever again?

[/quote]

 

A) It isn''t true about Hoolahan, it''s just that your local newspaper hasn''t been....errr...up to speed on this.

B) Grayson is now on the case.

It''s why the Irish Times don''t use Lakey. [:|]

[Barclay hero 0]

My goodness Im starting to agree with Smudgers posts - which means that either Im turning into a purist or he''s starting to put some decent points forward.....

Hoolahan is great in theory but he''s a bit of a none-trick pony - get the ball, beat 3 players and give it away.  Would he have made a difference v Walsall?  Possibly.  But this was the 1st game this season that we''ve not scored (add in the preseasons and its quite a while) and Hoolahan has had more than enough crap games.  That said Cureton is in the same boat - I think the main difference with JC is that he CAN create for others even if he doesnt score - Hoolahan doesnt.  At this level he''s an unnecessary luxury

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Smudger"]

I think the fact that Hoolahan is still with us (much like Doherty), kind of proves that there is no manager out there crazy enough to sign either of them.

When are people going to get a grip and realise that these two players are utter crap and don''t ever warrant the chance of pulling on a yellow & green shirt ever again?

[/quote]

 

A) It isn''t true about Hoolahan, it''s just that your local newspaper hasn''t been....errr...up to speed on this.

B) Grayson is now on the case.

It''s why the Irish Times don''t use Lakey. [:|]

[/quote]

Does this mean that we are getting shot of the pair of them Cam?

We can but live in hope! [:D]

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Barclay hero"]

My goodness Im starting to agree with Smudgers posts - which means that either Im turning into a purist or he''s starting to put some decent points forward.....

Hoolahan is great in theory but he''s a bit of a none-trick pony - get the ball, beat 3 players and give it away.  Would he have made a difference v Walsall?  Possibly.  But this was the 1st game this season that we''ve not scored (add in the preseasons and its quite a while) and Hoolahan has had more than enough crap games.  That said Cureton is in the same boat - I think the main difference with JC is that he CAN create for others even if he doesnt score - Hoolahan doesnt.  At this level he''s an unnecessary luxury

[/quote]

Out there is another one trick pony, Grayson, trying to hire his former one trick pony.

Played in the hole behind Beckford do you think?

Could there be a role for one-trick ponies or none-trick ponies behind Beckford does anyone think?

 

 

[Shack Attack 0]

This thread sums up the whole of our message board quite nicely I think. You have a small minority of posters talking sense and backing their opinions up with examples (in this case Downloads). These opinions are completely ignored by the majority of posters who are completely incapable of seeing any grey areas and and trumpet ''facts'' to back up their opinions (in this case Smudger, Wiz and Jas among others). A third party will offer some information which completely disproves said ''facts'' (in this case Cam) but this can be safely ignored and the ''fact'' that Hoolahan is rubbish/uncommited/sulky can then be repeated on another thread.

I love this place [;)]

Getting back on topic I think it would be a big mistake to let Wes leave. I keep seeing his goalscoring and assists statistics since joining us being bandied about as a reason for getting rid but these are a little misleading. He''s hardly played in his favoured position and he''s definitely never had a run of games there so it''s a little unfair to judge him purely on statistics. He''s shown enough for me on the few occasions when he''s played off a main striker to suggest that this is his best role and that he would have more of an impact if played there. One of his best performances for us was in the Ipswich home game last season when he played off Leroy Lita. The football we played that day was a joy to watch and the link up play between Wes, Lita and Bell that day was the best I''ve seen from a City side in years.

I posted last week about the myth that ''You can''t.........in League One'' and the situation with Hoolahan seems to fall into this category. Apparently we have to play 4-4-2 in League One even though we don''t seem to have a second striker to link up with Holt and chip in with the requisite number of goals. That doesn''t make any sense to me. I''d rather see us play Holt up top on his own with Hoolahan supporting him in a deeper lying role and trying to make the most of the gaps between the oppositions defence and midfield.

I can understand why Paul Lambert is picking the side he is at the moment as he wants to give us more ''shape'' and make us difficult to break down. It was imperitive that he did this as we looked a complete mess before he came in and the measures he has taken would have been the first thing any vaguely competent manager would have done. But there will come a time when we need more and we will need somebody who can find a bit of space where there is none and create a chance out of nothing. I think Wes could be the player to provide that but he has to be played in the right position. 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Freebie City F.C."][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Wes Hoolahan doesnt want to be here... why give a chance to someone who doesnt give a sh*t? it will be like playing with 10 men as he goes through the motions and tries not to get injured.

