Lawrenson you ***

[Aggy 755]

AJ - his exact words were "No. No. Holt''s had a fantastic season, but no."

What more could he have said? If he strongly believes that Holt won''t get picked (as do I), then he can strongly say that. He did indeed try to show some respect by saying what a good season Holt has had, but that hasn''t made him think the England manager will select him. Again, I''d agree, and I don''t think Lawrenson in this instance was unnecessarily rude whatsoever.

[Bill 1,788]

You can pay for the call01603 441531

[Mike 2]

I get out lots and you''ll be pleased to know I live a full and enjoyable life.

Is this your idea of intelligent debate? Interesting.....

Anyway, I think a lot of us, myself included thought Lawrensens one word reply was disrespectfull but at the very least very lazy.

As a pundit you should explain why you have that opinion.

You take care now...

[Bill 1,788]

"Is this your idea of intelligent debate? Interesting....."Nope, just bored at work

[Bundy 0]

Whether the question was ''will'' or ''should'' is irrelevant, his answer would have been the same.  Lawrenson is an idiot, if you have heard him on Radio 5 you will know that, quip, quip, innacuracy.  He will always be a little resentful of clubs like us, Swansea etc., as for one he will end up wrong after initially predicting automatic relegation, and secondly he will have to educate himself with clubs he has no interest in, given their lack of stature.  What he and any other pundit fails to come up with are alternatives.  Scoring 15 goals for us in itself would in any other season not be a reason for putting forward Holt for an England call, but who else?  Not that England have much of a chance, but if we go in with Sturridge and Welbeck, two very similar players (and both woefully off form) we may as well not bother.  There needs to be a number 9, if not Holt, who? Crouch?  After that I''m struggling to come up with anyone.   

[xymox 7]

Was keen for some intelligent conversation city but got no response from that number.

Shall we close this on we fcuking love grant holt. If you would like to argue about should or would or will or hoolihan or howsen or Bennett or zak you have my number.

OTBC. Grant Holt for Engerland

[Jacko 0]

If you don''t rate Holt or you think that there are better options at international level out there then fair enough. But to dismiss him out of hand and not give any consideration to to the 2nd highest English goalscorer in the league is completely unfair and very disrespectful.

From where I am sitting Grant''s crime is not that he isn''t good enough (see 15 goals in 31 games this season) and it is not that he isn''t skilful enough (see the Everton goal where he is surrounded by an English, Dutch and American International, threading it past all of them)

His only crime seems to be that he plays for unfashionable club and is seen as the big, burly Cumbrian so he isn''t taken seriously. If thats the case, sod em Grant. They don''t deserve you mate.

[technika 0]

this is all coming from an ex footballer who has been out predicted by such legendary pundits of the likes of tinchy stryder, frankie dettori, bobby george, gary oldman & ola jordan amongst many others, and thats just this season. Its laughablehes a faarking moron, no one really likes him, and hes on motd with another ex liverpool player who thinks the sun shines from kennys rear, hardly likely to back holty considering the money the dirty to55er5 have spent this season (even just on carroll).theyve made a ton of mistakes, he wont ever admit it and praise teams or players around that area of the tablehopefully harry/whoevers in charge will pick the FORM players. holtys not genuine top draw/world class, but hes been the best of the rest by a long long shot so should probably go, no one in europe would expect it and would have to adapt. Even if its just a squad place, who else is there? Im a cynical mofo, and i think hes a bit of a beast but england dont really have anyone else like that whos in form so why not

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

[quote user="jamesg"]Just pathetic from the great pundit, ignored a blatant obstruction in the most dismissive terms and then didn''t even enter into a conversation re Holt going to the Euros, even jug ears looked surprised. Oh that''s right, we were going to be in League 2 by now Nostradamus of the football world[/quote]

 

Actually JamesG, it''s not just Lawrenson - Hansen was equally as emphatic saying that Crouch was a better player.

 

On top of that, Matt Le Tissier, on 2 successive weeks on SSN has said that GH is not good enough for an international call - last week trying to push Ricky Lambert in front of GH (Jeff Stelling was quite incredulous about that). After today''s goal, Stelling is starting to wind Le Tissier up a bit on the GH for England bandwagon!

