Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Juggy

James McCarthy, Shaun Maloney

Recommended Posts

With Wigan making the commitment to pay us an estimated £2.5m for Holt and Barnett, why couldn''t we have used them in part exchange for one of their own useful players? 
Or to be more specific, perhaps Holt+Barnett+Cash for McCarthy, or Holt+Barnett for Maloney? 
James McCarthy would be an excellent signing, whilst Maloney is 30 so not exactly a long term investment but definitely capable of challenging Hoolahan for that attacking centre mid spot? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="scrappy33"]Callum McManaman? James McArthur?[/quote]
Yes, both good calls. I think McCarthy is the cream of the crop though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"]Because we are looking for better quaity than that...[/quote]
I''d stick to baseball mate if you think we will get better than James McCarthy. In fact he is so highly rated that my suggestion is actually ridiculously unrealistic - considering Spurs and Everton are said to be offering £15m.  
You just fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"]Because we are looking for better quaity than that...[/quote]

wow... this is the most moronic thing I''ve read this morning.

All 4 of the players mentioned would be a great addition to either the squad/first XI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet they got relegated last season.

Yes, so did Bassong the season before with Wolves but 1 man isn''t half a team.

To be honest I hope Wigan keep hold of most of their stars as I want to see Holty back in the Premier League next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, one man isn''t half the team. But there are 8 of their first XI from last season left and we are suggesting 4 as possible signings! That would be half then...

 

I think the ''value'' argument is spot on here. James McCarthy for £20m or Leroy Fer for £4.5m? Obviously, time will tell, but right now I wouldn''t take him. I might take Maloney for a million or two as he would offer cover right across the forward line. But I wouldn''t spend serious money on those guys. It''s often easier to look good in a struggling side. For evidence see Charles N''Zogbia, Jan Aage Fjortoft, Geovanni, DJ Campbell.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People bang on about Maloney - sure he is a good creative player but he is on a par with Hoolahan and I think probably not as good if I am honest.

People often bang on about our wingers not having enough pace - if that is the case Maloney isn''t the answer there either.

I''d rather have Howson in the hole behind the striker than him, more strength and has youth on his side.

The others people have mentioned might be worth a punt but they are going to cost silly money and there is better value to be had elsewhere. We are in the position where we don''t need to spend big on home grown talent due to having a squad full to the brim of overseas players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maloney is better than Hoolahan tbh. McCarthy is very good but I think he''ll be out of our price range. I think Maloney would be a very nice signing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maloney is not better than Hoolahan. If you seriously believe that I suggest you look at their stats.

Hoolahan has played more premiership games for us in the last two seasons than Maloney has in his time at Villa plus his time at Wigan.

He is also no way near as skilful as Hoolahan.

I would have Hoolahan over him 99 times out of 100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]People bang on about Maloney - sure he is a good creative player but he is on a par with Hoolahan [/quote]
Oh, only on par with Hoolahan, would obviously be a terrible member of our squad then. #uwot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]Maloney is not better than Hoolahan. If you seriously believe that I suggest you look at their stats.[/quote]
OK then, I will....
PREMIER LEAGUE 2012/13:
Shaun Maloney - 36 appearances, 6 goals, 8 assists, 56 shots, 27 shots on target, 34 fouls conceded, 89 fouls won
West Hoolahan - 33 appearances, 3 goals, 3 assists, 32 shots, 13 shots on target, 13 fouls conceded, 47 fouls won  
[quote] Hoolahan has played more premiership games for us in the last two seasons than Maloney has in his time at Villa plus his time at Wigan.  [/quote]
Shaun Maloney: 79 appearances for Villa and Wigan in the Premier League 
West Hoolahan: 66 appearances for Norwich in the Premier League 
[quote] He is also no way near as skilful as Hoolahan.

I would have Hoolahan over him 99 times out of 100.[/quote]
You have never seen Shaun Maloney play have you? 
It does help if when attempting to win an argument based on facts and statistics you actually bother to read and interpret the statistics and facts first, otherwise you just end up looking like a muppet. 
Shaun Maloney won the Wigan player of the year last season. He won that other McCarthy, McArthur, Kone, McManaman, he was voted their best player. They won the FA Cup. You are making him out to be an average nobody, which clearly he is not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maloney is better than Hoolahoops. Pretty similar on the ball but Maloney takes a mean free kick and as mentioned has twice as many prem goals and assists.

I''d take him but I doubt CH would pick him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will get shot down for this, but I really do think Hoolahan is overrated by our fans. Some people seem to think he is world class. He has very little to his game unfortunately. Maloney is definitely better, but still not a great player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" I''d stick to baseball mate if you think we will get better than James McCarthy. In fact he is so highly rated that my suggestion is actually ridiculously unrealistic - considering Spurs and Everton are said to be offering £15m"

Then that would be a wasted 15m quid...