 

jas :)

[/quote] Hoolahan said he would stay here and is being forced out , the crap that is Russell thought he was too good for Norwich City and wanted out yet gets back in the side .Then people wonder why this club is on a one way course to oblivion.
[/quote]

source?

jas :)

[Mr.Carrow 380]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

This thread sums up the whole of our message board quite nicely I think. You have a small minority of posters talking sense and backing their opinions up with examples (in this case Downloads). These opinions are completely ignored by the majority of posters who are completely incapable of seeing any grey areas and and trumpet ''facts'' to back up their opinions (in this case Smudger, Wiz and Jas among others). A third party will offer some information which completely disproves said ''facts'' (in this case Cam) but this can be safely ignored and the ''fact'' that Hoolahan is rubbish/uncommited/sulky can then be repeated on another thread.

I love this place [;)]

Getting back on topic I think it would be a big mistake to let Wes leave. I keep seeing his goalscoring and assists statistics since joining us being bandied about as a reason for getting rid but these are a little misleading. He''s hardly played in his favoured position and he''s definitely never had a run of games there so it''s a little unfair to judge him purely on statistics. He''s shown enough for me on the few occasions when he''s played off a main striker to suggest that this is his best role and that he would have more of an impact if played there. One of his best performances for us was in the Ipswich home game last season when he played off Leroy Lita. The football we played that day was a joy to watch and the link up play between Wes, Lita and Bell that day was the best I''ve seen from a City side in years.

I posted last week about the myth that ''You can''t.........in League One'' and the situation with Hoolahan seems to fall into this category. Apparently we have to play 4-4-2 in League One even though we don''t seem to have a second striker to link up with Holt and chip in with the requisite number of goals. That doesn''t make any sense to me. I''d rather see us play Holt up top on his own with Hoolahan supporting him in a deeper lying role and trying to make the most of the gaps between the oppositions defence and midfield.

I can understand why Paul Lambert is picking the side he is at the moment as he wants to give us more ''shape'' and make us difficult to break down. It was imperitive that he did this as we looked a complete mess before he came in and the measures he has taken would have been the first thing any vaguely competent manager would have done. But there will come a time when we need more and we will need somebody who can find a bit of space where there is none and create a chance out of nothing. I think Wes could be the player to provide that but he has to be played in the right position. 

[/quote]

I think what this thread shows is that many fans can become convinced a player is vital because he has some pretty tricks despite the facts showing there is little end product.  Whenever i`ve seen him he`s always been given free reign to attack and drift all over the pitch- it`s hardly ever worked.

Interesting that you should mention goal/assist stats in the same paragraph as Bell- do a quick comparison between his and Hoolihans stats against minutes on the pitch.  Who do you think we`d have been better off keeping?  Also, have a look at our results this season with him starting or not starting.  I`m sorry but there is no evidence whatsoever that he has a positive impact for us.

[Noseybonk 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

This thread sums up the whole of our message board quite nicely I think. You have a small minority of posters talking sense and backing their opinions up with examples (in this case Downloads). These opinions are completely ignored by the majority of posters who are completely incapable of seeing any grey areas and and trumpet ''facts'' to back up their opinions (in this case Smudger, Wiz and Jas among others). A third party will offer some information which completely disproves said ''facts'' (in this case Cam) but this can be safely ignored and the ''fact'' that Hoolahan is rubbish/uncommited/sulky can then be repeated on another thread.

I love this place [;)]

Getting back on topic I think it would be a big mistake to let Wes leave. I keep seeing his goalscoring and assists statistics since joining us being bandied about as a reason for getting rid but these are a little misleading. He''s hardly played in his favoured position and he''s definitely never had a run of games there so it''s a little unfair to judge him purely on statistics. He''s shown enough for me on the few occasions when he''s played off a main striker to suggest that this is his best role and that he would have more of an impact if played there. One of his best performances for us was in the Ipswich home game last season when he played off Leroy Lita. The football we played that day was a joy to watch and the link up play between Wes, Lita and Bell that day was the best I''ve seen from a City side in years.