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

As was said above, Holt should be selected because of the Rooney situation and the fact that there are so few worthwhile alternatives. Grant offers much more than goals as well. I like Crouch as a player but he seems to wallow in his own publicity, especially with his lovely WAG in tow and I suspect his influence in the squad is not as positive as Grant''s.

 

Sour face on MoD is bad television, his opinionated waffling is often easily disputable and he contributes to the reason that that programme is losing viewers at the expense of Sky''s Football First. Him and Hansen are past their sell buy dates and Lineker is not the funny man he thinks he is.

 

Shearer is dire too. This programme used to be one of the highlights of the week but now with so much TV coverage of the beautiful game these days it has become a bit redundant, for me at least.

 

Time for a change Beeb as even the panel for Britain''s Talent could be more informative and entertaining. At leastWalliams would be amusing.[:D]

[K Lo 224]

Two seasons ago, with Norwich in League One, would Lawro, Hanson etc have said that Holt was good enough for the Prem? Of course not. I bet Holt WOULD do well at international level for England. Let''s face it, England are crap and have been for years now, it''s only France that makes us look vaguely alive but compared to Germany & Spain and even perhaps the likes of Croatia, we''re way off the pace. I''m actually going to enjoy Euro 2012 because I''ve not got any hopes of England winning anything, apart from the wooden spoon!

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I was listening to Greg Downs on the radio on the way home from the game talking about Marriner''s inept performance (again, ask a Forest fan what they think of him), he was saying, as have others, that for the standard of refereeing to improve players need to become referee''s when they retire, as they would have a much better understanding of the game.

Makes sense doesn''t it.

Until you see retired players on the MOTD sofa. Can you imagine a team like us getting any sort of decision against a top 6 club from Lawrenson, Hanson, Shearer or Lineker? I think not.

As you were please.

[Old Shuck 183]

MOTD is as good as finished anyway.

 

With Channel 4 expected to outbid the BBC for Prem highlights from after next season, where are they going to go then?

 

The  BBC had a good Football League package including live games but chose not to continue with that.

 

Its all about ratings for the BBC now-which isn''t their remit. That does mean, however, football coverage and analysis which is one dimensional and offers little or nothing than an ability to state the obvious.

 

"Talk us through the <insert small team name here> goal Mark"

 

Lawro: "Welllllll Gary, the number 8 gets the ball out on the pitch, he runs with it a bit and passes it to the lad now coming into the picture..coming into the picture...picture...here he is, he goes down the wing, knocks the ball across, Skrtel slips on the substandard pitch which means that Jose Enrique is unsighted, and just here, look, Jamie Carragher is still getting his breath back...."

 

Hansen: "Thats a disgrace that is, the lads in the other team not giving Jamie lad a chance to get back. Kenny will no be pleased about that I can tell yea. He''ll have something to say aboout that on the golf course tamarraw..."

 

Lawro: "So he punts it across and the big number nine luckily clips it in from the edge of the box, Reina is unsighted as well...."

 

Hansen: "Thats a disgrace an''all, the lads in the other team were in his way. How can that be right? In his way. I''m telling you, Kenny will no be happy about that. Best keeper in the world and opposition players get in the way, Disgrace"

 

Lawro: "...and it goes in. So they have a goal. But was it a goal, did they deserve their 3-0 win? No."

 

Hansen: "I agree. No."

 

 

[smooth 114]

Let Holty do his talking on the field.As a fan who gives no hoots about England I don''t care about what it would do for our national team. Holt could get amazing recognition, but it is a tournament where England are making up the numbers, we have an ageing supposed ''Golden era'' and no real direction with our new blood.Holt is the perfect striker for England, passionate, strong and would trouble any international defender... has he got immense quality maybe not but his passion would bring the ''3 lions'' attitude to a lacklustre England team, he is a leader.But personally, I would want him ready for next season, he may be more tired, may get injured in the tournament. I understand why the pundits don''t think he can fit the bill as they think he is 1 dimensional, if Carlton Cole was in the prem of course he would be looked at, as will Crouch. But Holt will actually physically beat any international defender.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I''m obviously slightly biased here being a Norwich fan, but comparing Holt to Crouch, while not as extreme as chalk and cheese, but say jam and peanut butter.

