HOLT: Signed Up Just To Say This

[Not Nigel 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

No player is beyond criticism and sometimes, just sometimes, Grant Holt has a bad game.

 

My main worry about Holt is the team becomes too dependent on him, like Bolton did with Kevin Davies, and never spends the money to get in someone better. Bolton bought Elmander to replace Davies and ended up selling him and keeping Davies, and then getting relegated.

 

 

[/quote]

Bolton didn''t sell Elmander, he refused to sign a new contract and left on a free transfer. Davies was 35 by then..... Holt is 31. There are numerous reasons why Bolton went down, the ridiculous decision to let Gary Megson manage them being one of them. He sold Kevin Nolan for £4m.... Davies used to assist most of his goals.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

Just to add on the Holt debate - I think he has made it pretty clear that he doesn''t feel much of a connection to Norwich and would happily switch clubs if the chance came along. Fair enough, Norwich will try to get shot of him as soon as he doesn''t make the grade anyway.

 

I''d happily sell him in the summer and bring in a replacement - it is of course a risk but its also a risk to keep him and hope he is as good at 33 as he was at 31. Best to cut your loses on these kind of things rather than have a beloved player who is slowly getting worse and worse.

[/quote] Bethnal Yellow, how has he made it clear that he doesn''t have much of a connection to Norwich? Sounds like pure conjuncture to me. If you mean the transfer request then I think you will find that his discontentment was at the length of his contract. He wanted three years, he had two years, wanting to stay an extra year? Doesn''t sound too desperate to leave to me. Both Lambert and Hughton gave him the captain''s armband, the players love him, we play better with him on the pitch..... the idea that he doesn''t want to be here doesn''t sit with me. The thing is that the statement "a beloved player who is slowly getting worse and worse" isn''t one which I agree with, that''s my point of this thread - I simply cannot agree that he is any worse than he was last year. I thought I''d done a pretty good job of illustrating how he is doing the job that he has been given very well. You are, basically, one of the people that I was referring to in my original thread. You don''t understand Holt''s ability, his importance to the team, and think that he is somehow easily replaceable. You think that he is declining as a player when it is obvious that he is being heavily restricted by tactics. What evidence is there that he is in any way declining or "getting worse"? Less goals? Simple.... less chances. Less running? Simple..... he has a responsibility to the team to stay rigid. He hasn''t got the license to be fluid and all over the place like some sort of maverick trequartista..... there is no evidence to suggest that, if played in a 4-4-2, he wouldn''t be all over the place drifting wide, running to the corners, and dropping deep.... like we are used to him doing. I 100% disagree with you on this.[/quote]

 

Right, first the personal stuff with Holt. He has just bought a new home in Carlise and has always very clearly stated he will move back there the day after he retires. He is Darren Huckerby, he isn''t going to stay in the area and if a good offer was put before him I truely believe he would be off - the transfer request stuff from the summer proved that 100%. Also just lots of silly little things on Twitter like saying he would play for Celtic if the chance came etc. There is no need for him to respond to these kind of messages and it has a slight air of disrespect for Norwich. I''m not usually someone to get worked up about these things, having work in sports media for a few years I know there is no real thing as ''loyalty'' but there is such a thing as common sense.

 

I haven''t said he is declining as a player, but he will, it happens to every player. 32/33 is generally regarded as the ''cliff face'' for players (especially strikers) and only a few can manage to maintain a high level of performance after that age. Holt relies on energy and physical strenght for a lot of his game those are the things a player loses after the pace has gone. I don''t judge players on goals, as in the words of Jonathan Wilson ''goals are overrated'' and I agree with this, sticking your foot out a having a ball bounce off it is a much lessor skill that the movement it requires to get to that position; Kris Boyd, Alfonso Alves et al have proven you can be a naff player and score a lot of goals in the right team. I do judge players on the other aspects of their game and Holt just hasn''t been the same level as last year in some games this year - whether that is down to fatigue as Lambert tended to rotate him a little more or a lack of pressure from other player sitting on the bench or from the aging process is impossible to know. I did witness in the Tottenham game that he misplaced a lot relatively simple passes, I mean 2 or 3 metre passes. But as I have said before, I have no immediate issue with Holt, he is doing a good job this season and putting a lot of good work in.

 

I do understand Holt''s role, and his ''importance to the team'' and I know it won''t be easy to replace him but it has to happen at one point. Why not in the summer when Norwich will have a large transfer budget? If Holt was a younger man I would say keep him - but no one can argue with his age. Waiting too long could be as diasterous for Norwich as it was for Bolton with Kevin Davies.

 

To hold Holt up on a pedistal is dangerous - no man is bigger than the club and when Holt''s time comes say thanks and ship him off somewhere.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

No player is beyond criticism and sometimes, just sometimes, Grant Holt has a bad game.

 

My main worry about Holt is the team becomes too dependent on him, like Bolton did with Kevin Davies, and never spends the money to get in someone better. Bolton bought Elmander to replace Davies and ended up selling him and keeping Davies, and then getting relegated.