I posted last week about the myth that ''You can''t.........in League One'' and the situation with Hoolahan seems to fall into this category. Apparently we have to play 4-4-2 in League One even though we don''t seem to have a second striker to link up with Holt and chip in with the requisite number of goals. That doesn''t make any sense to me. I''d rather see us play Holt up top on his own with Hoolahan supporting him in a deeper lying role and trying to make the most of the gaps between the oppositions defence and midfield.

I can understand why Paul Lambert is picking the side he is at the moment as he wants to give us more ''shape'' and make us difficult to break down. It was imperitive that he did this as we looked a complete mess before he came in and the measures he has taken would have been the first thing any vaguely competent manager would have done. But there will come a time when we need more and we will need somebody who can find a bit of space where there is none and create a chance out of nothing. I think Wes could be the player to provide that but he has to be played in the right position. 

[/quote]

 

 

At last. Someone who talks sense. Well done Shack.

On the basis that promotion is vital, we don''t want a limited team that will ''hold it''s shape'', be hard to score against and will draw at home to Walsall because that''s a team that will see us finish 10th. We have to have something more for when Lamberts rather conservative approach isn''t working and that''s when we will regret getting rid of Hoolahan.

He should be playing alongside Holt instead of Cureton and anyone who gives their opinion of him based on what he has done on the left wing doesn''t know a lot about football. He is not a left winger.

If we had Wes to call upon on Saturday we would have won that match and nobody will convince me otherwise.

Don''t it always seem to go, that you don''t know what you''ve got till it''s gone.

 

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Have to agree with you Shack. IMO Wes is a victim of the situation the club is in regarding firstly lack of money. If indeed as suspected he''s one of the top earners then sadly I guess he has to go (if we are basing everything on a financial viewpoint).

Fitting into the team - as you say Shack, with similarly skilled players he would be one of the first on the teamsheet. But we are, sadly, where we are and if Saturday is anything to go by, we are in for a long season with few highlights (with regards to anything approaching the football we know of old). It''s not just Wes, indeed its mainly not about him ,but Lambert is now in charge of building a team from the players left to him. Not easy and I don''t doubt he knows this. All rumours of players been frozen out I will see merely as that. Rumours.

I completely accept we may have to play our way out of this league by playing ugly stuff. Results count. However I am not convinced that anyone replacing Wes brings anything else to the team that he was unable to produce. Where was any creativity on Saturday? I am happy to see Lappin back in the team, but don''t think the two are completely interchangeable.

Can Lambert manage him, is it a personality issue? Again, none of us know. I would like to think that by asking either Wes or the management team we might get nearer to the truth, but again that''s unlikely.

I will miss watching Wes, indeed any sort of creativity or individual style. Those days seem to be sadly long gone. Along with results, football is supposed to be about entertainment. Much more of the past few years and fans will be leaving in their droves as well. I only hope Saturday was a blip. Are we really as bad as Saturday suggests, given the quality of opposition? If so, much work is to be done, in Lambert''s rebuilding (maybe with money in January from Wes'' sale).

What worries me is the scenerio Shacks paints in his final paragraph. What if, we do manage to rebulid to something competent to challenge for promotion. How do we build from our current level if we let go of our better players?

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="Matthias son of Deuteronomy of Gath"]At last. Someone who talks sense. Well done Shack.

On the basis that promotion is vital, we don''t want a limited team that will ''hold it''s shape'', be hard to score against and will draw at home to Walsall because that''s a team that will see us finish 10th. We have to have something more for when Lamberts rather conservative approach isn''t working and that''s when we will regret getting rid of Hoolahan.

He should be playing alongside Holt instead of Cureton and anyone who gives their opinion of him based on what he has done on the left wing doesn''t know a lot about football. He is not a left winger.

If we had Wes to call upon on Saturday we would have won that match and nobody will convince me otherwise.

Don''t it always seem to go, that you don''t know what you''ve got till it''s gone.[/quote]

Yeah, i mean he can play on the left though, i just think hes less effective there. Its similar to when Gerrard plays on the left for England when everyone is fit. To accommodate the player they tell him hes on the left but say drift in as much as you want. Ashley Cole will get up and down and provide the genuine width leaving you to get on with things. Because we don''t have a left back that Lambert will play that can do the job (Don''t tell me Drury can) thats why it can''t happen at Norwich and hence why it makes him out of position there. That means until Habergham or Wiggins are given the slot, Wes would have to play at the front of a diamond or in the hole behind one striker.