 

Anyone who has seen Holt play a few times will know that he is not your typical big, burly centre forward, he offers much, much more to the team with his all round play.  Crouch may be very tall and can hold the ball up well, but he doesn''t use his height to his advantage.

 

Holt uses his size and every bit of nous he has to his advantage.  His all round play and aura is equally as important as his goals.  Holt''s effect on the dressing room would be very positive.

 

I can see the England manager going with Rooney (obviously), Defoe and Crouch (who have played well together in a variety of teams in the past) and then either Sturridge or Welbeck.  And should one of the these get injured, they''ll take who doesn''t get selected from Sturridge or Welbeck.  I think that there would have to be 2, but probably 3 injuries to the above for Holt to get selected.

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="xymox"]Was keen for some intelligent conversation city but got no response from that number. [/quote]That would be because its the number for The Samaritans shop on Aylsham rd.

[paul moy 235]

Bearing in mind Lawro''s track record on predictions I would say that Holt is now a dead certainty for the Euros !!  [:D]

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Cannot help but think that there has been a huge overreaction to this by some posters. I''m not Lawrenson''s bigest fan, but he was asked a perfectly straight forward question by Lineker as to whether he thought Holt would be picked for the Euros. To be fair, he gave a perfectly straight unequivocal answer... No.  I happen to agree with him. 

 

In fact, I think it was Hansen that said Crouch is a better player than Holt. At the risk of getting hauled over the coals by LDC et al for being "negative" and disrespecting our players, overall, it''s hard to dispute that opinion. All-round I''d say that Crouch is better, and has done it for a good while now. That said, they are both big guys, but totally different players. I just think, on the basis that you can realistically take only one big striker in a number-limited squad, given the choice, with my England (as opposed to City) hat on, I''d probably plump for Crouch. In fact, I don''t think either will go.

 

I''m not sure that on this occasion, either of the two pundits said anything that a fair minded observer could be described as "anti-Norwich" They just gave their honest opinions as to what would happen next month, and, like everyone on here, they are surely entitled to that ?

[Old Shuck 183]

Good points Eric.

 

What irks me is that players like Carlton Cole, David Nugent and Kevin Davies have all been given their chance with England in recent years, indeed, when Davies was selected, fans and media alike were celebrating the fact and showing it proved there was quality beneath the perceived top sides and that there was a need for a player like him in the squad, it gave everyone else hope, showed the squad and FA weren''t elitist etc etc.

 

Davies has his five mins in an England shirt, doesn''t get a hat-trick so is quickly and quietly disposed of, ditto the others I have mentioned.

 

You tend to think that, far from giving players like Holt..plus Ruddy, Sinclair, Graham etc...hope, the experience of and in Davies counts against them, they''re all patronisingly painted with the same jaundiced brush, thus the Campbells and Welbecks are championed to the rooftops and someone like Zamora, massive transfer fees and wages, but a better player than Holt, no, and all day long at that-is held in reverence and seen as the real ''leftfield'' candidate.

 

Money talks and bullshit walks onto the Wembley pitch in an England shirt.

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]I was listening to Greg Downs on the radio on the way home from the game talking about Marriner''s inept performance (again, ask a Forest fan what they think of him), he was saying, as have others, that for the standard of refereeing to improve players need to become referee''s when they retire, as they would have a much better understanding of the game. Makes sense doesn''t it. Until you see retired players on the MOTD sofa. Can you imagine a team like us getting any sort of decision against a top 6 club from Lawrenson, Hanson, Shearer or Lineker? I think not. As you were please.[/quote]

You''ve just hit the nail on the head.

This idea of training players to become Refs is crazy, more than half the players don''t know the rules, and nearly all of them spend their entire careers trying to bend them to see what they can get away with!

