Hoolahan wants out (according to Talksport)

[morty 0]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]Sorry Morty it is not daft.

We have more attacking options available to us than defensive ones. Just because Howson and EB are out should not mean you just shut up shop.

We are not asking for the team to attack with 8 men forward but when you have the players with really attacking ability why not use them in this way instead of asking them to play to their weaknesses?

I just don''t get it?[/quote]Well if you don''t "get" that missing quality players is going to limit how we play, then I''m afraid I can''t explain any further.

[Canary On The Wire 0]

I get what you mean, but you haven''t really answered what I said with respect to Howson and Fer playing in CM and then hitting Elmander in the channels when we''re not playing Wes in support (previous to the United game). None of it makes any sense. I have long wanted Hughton to click but only against Man United was I able to clearly see that he had a plan, why he had done it and how it was working. More of the same, and I will be more than happy for him to remain as our manager. Trouble is with Barkley in the middle, I don''t think that approach will be anywhere near as effective against Everton, and with their first choice CBs out I really would be looking to hit Elmander ASAP. By contrast, against Hull it would be a great idea to focus pressure on the ground through the middle, and get Wes running into space beyond Huddlestone (he won''t catch him) Fer should be able to pick him out and then we can pin them in and prevent Elmohamady and Figueroa getting into the game.No reason why we can''t get 4 points from 6. OTBC

[snake-eyes 13]

What you are suggesting Morty is that Howson and Elliot are of such importance to the side that we are not able to play a certain way without them?

 

Are you saying that we have to play the way we do because all the others are not as capable as those two? If that is so, then it is a damning viewing of some of our players.

 

If you have players out that you need to play a certain way, why then play the ''replacements'' in a way that does not suit their strengths?

 

Surely you play to your strengths? What is it about the players we have available that means we have to play differently when all are fit.  What change do you think we would see in the way we play from the majority of games played over the last year?

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

Yes, Benno and Pilks are out injured - Snoddy and Redmond are not (and many would argue that the ability level is fairly similar across the four with individual differences here and there), but our wingers are being asked to play more defensively - as Redmond/Murphy (can''t remember which one) has stated in a recent interview.It is hard without good players being available, but what you have to do is use what you do have to the best of their ability and this is where I think CH is falling down at times.Players like Redmond (and older ones like Hucks and Eadie) have never been about what they can offer defensively, but about what they can offer offensively, so why can''t we make their defenders worry about what we''re going to do, rather than having the likes of Redmond worry about what THEY''RE going to do????The more you restrict players from their natural method of play (and often away from their strongest assets), the less likely you are to see a top performance from them, this has nothing to do with players being injured and everything to do with correctly utilising the players that ARE available...

[MrMcGoo1809 0]

David McNice has said there''s been NO transfer requests handed in (talksport)

Shame as it may be another reason to get that tw@t who-ton? Out!

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="MrMcGoo1809"]David McNice has said there''s been NO transfer requests handed in (talksport)

Shame as it may be another reason to get that tw@t who-ton? Out![/quote]would that be the same talksh ite who claimed that ''Hoolahan wanted out ?''

[JF 694]

The same talksport that said today he would be a Villa player in the nexy 48 hours. Awful station.

[MrMcGoo1809 0]

Jesus christ are you blind. DAVID MCNICE HAS SAID THERES BEEN NO THATS NO TRANSFER REQUESTS

[morty 0]

So, to sum up (as best as we can) it would appear Villa did put a derisory bid in for Hoolahan, hoping this would trigger him to put a transfer request in.And we have told them to eff off, and that if he put the transfer request in, it would be refused, Wes will be staying to the end of his contract.Which is actually quite clever, as I would assume that Wes wants a contract extension, and the only way he''ll get one here is if he shows a good attitude and plays well.

[Monty13 2,231]

Surely Morty if Wes wants a contract extension and NCFC are refusing to sell his best option is to force the clubs hand through either a transfer request or threatening one as otherwise he wont get a transfer and the club has no reason to give him a longer contract?

Its what Holt did.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Monty13"]Surely Morty if Wes wants a contract extension and NCFC are refusing to sell his best option is to force the clubs hand through either a transfer request or threatening one as otherwise he wont get a transfer and the club has no reason to give him a longer contract?

Its what Holt did.[/quote]But the club have already said that any transfer request would be refused.Holt''s bargaining position was a lot stronger when he did it.

[Monty13 2,231]

I don''t know, i''m not sure that''s true, we seem to know pretty definitely there is a club that wants Wes. It was never clear with Holt whether any other team was really a 100% interested.

Holt was always being talked of as essential to Hughtons plans, Wes quite clearly is now a bit part player.

I personally wouldn''t blame Wes for wanting out, he deserves one last pay day for the service he''s given us and if we are not prepared to give it to him and we are also playing him only sparingly he seems to have a case for wanting to move on.

If he wants a contract extension in my mind the best bargaining he could do is make it very public he is not happy, with NCFC refusing to sell it would then not really be clear why they aren''t going to? and if they aren''t going to maybe they should look to sort the problem with their unhappy player.

Wouldn''t be surprised if Wes'' agent is being very vocal through the right back channels at the mo and thats where all the transfer request talk is from.

Just the way I see it, not saying right or wrong.

[basil brush 0]

Hoolahan will be 32 later this year and I''m not convinced he could hold down a permanent position in any Premiership side, though he has the talent to.

My view is that Hoolahan has handed a transfer request in and that McNally is stonewalling the media to annoy Aston Villa by denying - basically lying - that no player has handed a request in. Talksport aren''t the most reliable source granted, but I think its more truthful than some people belief.

All is well while the house is on fire.

I''m more intrigued as to why Wes wants to leave. Is it Hughton? Is it the quest of first team football? Does he believe we''re a club in decline? Is it the negative football? Is it all of these possibilities?

I''m certainly no fan of Hughton''s ''death by a thousand cuts style of football'' which will have a predictable end and I wished he was out of the club long ago, but in his defence, he isn''t the only Norwich manager who has played Wes in an ad-hoc role.

I''d like him to stay until the end of the season, but I don''t think any Norwich fan would blame him if he does intend to leave.

I would be disappointed however if it was because of Chris Hughton.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Well, team selection is down to Hughton. So if you''re someone who believes Wes should start every week the reason he doesn''t is down to Hughton. If you think he''s a luxury player who we could do without the fact that he''s here at all is down to Hughton. If you think the football is negative then that''s down to Hughton. If you believe we''re a club in decline that''s down to Hughton. But if you believe we''re still on the up that''s down to Hughton. In fact I''d be disappointed if I found out any football related fact wasn''t down to Hughton...

 

 

[Guest]

Nutty, I agree with a lot of what you say and believe you talk a great deal of sense.

However, I would just like to say that when we win it is in fact not down to Hughton, but the team ignoring his instructions and expressing themselves on the pitch.

Also, when we sign players perceived to be good it is down to the scouting network and nothing to do with the manager. We all know Ewan Chester was here before Hughton brought him across, and as such put in the ground work way before Hughton had ANY involvement.

Finally, when these players dip in form it is down to Hughton''s poor coaching and formations, and nothing to do with injuries to key players. That is just an excuse. And I''m going to Google some pictures of players from a few decades ago to prove my club knowledge.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"] If you think the football is negative then that''s down to Hughton..[/quote]

Hughton is the manager after all. Although I think The Guardian put it better when they described us as ''ambition free'' and questioned "Why are Norwich so boring?".