I don''t think hes God''s gift to football, but anyone who has seen him play several times will know that he can play a killer pass and i just don''t see the value in getting rid of an attacking player when we have so few attacking options that are any good. If people truely believe that getting rid of a player who gets paid a few more k than everyone else is going to make a dent in 20mil, then i can only suggest you get real and that it is just an ever increasing sad reflection on the hopes we have for this club.

Still no one can answer why a player who said he wanted to stay (Hoolahan) is wanted out over a player who obviously saw himself staying in the Chamionship (Russell). To me it beggars belief that true City fans could even contemplate this. I could understand if Russell was an awsome player who we couldn''t afford to lose, but his best attribute is his stamina and hes a footballer.

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Barclay hero"]

My goodness Im starting to agree with Smudgers posts - which means that either Im turning into a purist or he''s starting to put some decent points forward.....

Hoolahan is great in theory but he''s a bit of a none-trick pony - get the ball, beat 3 players and give it away.  Would he have made a difference v Walsall?  Possibly.  But this was the 1st game this season that we''ve not scored (add in the preseasons and its quite a while) and Hoolahan has had more than enough crap games.  That said Cureton is in the same boat - I think the main difference with JC is that he CAN create for others even if he doesnt score - Hoolahan doesnt.  At this level he''s an unnecessary luxury

[/quote]

Out there is another one trick pony, Grayson, trying to hire his former one trick pony.

Played in the hole behind Beckford do you think?

Could there be a role for one-trick ponies or none-trick ponies behind Beckford does anyone think?

 

 

[/quote]

I don''t know.  What do you reckon Cam?

Do you think that Norwich City have a striker with Beckford''s class and ability, or do you believe that Beckford will play at a higher level in his Career than most of City''s strikers are likely to (leaving our young stars like Daley & MacDonald out of it)?

Do you think that Leeds Utd currently have a far stronger squad than Norwich City?  Maximum points so far this season (even in games where Beckford has been missing) would seem to suggest to me that maybe Leeds have a bigger squad that may bring the best out of Hoolahan.

We quite simply do not have those options. 

If Hoolahan ever gets the chance in Yellow & Green again then he needs to stop giving the ball away so cheaply and doing what he is paid to do... set up goals and score them instead of running around in aimless circles.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]

This thread sums up the whole of our message board quite nicely I think. You have a small minority of posters talking sense and backing their opinions up with examples (in this case Downloads). These opinions are completely ignored by the majority of posters who are completely incapable of seeing any grey areas and and trumpet ''facts'' to back up their opinions (in this case Smudger, Wiz and Jas among others). A third party will offer some information which completely disproves said ''facts'' (in this case Cam) but this can be safely ignored and the ''fact'' that Hoolahan is rubbish/uncommited/sulky can then be repeated on another thread.

I love this place [;)]

Getting back on topic I think it would be a big mistake to let Wes leave. I keep seeing his goalscoring and assists statistics since joining us being bandied about as a reason for getting rid but these are a little misleading. He''s hardly played in his favoured position and he''s definitely never had a run of games there so it''s a little unfair to judge him purely on statistics. He''s shown enough for me on the few occasions when he''s played off a main striker to suggest that this is his best role and that he would have more of an impact if played there. One of his best performances for us was in the Ipswich home game last season when he played off Leroy Lita. The football we played that day was a joy to watch and the link up play between Wes, Lita and Bell that day was the best I''ve seen from a City side in years.

I posted last week about the myth that ''You can''t.........in League One'' and the situation with Hoolahan seems to fall into this category. Apparently we have to play 4-4-2 in League One even though we don''t seem to have a second striker to link up with Holt and chip in with the requisite number of goals. That doesn''t make any sense to me. I''d rather see us play Holt up top on his own with Hoolahan supporting him in a deeper lying role and trying to make the most of the gaps between the oppositions defence and midfield.

I can understand why Paul Lambert is picking the side he is at the moment as he wants to give us more ''shape'' and make us difficult to break down. It was imperitive that he did this as we looked a complete mess before he came in and the measures he has taken would have been the first thing any vaguely competent manager would have done. But there will come a time when we need more and we will need somebody who can find a bit of space where there is none and create a chance out of nothing. I think Wes could be the player to provide that but he has to be played in the right position. 

[/quote]

Name just one fact that says Hoolahan deserves a place in the squad.

4 assists and 2 goals in 31 games so I believe?