We aren''t going to bid on players to only improve a position a little bit, when we buy we are adding serious quality .. which means overseas most mainly, or from clubs who need to sell, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for an edit button ...

" I''d stick to baseball mate if you think we will get better than James McCarthy. In fact he is so highly rated that my suggestion is actually ridiculously unrealistic - considering Spurs and Everton are said to be offering £15m"

Then that would be a wasted 15m quid...

We aren''t going to bid on players to only improve a position a little bit, when we buy we are adding serious quality .. which means overseas buys mainly, or from clubs who need to sell, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"] We aren''t going to bid on players to only improve a position a little bit, when we buy we are adding serious quality .. which means overseas buys mainly, or from clubs who need to sell, or both.[/quote]
Are you saying that overseas players are better than those based in the UK? Because I''d argue that the Premier League is the strongest league in the world. 
Our top three ''players of the season'' last season were purchased from UK clubs. The two most impressive of our signings so far in pre-season have been Redmond and Hooper who scored a brace. Together they cost about the same as Ricky Van Wolfswinkel. 
Only three of our squad members were signed from overseas, and only two of our seven signings this summer. So sorry I don''t understand your point at all. If you think that Maxi Lopez is better than James McCarthy (or indeed Shaun Maloney) then sorry but you are just wrong. He isn''t, he is ridiculously average. 
Of course £15m is too much money for McCarthy, or for our club to spend on anybody, we don''t have that sort of money. But if you think that the £5m we spent on Hooper could have been spent better overseas, or the £3m we spent on Redmond could have been spent better overseas, then sorry but you are just wrong.
There is still a lot of value to be had in the UK, and we have shown that with Olsson, Redmond, and Hooper. We showed it last summer with Bassong who at £4m was probably the second biggest bargain in the league (after Michu).
There are expensive players and bargains, both overseas and in the UK. Clubs in Italy spend far too much money on Italian born talents just like clubs in England pay over the odds for the Hendersons and the Carrolls and the Wickhams.
We don''t know how much Maloney would cost of course, but if for argument sake we said £4m, then we would be very hard pressed to find a better attacking midfielder for that money in any market. 
Maxi Lopez having an exotic sounding name and a poncy continental haircut doesn''t make him a superior footballer, but it definitely adds a risk factor seeing as there would be a good chance he would be added to the long long list of South Americans and Mediterranean footballers who fail in the Premier League because they don''t understand how not to play non-touch football whilst staying on their feet at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to sign a player on a par with what we already have?

Especially when in so many ways they are very similar? Maloney is 5''7" to Wes'' 5''6".

As for the free kicks - do we really care about that? Pilkington, Snodgrass, Garrido, Hoolahan, Johnson and maybe the other new lads can take free kicks to a good standard - a skill we don''t need.

Maloney has also played more on the wing for Villa and Wigan in the games that I have seen him play. I''m not saying he is rubbish - just that he isn''t as good as Wes in the way that we play Wes. He hasn''t got the same level of technical ability, he may be a little more straight forward and more direct - but I don''t think he would offer any more than Hoolahan.

If we are to sign anyone to compete with Hoolahan in that role they need to offer something a little bit different and possibly a lot better. I don''t see the point of signing a player who is around the same ability when we could be bringing in someone with much better ability.

And as for players from abroad being more of a risk, that may well be true - but if you look at the premiership as a whole, that is predominantly where players are coming from these days. Look at Man City for example. How many home grown players have they signed simply to make up the quota?

There are various articles out there that are well written and articulate that provide evidence to suggest that some countries are far more focused on producing good players and get better results in their country''s national teams as a result, than England.

