Hoolahan needs dropping...

[kick it off 2,062]

Actually GJP I''ve not been waiting to have a pop at Wes at all, I used to think he was a luxury we could ill afford but since Lambo came in he has become a far more complete player, and completely changed my mind on him since the beginning of League 1.

I''ll happily praise him when he does well as Wes on form is a great sight to see; but realistically he was awful yesterday and many of Villa''s attacks came from him losing the ball as he was determined to dribble until he lost it rather than keep possession which is something we do well under Lambo.

I retracted the call to drop him but I think Sir Paul needs to have a word after yesterday as I thought the only player that had a worse game was Bennett.

I agree Fox''s set pieces were woeful yesterday but I thought he ran the game for the period he was on and we looked a lot more composed with him pinging the balls about than with Hooly running down blind alleys til he got tackled. Yes Villa countered after a poor Fox delivery but they countered about 10 times after Wes ran into tackles or just wasn''t aware that he had a man coming in and let himself get tackled.

In fairness to Wes - Lambert should have subbed him at half time as he was clearly flogging a dead horse and it wasn''t going to be his day but I was disappointed Wes didn''t seem to have his usual energy defensively and didn''t seem interested in playing the team game yesterday...

That chance he had to put either striker clean through one on one when we were attacking in a 3 on 1 situation when he elected to just try and dribble in circles until not only had Villa got players back to cover but he also got tackled was suicidal attacking and imo had he played either one in we may well have a point to show for our efforts yday... I''m not sure if they showed it on MOTD but those in the ground should know the one i mean.

[mozzaman 0]

I was at the game yesterday and I saw it as a poor performance from Wessy, rather than a lack of commitment (can you imagine any Norwich player not showing up under Lambert?)

He was really poor. Often facing the wrong way, not looking up to receive the ball (this might be why you level the commitment allegation at him) which i suspect was the result of knocked confidence after bad game, poor distribution, choosing wrong options etc.

It also must be said that with Villa''s big defence he had neither the requisite strength or pace to better them, rendering him ineffective. He just looked really poor, giving the ball away and missing his tackles. My french girlfriend who was with me said "le quattorze il est chiant". Indeed.

He should have come off for Jackson a little before he did .

Re Fox, who is incedentally my favourite player, his distribution was also very poor which seems to have been missed by some on here. Low on confidence too it seems.

I hope that Lambert can work his magic with Hoolahan to prevent another performance like this.

[Drurys Testamonials 0]

As others have pointed out, Wes just doesn''t cut it when we play 4-4-2.Yesterday he was out of his depth and mostly ineffectual in midfield. He is much more suited to the diamond when he can have free reign and be creative. Lambert has had him on the bench in other games and previous seasons when 4-4-2 was desired against the opposition so I''m confused why he didn''t do this yesterday.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

[quote user="kick it off"]Ummm Cantiaci - I said yesterday he didn''t look interested, if you were there you would have seen the exact same thing. I haven''t questioned his loyalty, or ability merely said that yesterday he looked like he couldn''t be bothered.

The inability to correctly word simply worded posts betrays sever ignorance on your part...[/quote]

Did I say you questioned his ''loyalty, (sic) or ability''?

Now what was that about the inability to correctly read simply worded posts?

[city4eva 241]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Totally unfair kick it off. Fine, he may have had an off day but to question his commitment betrays severe ignorance on your part.[/quote]

 

But he did have a terrible game yesterday and did look a little disinterested

[city4eva 241]