If that pleases you from the supposed most creative player in the team then it is not hard to see why any team you have a say in managing will struggle.  Add to that we all know that he gives the ball away very cheaply and it really is a no brainer to see why he is struggling to get a chance under a decent manager.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Have to agree with you Shack. IMO Wes is a victim of the situation the club is in regarding firstly lack of money. If indeed as suspected he''s one of the top earners then sadly I guess he has to go (if we are basing everything on a financial viewpoint). Fitting into the team - as you say Shack, with similarly skilled players he would be one of the first on the teamsheet. But we are, sadly, where we are and if Saturday is anything to go by, we are in for a long season with few highlights (with regards to anything approaching the football we know of old). It''s not just Wes, indeed its mainly not about him ,but Lambert is now in charge of building a team from the players left to him. Not easy and I don''t doubt he knows this. All rumours of players been frozen out I will see merely as that. Rumours. I completely accept we may have to play our way out of this league by playing ugly stuff. Results count. However I am not convinced that anyone replacing Wes brings anything else to the team that he was unable to produce. Where was any creativity on Saturday? I am happy to see Lappin back in the team, but don''t think the two are completely interchangeable. Can Lambert manage him, is it a personality issue? Again, none of us know. I would like to think that by asking either Wes or the management team we might get nearer to the truth, but again that''s unlikely. I will miss watching Wes, indeed any sort of creativity or individual style. Those days seem to be sadly long gone. Along with results, football is supposed to be about entertainment. Much more of the past few years and fans will be leaving in their droves as well. I only hope Saturday was a blip. Are we really as bad as Saturday suggests, given the quality of opposition? If so, much work is to be done, in Lambert''s rebuilding (maybe with money in January from Wes'' sale). What worries me is the scenerio Shacks paints in his final paragraph. What if, we do manage to rebulid to something competent to challenge for promotion. How do we build from our current level if we let go of our better players?[/quote]

This is the sort of football management skills you see from 11 year old kids in the playground Gazza... [:$]

Pick the 11 players who work best as a unit and will pick up the most points during a season, not oh lets pick what''s his name because he has pace but couldn''t trap a bag of cement, or he because he has a fancy trick or two but creates nothing and gives the ball away time after time after time.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I think what this thread shows is that many fans can become convinced a player is vital because he has some pretty tricks despite the facts showing there is little end product.

[/quote]

It depends what you determine as ''facts'' though doesn''t it? If you''re one of those posters who thinks that a players ability can be determined by a few numbers on Wikipedia* then I can understand why you don''t rate the guy. But there''s so much more to a game of football than bare statistics.

In the very few games last season where we actually looked half decent (around the time of Ipswich home game) Hoolahan was given a free role behind Lita in a sort of loose 4-2-3-1 formation. Bell and Croft were alongside him and Pattison and Clingan played slightly deeper. The Ipswich game was the highlight where we played some of the best football I''ve seen at Carrow Road in years. I can''t remember why Roeder changed the team from that point to be honest but that was as good as it got last season and Hoolahan was heavily involved.

* In fact if you look on Wikipedia it gives you a handy link to this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6582201.stm . Does the ''fact'' that Wes Hoolahan is proven to be one of the best players at this level trump his goal and assist stats whilst playing mainly out of position for us? I don''t know to be honest but it makes you wonder why we can''t get the best out of a player who was previously voted one of the best in the division, doesn''t it [:^)]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Interesting that you should mention goal/assist stats in the same paragraph as Bell- do a quick comparison between his and Hoolahans stats against minutes on the pitch.  Who do you think we`d have been better off keeping?

[/quote]

I was one of the very few posters who argued that we should keep David Bell. Yet I was met with a tide of ignorance in the form of "doesn''t get stuck in/too one footed/doesn''t want to be here/no pace". Sound familiar?

[quote user="Smudger"]

Name just one fact that says Hoolahan deserves a place in the squad.

4 assists and 2 goals in 31 games so I believe?

If that pleases you from the supposed most creative player in the team then it is not hard to see why any team you have a say in managing will struggle.  Add to that we all know that he gives the ball away very cheaply and it really is a no brainer to see why he is struggling to get a chance under a decent manager.