Sure we have signed Redmond (19) and Hooper (25) for very reasonable sums but the reality is that they were bargains for different reasons. Hooper being out of contract in less than a year, Redmond being at a club that desperately needed cash. They might end up being better signings, or looking better value for money, but they also haven''t played premier league level before now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God you talk some utter tosh. 
[quote user="chicken"]Why would you want to sign a player on a par with what we already have? [/quote]
Exactly, why would we want to sign Maxi Lopez? Hoolahan has no serious competition for the second striker role. Every other player has competition for their place. Bringing in somebody capable of challenging Hoolahan for his place in the team is a healthy thing and will bring the best out of him. There were times last season where Hoolahan was actually pretty pants, he is by no means consistent. Perhaps Holt would have been more effective with some serious competition last season too. We have Martin and Whittaker who are a similar standard at right back. It is a nice position to be in. Would you flog Whittaker tomorrow because we already have Martin? No, you wouldn''t, because you need more than one right back. You need more than one of everything. 
[quote] Especially when in so many ways they are very similar? Maloney is 5''7" to Wes'' 5''6". [/quote]
Seriously, what is the significance of this? What is your point here? Are you angry that we have signed Van Wolfswinkel (6ft 1") because we already have Luciano Becchio (6ft 1")? Do you have height OCD? Lionel Messi is 5ft 7"..... what is your point? 
[quote] As for the free kicks - do we really care about that? [/quote]
I never said anything about free kicks, but you can never have too many dead ball specialists. 
[quote] I''m not saying he is rubbish - just that he isn''t as good as Wes in the way that we play Wes. [/quote]
Highly debatable. Wes was largely ineffective last year. He is good at keeping possession and bringing others into play, but he doesn''t really create many chances for others and doesn''t get into goalscoring positions himself. He is of huge benefit in games where we are perhaps inevitably going to struggle to keep hold of the ball, but a good second striker scores his fair share of goals and that is missing from Hoolahan''s game. Besides, no matter how good Hoolahan is or isn''t, he has started 53 games in two full seasons in the league. That''s out of 78 games. It is completely unrealistic to expect him to play 38 league games a year, or any player at this level. He drifts in and out of form, and in and out of games, and we rely too much on him being fit and on form. Exact same situation with Holt last year.... we rely too much on Hoolahan. 
[quote] He hasn''t got the same level of technical ability [/quote]
You can have all the technical ability in the world but if your team doesn''t score goals and win games then you aren''t using it properly. Maloney has 94 assists and 64 goals in 303 career games. You brought stats into this argument, and I''m glad, because they speak wonders. Maloney creates goals, Maloney scores goals, and we simply struggled to create or score goals last season - Hoolahan was part of the problem, along with all of our other attacking players apart from Snodgrass. Hoolahan is handy because he holds the ball up and retains possession, but a goal threat he seldom is. 
[quote] If we are to sign anyone to compete with Hoolahan in that role they need to offer something a little bit different and possibly a lot better.[/quote]
He is different, he scores goals! 
[quote]  I don''t see the point of signing a player who is around the same ability when we could be bringing in someone with much better ability. [/quote]
Like who? If you are rubbishing my suggestion then at least come up with your own! 
[quote] Look at Man City for example. How many home grown players have they signed simply to make up the quota? [/quote]
Norwich City + Man City = Chalk and cheese. 
[quote] There are various articles out there that are well written and articulate that provide evidence to suggest that some countries are far more focused on producing good players and get better results in their country''s national teams as a result, than England. [/quote]
I never said anything about English players, I said that there is still good value to be had in the UK market. We got Bassong and Olsson from the UK market. We are also talking about a Scottish player here, not an English one. 
[quote] Sure we have signed Redmond (19) and Hooper (25) for very reasonable sums but the reality is that they were bargains for different reasons. [/quote]
Bassong? Snodgrass? Ruddy? Turner? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chicken clearly hasn''t watched Maloney much he is just a better player. More creative and more dangerous generally as the stats back up.

He didn''t play on the wing for Wigan as they didn''t play wingers. His technical ability is at least equal of Hoolahan''s you have nothing to suggest otherwise. Also I would suggest his vision is better as he created 66 chances to Wes'' 43. The context to this is that Wigan were a more attacking team but it would also be fair to point out that by being so not as much went through him as went through Wes for us. Also be pointed out he made more key passes and was disposed less but he did dribble less. Even defensively it could be argued he was better despite being in a more attacking team.

Wes is an excellent link man but he isn''t great at creating chances at this level. I think he is very important to the team but for him to succeed he needs the rest of the team to be better around him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Firstly, I have seen a fair bit of Maloney play, unless you are a Wigan fan I have probably seen as much as you.

In some of the games in the run in to Wigan''s relegation he was as guilty of giving the ball away - of which on a couple of occasions led to the conceding of goals.

He is not ''way'' or ''miles'' better than Wes. Like I said, at best they are on a par. That isn''t good enough for us. We need someone who is going to be at least as good as Hoolahan if not better.

And at this point I will address this quote from Pilksfanclub:

"The context to this is that Wigan were a more attacking team but it would also be fair to point out that by being so not as much went through him as went through Wes for us."

If Maloney is an attacking player in a team that prefers to be attacking than cautious or defensive it makes logical sense to assume that he sees more of the ball than one creative player in a team who are less attacking.

So I would suggest your statement could easily be argued with the opposite in that Hoolahan probably saw less time on the ball, and when he did it was more likely to be deeper and further away from the goal in situations he is less likely to be able to create or score from.