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"]

Cannot help but think that there has been a huge overreaction to this by some posters. I''m not Lawrenson''s bigest fan, but he was asked a perfectly straight forward question by Lineker as to whether he thought Holt would be picked for the Euros. To be fair, he gave a perfectly straight unequivocal answer... No.  I happen to agree with him.  In fact, I think it was Hansen that said Crouch is a better player than Holt. At the risk of getting hauled over the coals by LDC et al for being "negative" and disrespecting our players, overall, it''s hard to dispute that opinion. All-round I''d say that Crouch is better, and has done it for a good while now. That said, they are both big guys, but totally different players. I just think, on the basis that you can realistically take only one big striker in a number-limited squad, given the choice, with my England (as opposed to City) hat on, I''d probably plump for Crouch. In fact, I don''t think either will go. I''m not sure that on this occasion, either of the two pundits said anything that a fair minded observer could be described as "anti-Norwich" They just gave their honest opinions as to what would happen next month, and, like everyone on here, they are surely entitled to that ?

[/quote]

 

The reason it''s called television is that you can see what the people on it look like and how they react.  Nodding your head (intimating ''yes'') and saying ''no''  speaks volumes.  Body language/ dismissive/ trying to be funny - call it what you like, but it was not a straight and unequivocal answer. Nodding yes, saying no - what is unequivocal about that?     Later on they tried to recover what was a poor moment by ''discussing'' Crouch/Holt albeit with one line.   

 

Lets face it, as a show MOTD is just poor.

 

 

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,415]

My thoughts on this.

There is no agenda against Norwich City on MOTD.

Coming at the Holt thing from another angle, I thought perhaps Lawrenson was saying that the forwards for the Euros are already pencilled in (they will be the usual media darlings and non-performers) and no matter what Holt does or has done he won''t get a look in.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][

The reason it''s called television is that you can see what the people on it look like and how they react.  Nodding your head (intimating ''yes'') and saying ''no''  speaks volumes.  Body language/ dismissive/ trying to be funny - call it what you like, but it was not a straight and unequivocal answer. Nodding yes, saying no - what is unequivocal about that?     Later on they tried to recover what was a poor moment by ''discussing'' Crouch/Holt albeit with one line.   

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Oh dear. You really don''t do irony or tongue in cheek, do you LDC ?

 

Each to their own I guess, but if you''d really like to see some p1ss poor football shows delivered in a poe- faced, monosyllabic way, can I respectfully suggest you come over here to France and sample the delights of TF1 or Canal Plus''s offerings ?

 

Look. Unless about 5 players get injured in the next couple of weeks, Grant Holt is not going to be in the England 23 to go to Ukraine. End of. Get over it.

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="lake district canary"][

The reason it''s called television is that you can see what the people on it look like and how they react.  Nodding your head (intimating ''yes'') and saying ''no''  speaks volumes.  Body language/ dismissive/ trying to be funny - call it what you like, but it was not a straight and unequivocal answer. Nodding yes, saying no - what is unequivocal about that?     Later on they tried to recover what was a poor moment by ''discussing'' Crouch/Holt albeit with one line.   

[/quote]

Oh dear. You really don''t do irony or tongue in cheek, do you LDC ?

Each to their own I guess, but if you''d really like to see some p1ss poor football shows delivered in a poe- faced, monosyllabic way, can I respectfully suggest you come over here to France and sample the delights of TF1 or Canal Plus''s offerings ?

Look. Unless about 5 players get injured in the next couple of weeks, Grant Holt is not going to be in the England 23 to go to Ukraine. End of. Get over it.

[/quote]

 

 

Errr.... did I say anything in  my post about Grant Holt for England???     It was a comment about Lawro.   As for irony - if there was any irony in your previous post - I fail to see it - irony, to be effective has to be reasonably decipherable to people, otherwise its not irony..........

 

By and by - you really don''t seem to undestand me, so instead of these constant references to me in your posts (LDC this, LDC that) why don''t you just ignore me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[. 0]

[quote user="Wings of a Sparrow"]My thoughts on this.

There is no agenda against Norwich City on MOTD.

Coming at the Holt thing from another angle, I thought perhaps Lawrenson was saying that the forwards for the Euros are already pencilled in (they will be the usual media darlings and non-performers) and no matter what Holt does or has done he won''t get a look in.[/quote]I share these thoughts exactly....Football is like any other high profile situation.... it''s who you know not what you know. Grant Holt is an ''outsider'' and his face would never fit into the closed world called the FA.It''s a shame.... but it''s always been the same.