[/quote]

When I finally get my big chance at managing a League One side you can pore over my stats on Wikipedia and slag off my win ratio[:|] I''d wager my team will be a damn sight more attractive to watch than yours though [:D]

In your earlier reply to Cam you stated that "maybe Leeds have a bigger squad that may bring the best out of Hoolahan". So you obviously think that in the right set up he can be a decent player (and his performances at Blackpool the year they got promoted would seem to back this up). How big do you think Blackpool''s squad was that year and did they have anyone as good as Jermaine Beckford up front? What did the mighty Blackpool have that we don''t but Leeds do?

[macdougalls perm 0]

Well said, SA [Y]

[B-ru 0]

I agree SA, he can be utilised behind the striker!

I believe Hoolahoop got injured around that time, and then we slipped deeper and deeper into the relegation fight... Not saying that one player makes a team, but it was a formula that did work.

[Mr.Carrow 380]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.  We then drop him, win three games and draw one and everyone`s up in arms!

Personally i think this is more about "value for money" in terms of wages and i wouldn`t be surprised if Lambert thinks he can get three more effective players in on less money than Hooly and Doc combined.

[nutty nigel 7,651]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.  We then drop him, win three games and draw one and everyone`s up in arms!

Personally i think this is more about "value for money" in terms of wages and i wouldn`t be surprised if Lambert thinks he can get three more effective players in on less money than Hooly and Doc combined.

[/quote]

Don''t buy this Mr Carrow. Cureton and Russell have never been anything better than mid-table Championship players. It''s not surprising then to see them relegated as the league standard improved. Worthington always recognoised the need to improve to even stand still as did Roeder. I don''t think Grant did which was why we had these players on long contracts.

 

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="B-ru"]

I agree SA, he can be utilised behind the striker!

I believe Hoolahoop got injured around that time, and then we slipped deeper and deeper into the relegation fight... Not saying that one player makes a team, but it was a formula that did work.

[/quote]

 

As I''ve said elsewhere, I think the only way that he can be accommodated without creating a defensive vulnerability is in a role behind one main striker, and given how poor Cureton has been I''m quite surprised that this hasn''t been tried. The fact that it hasn''t suggests to me that Lambert''s mind is already made up.

[blahblahblah 2]

Interesting post that Shack.  There are a few possibilities here I suppose :Hoolihan doesn''t fit with the formation Lambert believes will help us win games.  The age old argument on here about Huckerby was that he didn''t do defence, which was great when he was tearing teams open with his feet, but didn''t help us under Grant when we looked fragile on the left in defence.  Hoolihan doesn''t seem to be in the same class as Huckerby, but he doesn''t need to be in league 1.More than likely it''s down to wages.  Lambert will probably be able to bring in an effective (if less pretty) winger who will be happy tracking back, and won''t play best in a free role, for the wages that Hoolihan is on, which to a large extent solves the problem.My opinion is that if you''re going to get out of this league, you need 2 banks of 4 players, you need to "earn the right to play football" as a former manager used to say, and you need someone up front with Holt to open up the other teams'' 2 banks of 4, aswell as a threat from the wing, especially at home.  While we are keeping clean sheets, one goal gets you three points. It might not be pretty, but if pretty football gets you a play-off semis defeat and 2 banks of 4 and a hoof puts you on an open-topped bus, I know which one I''d prefer.  Get someone in Hoolihans'' place who wants to be a winger and can beat a man and cross a ball, and get Holt a partner who can get onto the flick-ons and lay-offs, and score goals from the opportunities created, and you''ve solved the problem.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="B-ru"]

I agree SA, he can be utilised behind the striker!

I believe Hoolahoop got injured around that time, and then we slipped deeper and deeper into the relegation fight... Not saying that one player makes a team, but it was a formula that did work.

[/quote]

 

As I''ve said elsewhere, I think the only way that he can be accommodated without creating a defensive vulnerability is in a role behind one main striker, and given how poor Cureton has been I''m quite surprised that this hasn''t been tried. The fact that it hasn''t suggests to me that Lambert''s mind is already made up.

[/quote]It''s the old pro-golfer mentality as expressed in that "classic" Kevin Costner film Tin Cup.  Do you play it safe, lay it up and putt it in, or do you go for the hole ?  Most pros play the percentages.