On top of that I would also suggest that Wigan got relegated, primarily because despite their attacking threat, many of their forward players offered much in the way of protection to the players behind them.

But you know, if you think Wes is so poor as to make Maloney so much better than him, what they hell do I know? I shall just take your advice and consider any knowledge I have as pants as clearly I haven''t got a Wigan season ticket or another team to support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="chicken"]Firstly, I have seen a fair bit of Maloney play, unless you are a Wigan fan I have probably seen as much as you. [/quote]
Celtic have been my second team for over a decade, so probably not. 
[quote] In some of the games in the run in to Wigan''s relegation he was as guilty of giving the ball away - of which on a couple of occasions led to the conceding of goals. [/quote]
Hoolahan gives the ball away a lot too, that''s what attacking players do - they take risks. One of the things that Maloney is very good at is drawing the foul. Like Snodgrass actually. It is impossible to comprehend how valuable a player like that is to a team.
[quote] He is not ''way'' or ''miles'' better than Wes.[/quote]
I never said that he is for christs sake. What I''m saying is that we need competition for Wes. We need another second striker. If we are going to play 4-4-1-1 again this season then having only one second striker is suicide. Howson takes 7 months to get into a season, Butterfield isn''t at the required standard, we need another Wes not a replacement for Wes. Two Wes''s..... this is what I am saying. By your logic we shouldn''t have signed Hooper because we already had RVW. What happens if Wes breaks his leg against Everton? We''d potentially be in a lot of trouble. It is obvious that Hughton is after competition for Wes, I''m saying that Maloney would be a good shout. Nothing more, nothing less. If I''m touting Maloney as better than anybody then it is Maxi Lopez.... that is who we should be comparing him with here. 
[quote]  Like I said, at best they are on a par. We need someone who is going to be at least as good as Hoolahan [/quote]
I would just like to point out that "on a par" and "as good as" mean exactly the same thing, in case you don''t know this. 
[quote]
Wigan got relegated, primarily because despite their attacking threat, many of their forward players offered much in the way of protection to the players behind them. [/quote]
Wigan got relegated because they spent most of the season with a serious injury crisis in defence, it had nothing to do with their attacking players. This is also the reason that Roberto Martinez gives. They had a serious injury crisis in November and December in defence, plugged it a little in January, and then by February had an injury crisis again until the end of the season. It was players like Kone, Maloney and McManaman that gave them a fighting chance. 
At one point they had Alcaraz, Ramis, Caldwell and Figueroa out injured. That was their best four centre backs. If we had our best four centre backs injured last season (Bassong, Turner, Bennett, and Martin, for example), and had to rely on playing full backs and centre midfielders at centre back.... then we would probably get relegated too. 
If you were not aware of Wigan''s injury crisis last season then clearly you aren''t going to actually have any idea how good Shaun Maloney is and there is little point in continuing this conversation, you are talking tripe.
If you spent more time watching games and reading about what goes on in football instead of reading wikipedia you would know that Maloney is a quality player and that Wigan had serious injury problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, I understand that Wigan had injury problems in defence - all I was saying is that the players in front of them didn''t help much either - which is accurate. You can have the best team in the world but if your midfield don''t help out the defence you will lose.

Part of my post was at Pilksfanclub - quite clearly so. So was clearly not directed at you which makes sense as to: "I never said that he is for christs sake."

"I would just like to point out that "on a par" and "as good as" mean exactly the same thing, in case you don''t know this."

That would sound very clever if you hadn''t removed the context from the sentence I actually said. I said that we need a player that is going to be "at least as good as Wes" not a player that is going to be "on a par".

Put simpler. If the other player can only offer us what Wes offers us then its not good enough. We need a player that is going to out perform Wes and on a bad day only give us what Wes does.

Simply put Maloney doesn''t offer us anything we need in terms of improving that position other than cover.

We clearly have money left to spend so why go for a cheap maybe player when we could have someone better?

That''s why I say Maloney is not good enough. He''s not going to take us anywhere - he''s not going to offer anything different to Wes and thats what we need. If we need more players to play in that hole, we need them to be of a better ability to make the most of the money we have so far spent on the strike force.

If we get desperate, sure - he is an option - but he could do as well as he did at his spell at Villa.

So for me getting Maloney would be after giving up on the likes of Quag and Toivonen (please note likes of to save confusion as with ''at least as good'') etc.

As others have said, playing for Celtic and looking great doesn''t always translate into playing in the Premier League or Championship and doing the same. Kris Boyd for example, or the great many other players that have gone to play for Celtic or Rangers and looked fantastic in comparison to their performances in the prem.

Samaras for example.

Sure there are some successes - but it guarantees nothing. Hence why so many people were cautious about Hooper and how well he would take to the premier league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...