[quote user="kick it off"]Actually GJP I''ve not been waiting to have a pop at Wes at all, I used to think he was a luxury we could ill afford but since Lambo came in he has become a far more complete player, and completely changed my mind on him since the beginning of League 1. I''ll happily praise him when he does well as Wes on form is a great sight to see; but realistically he was awful yesterday and many of Villa''s attacks came from him losing the ball as he was determined to dribble until he lost it rather than keep possession which is something we do well under Lambo. I retracted the call to drop him but I think Sir Paul needs to have a word after yesterday as I thought the only player that had a worse game was Bennett. I agree Fox''s set pieces were woeful yesterday but I thought he ran the game for the period he was on and we looked a lot more composed with him pinging the balls about than with Hooly running down blind alleys til he got tackled. Yes Villa countered after a poor Fox delivery but they countered about 10 times after Wes ran into tackles or just wasn''t aware that he had a man coming in and let himself get tackled. In fairness to Wes - Lambert should have subbed him at half time as he was clearly flogging a dead horse and it wasn''t going to be his day but I was disappointed Wes didn''t seem to have his usual energy defensively and didn''t seem interested in playing the team game yesterday... That chance he had to put either striker clean through one on one when we were attacking in a 3 on 1 situation when he elected to just try and dribble in circles until not only had Villa got players back to cover but he also got tackled was suicidal attacking and imo had he played either one in we may well have a point to show for our efforts yday... I''m not sure if they showed it on MOTD but those in the ground should know the one i mean.[/quote]

 

Yes I know exactly what you mean , it was a shocking decision not to put either striker through, but there was so much wrong yesterday including Bennets pass in to his own box instead of putting it out for a throw

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

[quote user="city4eva"]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Totally unfair kick it off. Fine, he may have had an off day but to question his commitment betrays severe ignorance on your part.[/quote]

 

But he did have a terrible game yesterday and did look a little disinterested

[/quote]

If he was genuinely ''disinterested'' (which is a pretty severe accusation!) then there is no way that Lambert will field him again before Christmas.

Again - lets not mistake having an off day (and God knows we all have them ... including the best players in the world) for lack of interest.

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

Get out!!

Only problem yesterday was we missed Johnson after he went off, and should have stuck with Fox as we missed his passing - which is key to a team that pass

[GJP 79]

[quote user="kick it off"] I used to think he was a luxury we could ill afford but since Lambo came in he has become a far more complete player, and completely changed my mind on him since the beginning of League 1. . [/quote]

See I''ve never once seen him as a luxury player. He brings far too much to the team to be seen as a luxury player. His overall work rate combined with his ability to keep the ball (either by passing it to a yellow shirt or by protecting it himself) plus his ability to create chances for his colleagues have always made him a million miles way from a luxury player in my eyes.

 

He was a good player before Lambert was here but unfortunately before Lambert he was working for managers and playing with guys who were, frankly, not good enough to do him justice.

[Robert N. LiM 6,206]

The second best football quote of all time in my opinion is Danny Blanchflower''s line:

''Hoddle a luxury?'' It''s the bad players who are a luxury.

Didn''t see Saturday''s game, and Wes undoubtedly has his off days, but he is the opposite of a luxury player if you ask me.

My impression of him has always been his total commitment. Even when he''s playing poorly he never hides, always wants the ball. It would be very unusual if that was the case on Sat.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="city4eva"]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Totally unfair kick it off. Fine, he may have had an off day but to question his commitment betrays severe ignorance on your part.[/quote]

 

But he did have a terrible game yesterday and did look a little disinterested

[/quote]thats how it all began for Damien Francis i seem to recall...whats that.. January is on the way????

[Michael Starr 571]

Oh for crying out loud. We''re in the top half of the best league in world football with players from the 3rd tier of England. Cut him some slack, he had a bad game, he''s human.

[splutcho 196]

He was really poor on Saturday, but he was out of position and we all have off days.

[Huckerbury 0]

Must have been watching a different game to me!

Yes he lost the ball, but he was once again the creative spark that made so many opportunities for us!

[barclay seats 4849 0]

I totally agree with the OP ''s original remarks

I think too many city fans are blinkered where hoolihan is concerned , he is the same as others in the squad ... he has off days , good days .. and effectivly makes us a 10 man team when he plays like he did yesterday ..... I don''t think its harsh to drop him,, others including chris martin deserve a chance now

[Legend Iwan 30]

Just had a look on the chalkboards from the weekend Wes completed 36 passes from 42 - a decent percentage, and certainly not how people have described. He also won 3 out of the 5 tackles he made.