[ref89 0]

Brilliant, brilliant post.  A reality check for some of the people on here that think we should be playing like Arsenal.[quote user="blahblahblah"]Interesting post that Shack.  There are a few possibilities here I suppose :Hoolihan doesn''t fit with the formation Lambert believes will help us win games.  The age old argument on here about Huckerby was that he didn''t do defence, which was great when he was tearing teams open with his feet, but didn''t help us under Grant when we looked fragile on the left in defence.  Hoolihan doesn''t seem to be in the same class as Huckerby, but he doesn''t need to be in league 1.More than likely it''s down to wages.  Lambert will probably be able to bring in an effective (if less pretty) winger who will be happy tracking back, and won''t play best in a free role, for the wages that Hoolihan is on, which to a large extent solves the problem.My opinion is that if you''re going to get out of this league, you need 2 banks of 4 players, you need to "earn the right to play football" as a former manager used to say, and you need someone up front with Holt to open up the other teams'' 2 banks of 4, aswell as a threat from the wing, especially at home.  While we are keeping clean sheets, one goal gets you three points. It might not be pretty, but if pretty football gets you a play-off semis defeat and 2 banks of 4 and a hoof puts you on an open-topped bus, I know which one I''d prefer.  Get someone in Hoolihans'' place who wants to be a winger and can beat a man and cross a ball, and get Holt a partner who can get onto the flick-ons and lay-offs, and score goals from the opportunities created, and you''ve solved the problem.[/quote]

[Mr. Bump 0]

Funny that Lockwood is in that League One team of the year too, the guy relieved by Lambert''s exit.[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I think what this thread shows is that many fans can become convinced a player is vital because he has some pretty tricks despite the facts showing there is little end product.

[/quote]

It depends what you determine as ''facts'' though doesn''t it? If you''re one of those posters who thinks that a players ability can be determined by a few numbers on Wikipedia* then I can understand why you don''t rate the guy. But there''s so much more to a game of football than bare statistics.

In the very few games last season where we actually looked half decent (around the time of Ipswich home game) Hoolahan was given a free role behind Lita in a sort of loose 4-2-3-1 formation. Bell and Croft were alongside him and Pattison and Clingan played slightly deeper. The Ipswich game was the highlight where we played some of the best football I''ve seen at Carrow Road in years. I can''t remember why Roeder changed the team from that point to be honest but that was as good as it got last season and Hoolahan was heavily involved.

* In fact if you look on Wikipedia it gives you a handy link to this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6582201.stm . Does the ''fact'' that Wes Hoolahan is proven to be one of the best players at this level trump his goal and assist stats whilst playing mainly out of position for us? I don''t know to be honest but it makes you wonder why we can''t get the best out of a player who was previously voted one of the best in the division, doesn''t it [:^)]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Interesting that you should mention goal/assist stats in the same paragraph as Bell- do a quick comparison between his and Hoolahans stats against minutes on the pitch.  Who do you think we`d have been better off keeping?

[/quote]

I was one of the very few posters who argued that we should keep David Bell. Yet I was met with a tide of ignorance in the form of "doesn''t get stuck in/too one footed/doesn''t want to be here/no pace". Sound familiar?

[quote user="Smudger"]

Name just one fact that says Hoolahan deserves a place in the squad.

4 assists and 2 goals in 31 games so I believe?

If that pleases you from the supposed most creative player in the team then it is not hard to see why any team you have a say in managing will struggle.  Add to that we all know that he gives the ball away very cheaply and it really is a no brainer to see why he is struggling to get a chance under a decent manager.

[/quote]

When I finally get my big chance at managing a League One side you can pore over my stats on Wikipedia and slag off my win ratio[:|] I''d wager my team will be a damn sight more attractive to watch than yours though [:D]

In your earlier reply to Cam you stated that "maybe Leeds have a bigger squad that may bring the best out of Hoolahan". So you obviously think that in the right set up he can be a decent player (and his performances at Blackpool the year they got promoted would seem to back this up). How big do you think Blackpool''s squad was that year and did they have anyone as good as Jermaine Beckford up front? What did the mighty Blackpool have that we don''t but Leeds do?

[/quote]

[Mr.Carrow 380]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.  We then drop him, win three games and draw one and everyone`s up in arms!

Personally i think this is more about "value for money" in terms of wages and i wouldn`t be surprised if Lambert thinks he can get three more effective players in on less money than Hooly and Doc combined.

[/quote]

Don''t buy this Mr Carrow. Cureton and Russell have never been anything better than mid-table Championship players. It''s not surprising then to see them relegated as the league standard improved. Worthington always recognoised the need to improve to even stand still as did Roeder. I don''t think Grant did which was why we had these players on long contracts.