 

 

[/quote]

Bolton didn''t sell Elmander, he refused to sign a new contract and left on a free transfer. Davies was 35 by then..... Holt is 31. There are numerous reasons why Bolton went down, the ridiculous decision to let Gary Megson manage them being one of them. He sold Kevin Nolan for £4m.... Davies used to assist most of his goals.[/quote]Soon racking up those posts mate [;)] You enjoy it here dont you? Which is good as I''ve enjoyed your posts so far. [Y]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

[quote user="singupcarrowroad"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

No player is beyond criticism and sometimes, just sometimes, Grant Holt has a bad game.

 

My main worry about Holt is the team becomes too dependent on him, like Bolton did with Kevin Davies, and never spends the money to get in someone better. Bolton bought Elmander to replace Davies and ended up selling him and keeping Davies, and then getting relegated.

 

 

[/quote] Bolton didn''t sell Elmander, he refused to sign a new contract and left on a free transfer. Davies was 35 by then..... Holt is 31. There are numerous reasons why Bolton went down, the ridiculous decision to let Gary Megson manage them being one of them. He sold Kevin Nolan for £4m.... Davies used to assist most of his goals.[/quote]

 

Elmander didn''t sign a new contract because Bolton had spent a large part of their wage budget on a nice new contract for Kevin Davies - they made a choice to keep the older player and it cost them.

[Jonzey 0]

I''ve never agreed with anything more OP. Grant Holt is essential to NCFC.

 

A true talisman for us, a leader and a great forward.

 

But alas I fear you have fallen foul of the boards Troll, and his earlier post slating Grant Holt. Never feed a troll, they''re starved of attention and love this type of response. True City fans understand what you have said OP and just ignore lonely trolls.

[NCFC REVERIE 0]

This may be a first, a grown up lucid and insightful post leading to respectful and reasonable responses.

Please keep posting.

[Not Nigel 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"][quote user="singupcarrowroad"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

Just to add on the Holt debate - I think he has made it pretty clear that he doesn''t feel much of a connection to Norwich and would happily switch clubs if the chance came along. Fair enough, Norwich will try to get shot of him as soon as he doesn''t make the grade anyway.

 

I''d happily sell him in the summer and bring in a replacement - it is of course a risk but its also a risk to keep him and hope he is as good at 33 as he was at 31. Best to cut your loses on these kind of things rather than have a beloved player who is slowly getting worse and worse.

[/quote] Bethnal Yellow, how has he made it clear that he doesn''t have much of a connection to Norwich? Sounds like pure conjuncture to me. If you mean the transfer request then I think you will find that his discontentment was at the length of his contract. He wanted three years, he had two years, wanting to stay an extra year? Doesn''t sound too desperate to leave to me. Both Lambert and Hughton gave him the captain''s armband, the players love him, we play better with him on the pitch..... the idea that he doesn''t want to be here doesn''t sit with me. The thing is that the statement "a beloved player who is slowly getting worse and worse" isn''t one which I agree with, that''s my point of this thread - I simply cannot agree that he is any worse than he was last year. I thought I''d done a pretty good job of illustrating how he is doing the job that he has been given very well. You are, basically, one of the people that I was referring to in my original thread. You don''t understand Holt''s ability, his importance to the team, and think that he is somehow easily replaceable. You think that he is declining as a player when it is obvious that he is being heavily restricted by tactics. What evidence is there that he is in any way declining or "getting worse"? Less goals? Simple.... less chances. Less running? Simple..... he has a responsibility to the team to stay rigid. He hasn''t got the license to be fluid and all over the place like some sort of maverick trequartista..... there is no evidence to suggest that, if played in a 4-4-2, he wouldn''t be all over the place drifting wide, running to the corners, and dropping deep.... like we are used to him doing. I 100% disagree with you on this.[/quote]

 

Right, first the personal stuff with Holt. He has just bought a new home in Carlise and has always very clearly stated he will move back there the day after he retires. He is Darren Huckerby, he isn''t going to stay in the area and if a good offer was put before him I truely believe he would be off - the transfer request stuff from the summer proved that 100%. Also just lots of silly little things on Twitter like saying he would play for Celtic if the chance came etc. There is no need for him to respond to these kind of messages and it has a slight air of disrespect for Norwich. I''m not usually someone to get worked up about these things, having work in sports media for a few years I know there is no real thing as ''loyalty'' but there is such a thing as common sense.

 

I haven''t said he is declining as a player, but he will, it happens to every player. 32/33 is generally regarded as the ''cliff face'' for players (especially strikers) and only a few can manage to maintain a high level of performance after that age. Holt relies on energy and physical strenght for a lot of his game those are the things a player loses after the pace has gone. I don''t judge players on goals, as in the words of Jonathan Wilson ''goals are overrated'' and I agree with this, sticking your foot out a having a ball bounce off it is a much lessor skill that the movement it requires to get to that position; Kris Boyd, Alfonso Alves et al have proven you can be a naff player and score a lot of goals in the right team. I do judge players on the other aspects of their game and Holt just hasn''t been the same level as last year in some games this year - whether that is down to fatigue as Lambert tended to rotate him a little more or a lack of pressure from other player sitting on the bench or from the aging process is impossible to know. I did witness in the Tottenham game that he misplaced a lot relatively simple passes, I mean 2 or 3 metre passes. But as I have said before, I have no immediate issue with Holt, he is doing a good job this season and putting a lot of good work in.