[chicken 0]

I don''t think Lawro is out of order, he''s entitled to his opinion for one, but he probably has more contacts inside the FA to know what the current thoughts are re England.

And later on, as he pointed out, top level footy is often based around a lot of pacey players these days which is the problem he sees of having two players like Crouch or Holt in one squad.

How many strikers will they take? Four? Five?

Rooney, Bent (who has been injured), Wellbeck (he''s the future), Abonlahor and another?

Ruddy has more chance of making it to be honest.

 

What annoys me more about MotD last night was the way they depicted the game which made it appear very even when it was anything but. They failed to show the penalty that should have been given, the three tackles from Baines that should have led to him being sent off and only showed the play-acting after the highlights when brought up by pundits. It wasn''t a reflection of the game.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

 

Errr.... did I say anything in  my post about Grant Holt for England???     It was a comment about Lawro.   As for irony - if there was any irony in your previous post - I fail to see it - irony, to be effective has to be reasonably decipherable to people, otherwise its not irony..........

 

By and by - you really don''t seem to undestand me, so instead of these constant references to me in your posts (LDC this, LDC that) why don''t you just ignore me.

 

[/quote]

 

Another misunderstanding, LDC. I was not being ironic myself in my last posting, just suggesting that when ML nodded his head , yet said "no" (which, for some reason seemed to raise your hackles) he might just have been being ironic or tongue in cheek.

 

Why on earth should I "ignore " you ? You have some very good points to make and express them in an articulate manner. I don''t happen to agree with them all. When I do, I say so . Likewise, when I don''t.  As do many other posters on all sorts of subjects. It would be pretty futile if we just all ignored everyone we did not agree with. The forum would cease to exist pretty quickly too !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lake district canary 0]

[quote user="Eric Pickles Pie Supplier"][quote user="lake district canary"]

 

Errr.... did I say anything in  my post about Grant Holt for England???     It was a comment about Lawro.   As for irony - if there was any irony in your previous post - I fail to see it - irony, to be effective has to be reasonably decipherable to people, otherwise its not irony..........   By and by - you really don''t seem to undestand me, so instead of these constant references to me in your posts (LDC this, LDC that) why don''t you just ignore me.

[/quote]

 

Another misunderstanding, LDC. I was not being ironic myself in my last posting, just suggesting that when ML nodded his head , yet said "no" (which, for some reason seemed to raise your hackles) he might just have been being ironic or tongue in cheek.  Why on earth should I "ignore " you ? You have some very good points to make and express them in an articulate manner. I don''t happen to agree with them all. When I do, I say so . Likewise, when I don''t.  As do many other posters on all sorts of subjects. It would be pretty futile if we just all ignored everyone we did not agree with. The forum would cease to exist pretty quickly too !

 

[/quote]

 

 

I misunderstood, Eric.  I guess  I''ve just got no time for the cronies that turn up on motd every week - I find it difficult to take anything they say with a pinch of salt. They are pilloried  whatever they say or don''t say - I think they know that - so it has just become a shadow of the programme it used to be.  The football league show was much better and  in the last couple of seasons,   well worth waiting up for.   

 

I feel sorry for you if your French football programmes are worse than motd - they must be bad!!   Motd would be better without the usual pundits and go to a format of different people each week - a bit like motd2, who have at least one different guest each week.  Lawro and Hansen have been doing it too long and anyway are both of the same club, so their bias is ingrained - however hard they try to cover it up with platitudes.

 

 

[Aggy 755]

I''d certainly agree with you LDC about the show in general. I''m not a fan of Lawrenson or Hansen to be honest and, as we''ve discussed elsewhere, the likes of Goals on Sunday on Sky and even the Football League Show seem to have found a formula that works better than MOTD.

I can''t argue with most of what you''ve said in this thread regarding that, it''s just the people who for some reason think the show is deliberately biased against Norwich and all the pundits hate us that annoy me slightly - it''s almost the complete opposite of the "little Old Norwich" thing; it seems anything slightly negative said against Norwich (by either MOTD pundits or our own fans) is inherently evil according to some posters on here!

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

How the heck did arsehole get through the swear filter as a thread title?[:^)]