The issue from the viewing the chalkboard is that most of his passes were either sideways or backwards. Which is uncharacteristic of him and I would say a waste of his talent as an attacking player

[Gingerpele 0]

We don''t have a player called ''hoolihan'' I know my spelling isn''t perfect, but spelling a players name wrong when the correct spelling is in the title is terrible.... Why do so many people spell it with an i, its not even said with an i...

One below par performance doesn''t warrant dropping barclay seats. Its not being blinkered, its common sense, he''s out best player and has had one poor game, unless Lambert feels the need to play a formation that Hoolahan doesn''t fit into, Hoolahan should be starting.

Anyone can have a bad day, so why when Hoolahan doesn''t play well, do you have to say like a 10 man team? Doesn''t sound like Naughton, Barnett or R.Martin played well, so were we actually a 7 man team? No, because Hoolahan wasn''t on top of his game, we were a 10 man team.

Why does Chris Martin deserve a chance ahead of Hoolahan? Martin hasn''t played in Hoolahan''s position properly yet, and as much as I rate Martin, he doesn''t deserve to play ahead of Hoolahan, thats ridiculous...

I''m afraid it would appear your the blinkered one, if you think one below par performance means he deserves to get dropped. If Lambert has to drop players after 1 below par game, then he''s not a very good manager....

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Hoolahan certainly wasn''t at his best on Saturday but was no where near being poor!

He is one of our best players so we''ll need him in the team more than hes not!

[GJP 79]

[quote user="barclay seats 4849 "]I totally agree with the OP ''s original remarks I think too many city fans are blinkered where hoolihan is concerned , he is the same as others in the squad ... he has off days , good days .. and effectivly makes us a 10 man team when he plays like he did yesterday ..... I don''t think its harsh to drop him,, others including chris martin deserve a chance now[/quote]

Yeah but it''s not being blinkered though is it?

 

Wes Hoolahan has been an outstanding player for Norwich City for the last 2-3 years. His good games by far outweigh his bad games. He''s played a huge role in 2 successful promotion campaigns and Paul Lambert has seen fit to use him heavily in the Premier League.

 

So, actually, it would be harsh to drop him because you don''t just do that to a player who has been so very, very good for you. Not after 1 bad game (or even a couple of them).

 

Also, seeing as you mentioned him, Lambert has given Martin plenty of chances since the start of last season but he''s never really produced anything to make a big statement saying he should be in the team.

[ZLF 334]

Hoolahan needs dropping? Not really.

better headlines could be

Hoolahan should not be played in centre midfield in a 442

or

play Hoolahan only when we build the team around him

or

Hoolahan was ineffective on Sat

Personally Wes work hard and if he plays with the right structure around him then he brings flair and creativity to the team; on sat with 2 wingers he was over run in the middle and we paid the price as a consequence.

Play our best players to their potential... And Wes is a creative star and the hub of the team in a 4231

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="barclay seats 4849 "]I totally agree with the OP ''s original remarks I think too many city fans are blinkered where hoolihan is concerned [/quote]

 

If anything I would say it was the other way round. Hoolahan has never received the praise that, for instance, Grant Holt has from City fans despite being equally important to our success over the last couple of years.

 

Does he need dropping? Well I didn''t think he had a particularly good game on Saturday but he was nowhere near as bad as the OP suggests. It is a risk playing him as part of a central midfield two but Paul Lambert obviously feels his defensive play has improved enough to play there. I don''t necessarily agree but then I''m not the manager of NCFC! I''d like to see us go back to five in midfield for the visit of Arsenal with Wes as the most advanced of those five. The only real criticism that I would level at him this season is that he hasn''t really got involved enough in the creating of chances but that is a direct result of him being more defensively minded these days. His role in the 4-5-1 (or 4-2-3-1 if you prefer) is in some ways less of a ''free role'' than it was when he played at the tip of the diamond.

 

We tend to look a much better team when Wes is in it (much like we do when David Fox is selected) which is as good a reason as any for not dropping him.