 

I do understand Holt''s role, and his ''importance to the team'' and I know it won''t be easy to replace him but it has to happen at one point. Why not in the summer when Norwich will have a large transfer budget? If Holt was a younger man I would say keep him - but no one can argue with his age. Waiting too long could be as diasterous for Norwich as it was for Bolton with Kevin Davies.

 

To hold Holt up on a pedistal is dangerous - no man is bigger than the club and when Holt''s time comes say thanks and ship him off somewhere.

[/quote]

I''m pretty certain that any footballer with an ounce of financial intelligence would have numerous properties in a variety of places, Robbie Fowler has over a hundred doesn''t he? I don''t really understand your point about the Carlisle thing. He and his missus were both born and raised in Carlisle, his missus loves it up north, why wouldn''t they own a home in Carlisle? He''s hardly going to be angling for a move to Carlisle United.... although I''d love to see him continue to play in the lower leagues when he leaves City.

I own three properties by the way. One in Norwich, where I live, which I use.... to sleep in, when I''m in Norwich, visiting friends and family. I''m not looking to move back there just yet, but I would consider it in the future.

So Grant Holt will eventually decline and become ineffective in the Premier League, sure. But for now he is effective, and for as long as he is good enough to do a job for a Premier League team I want that Premier League team to be us. The day that he should leave is the day that he becomes ineffective in the Premier League..... like Steve Morison.

But why sell him in the summer? What would we get? £3m? We have two £3m players sitting on the bench every week..... Howson and Bennett..... £3m is peanuts for a player of his quality. Selling Holt and spunking £3m on some over-rated former England U21 international like Bennett or Howson would be an error so basic that we would deserve relegation as a punishment.

Why wouldn''t we sign a couple of strikers and let them all battle it out for a place in the team? If Holt loses, maybe we think about letting him go. He''d probably want to if he was sitting on the bench every week.

But Norwich fans have been moaning for as long as I remember about having a lack of good strikers, we severely missed Holt for a period in the Championship season in fact. We''ve spent all season bemoaning the lack of strikers at this club.

We still only have Holt, Becchio, and Jackson. I''ll leave Kamara out of the equation as he is a lone player and in my opinion here as a winger. We''ve swapped Morison for Becchio.

It is often said that you need four quality strikers in the Premier League. I''d argue that you certainly need four if you are going to be playing 4-4-2.

If we need four strikers then we have a vacancy for one more. Hooper in the summer.

If we are then going to think about buying a second striker to replace any one of Holt, Jackson, and Becchio...... then surely we''d be thinking about replacing Jackson?

Talking about a Holt departure is just ridiculously premature.... we have a vacancy for a striker, one striker who has never played in this division and has to prove himself, and another who is increasingly looking to be a bit out of his depth (Jackson). Holt is #1 in the pecking order..... when he is #3 we can start thinking about flogging him to Leicester. That will be at least two years in my opinion.

I wouldn''t be happy about letting Holt go until he is worth £250k and the only interested clubs are Barnsley and Millwall. We''ve heard all this new heroes, passed his best, grass is greener sh*te before.... it got us relegated whilst our last club legend was outperforming Beckham in the MLS.

[Not Nigel 0]

I mean:

"I own three properties by the way. One in Norwich, where I don''t live, which I use.... to sleep in, when I''m in Norwich, visiting friends and family. I''m not looking to move back there just yet, but I would consider it in the future".

[Not Nigel 0]

So Bolton lose Johann Elmander.... a player who scored 18 league goals in 92 games and got relegated as a result.

But we should think about selling Grant Holt, who has scored 19 league goals in 57 games because he happens to be 31?

And if they had kept Elmander, by giving him a new contract, you think that they would still be in the Premier League? With Elmander? Who is 31? The same age as Grant Holt? And has played in the Champions league this season? With three years left on his Galatasary contract?

And you sense absolutely no irony whatsoever in your own posts?

Kevin Davies was 35 when Bolton got relegated. Grant Holt is 31.

[Not Nigel 0]

[quote user="Jonzey"]

I''ve never agreed with anything more OP. Grant Holt is essential to NCFC.

 

A true talisman for us, a leader and a great forward.

 

But alas I fear you have fallen foul of the boards Troll, and his earlier post slating Grant Holt. Never feed a troll, they''re starved of attention and love this type of response. True City fans understand what you have said OP and just ignore lonely trolls.

[/quote]

Don''t worry, remember that I read this board, I knew what I was getting into. Without the idiots I''d have had no reason to write the OP.