 

 

[/quote]

Has Hoolihan ever been anything better than a mid-table Championship player?

[nutty nigel 7,651]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.  We then drop him, win three games and draw one and everyone`s up in arms!

Personally i think this is more about "value for money" in terms of wages and i wouldn`t be surprised if Lambert thinks he can get three more effective players in on less money than Hooly and Doc combined.

[/quote]

Don''t buy this Mr Carrow. Cureton and Russell have never been anything better than mid-table Championship players. It''s not surprising then to see them relegated as the league standard improved. Worthington always recognoised the need to improve to even stand still as did Roeder. I don''t think Grant did which was why we had these players on long contracts.

 

 

[/quote]

Has Hoolihan ever been anything better than a mid-table Championship player?

[/quote]

No and that''s a good point. For what it''s worth, and this is only my opinion, Hoolahan and Doherty are the only players out of our big earners who are good enough to interest clubs who can afford their wages. So we are stuck with the rest. Clingan was another so he went, but only to another bottom half Championship team.

The reason we were relegated was because we didn''t have enough players good enough to stay in the division. It''s my fear that we are in the process of getting rid of anyone good enough to get out of this division.

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.

[/quote]

That''s a fair point but how many games has Hoolahan started in his favoured position of attacking midfielder/second striker? I can''t back it up with any ''facts'' but I really think that if we play him in a more central role behind the main striker we would start to see what he can offer the team. At the moment we''re playing Cureton as the second striker so what have we got to lose?

The only reason I think we should get rid of him is if it frees up the wages to get in a couple of players who are going to give us a genuine goalscoring threat (preferably a left or right winger with pace and a second striker with a bit of guile) and take the pressure off Grant Holt. This notion of two banks of four with a big man up front is all very well until you come up against a reasonably well organised side with a decent centre back who''s not intimidated by Holt such as Walsall on Saturday. Then we need a creative presence and at the moment we haven''t got one (although maybe we could consider McVeigh in a more central role [^o)]). Unfortunately as the transfer window is shut we''re probably going to be relying on a couple of Premiership kids on loan to fill the gaps and we haven''t exactly got a great record with them.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr  Carrow"]

To be fair Shack i think it`s a well-balanced argument and i share your frustration that we haven`t got the best out of a decent player.  But on performances for previous clubs Cureton and Russell should be two of our top players....Surely we have to go on whether a player is/has performed for us and Hoolihan hardly ever has- as his stats bear out.

[/quote]

That''s a fair point but how many games has Hoolahan started in his favoured position of attacking midfielder/second striker? I can''t back it up with any ''facts'' but I really think that if we play him in a more central role behind the main striker we would start to see what he can offer the team. At the moment we''re playing Cureton as the second striker so what have we got to lose?

The only reason I think we should get rid of him is if it frees up the wages to get in a couple of players who are going to give us a genuine goalscoring threat (preferably a left or right winger with pace and a second striker with a bit of guile) and take the pressure off Grant Holt. This notion of two banks of four with a big man up front is all very well until you come up against a reasonably well organised side with a decent centre back who''s not intimidated by Holt such as Walsall on Saturday. Then we need a creative presence and at the moment we haven''t got one (although maybe we could consider McVeigh in a more central role [^o)]). Unfortunately as the transfer window is shut we''re probably going to be relying on a couple of Premiership kids on loan to fill the gaps and we haven''t exactly got a great record with them.

 

 

I agree with most of that Shack, and I certainly wouldn''t be averse to seeing Hoolahan as a second striker ( a hamstrung horse would be better than Curetona after all). He is certainly not a left winger, but the problem is I''m not really sure what he is. I agree with your earlier point about the Ipswich game, where he and Pattison both broke forward off Lita and created all sorts of problems, but he has had other opportunities to play in a similar role without tearing up any trees. I amy be wrong but I get the impression that he''s one of those players who is influenced by the zeitgeist. In other words, if those around him set the tempo he rises to the occasion and can then control a game. I have seen very little evidence that he''s the sort of player who will drag everyone behind him.

I also disagree that we lack a creative presence. I believe that Hughes is a high quality playmaker at this level, and will get his share of goals. Having said that we could have had Fabregas and  Xavi in the middle on Saturday with no difference to the outcome as the ball sailed backwards and forwards at altitude!