Am I alone in being happy to see 1.5 million for Wes?

[Indy_Bones 441]

Keep sidestepping NN, you won''t get out of the quicksand that easily I''m afraid...I''ll keep saying it until it sinks in (or you get sick of hearing it and decide not to respond)IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!There is absolutely ZERO point in having a player on the bench if you have no intention of using them 9 times out of 10 (keepers excepted).Generally speaking, any player who is considered good enough to play, will do so rather than being stuck on the bench most of the time, the fact that a player is suggests that the manager does not consider them good enough to play compared to the alternatives.So as for leaving out someone to give Wes more game time - I wouldn''t have, as I think we have enough ability without him on the pitch (and the changes we have to make to fully accomodate his best game) and if the manager stops playing such a defensively minded system and actually lets our attacking players have a go at our opponents, we''ll start to see more of what we did against Man City rather than what we saw against Stoke...

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Sidesteppin? You continually refuse to answer any of my points. I am allowed an opinion you know and in order to debate it you do need to answer my points like I have yours.

 

Who are the fringe players that you reckon have had more game time than Wes?

 

If he''s not in the matchday squad who can provide the same option to the manager?

 

Who would you have left out in order to give him more game time?

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Keep sidestepping NN, you won''t get out of the quicksand that easily I''m afraid...I''ll keep saying it until it sinks in (or you get sick of hearing it and decide not to respond)IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!IT DOESN''T MATTER HOW GOOD A PLAYER IS IF THE MANAGER WILL NOT PLAY THEM!There is absolutely ZERO point in having a player on the bench if you have no intention of using them 9 times out of 10 (keepers excepted).Generally speaking, any player who is considered good enough to play, will do so rather than being stuck on the bench most of the time, the fact that a player is suggests that the manager does not consider them good enough to play compared to the alternatives.So as for leaving out someone to give Wes more game time - I wouldn''t have, as I think we have enough ability without him on the pitch (and the changes we have to make to fully accomodate his best game) and if the manager stops playing such a defensively minded system and actually lets our attacking players have a go at our opponents, we''ll start to see more of what we did against Man City rather than what we saw against Stoke...[/quote]Indy, I''m afraid that you are just the latest in a long line of us who''s coming to the conclusion that it''s a total waste of time arguing like this with him. He''s made his mind up and nothing, however blindingly obvious will shift him. Best cut your losses.I agree with you 100% btw. Frankly, it matters not what you, I , Nige, Wiz, or anyone else thinks of Wes. There''s only one person''s view that matters. The guy who picks the team. That , for the moment is Chris Hughton. And, for better or worse, he does not see Wes as especially useful. So, yes, I''ll bang on about it for the benefit of terminally dim and tunnel -visioned one more time. The money value of Wes can be put to far better use than having him warming the bench (at best) for the next 4 months.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Sidesteppin? You continually refuse to answer any of my points. I am allowed an opinion you know and in order to debate it you do need to answer my points like I have yours.[/quote]That''s rich considering that you HAVEN''T actually answered my points, you''ve simply tried to either dodge, ignore or try to answer a question with a question instead...[quote]Who are the fringe players that you reckon have had more game time than Wes?[/quote]Seems like you''re going to get hung up on the ''fringe'' term, so to clarify my view on this - any player who is not consistently and regularly getting games for the first team of more than 10 minutes at a time is a ''fringe'' player, the fact that only 4 of our 12 midfielders have played less than Wes should indicate that he is NOT a key component of our first XI setup - regardless of how highly you rate him etc.[quote]If he''s not in the matchday squad who can provide the same option to the manager?[/quote]Completely irrelevant because the manager clearly DOES NOT want that option!If he wanted it then Wes would have played more than he has, especially when players were going through bad dips of form or injured.You could have Carlton Morris sat on the bench every single week, but it''s totally irrelevant if that''s where he stays isn''t it![quote]Who would you have left out in order to give him more game time?[/quote]Already answered this in my last response (guess you were too busy skimming over it or ignoring the fair points that you missed it)...

[lharman7 39]

Hoolahan is a good championship player at best. He''s not a Llalana, Coutinho, Oscar, Silva, Hazard, Nasri.

Don''t get me wrong I do rate him. Just not a full time starter at premier league level. I''ve said it in an earlier post, he doesn''t score! The players I''ve mentioned do!

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Sidesteppin? You continually refuse to answer any of my points. I am allowed an opinion you know and in order to debate it you do need to answer my points like I have yours.[/quote]That''s rich considering that you HAVEN''T actually answered my points, you''ve simply tried to either dodge, ignore or try to answer a question with a question instead...[quote]Who are the fringe players that you reckon have had more game time than Wes?[/quote]Seems like you''re going to get hung up on the ''fringe'' term, so to clarify my view on this - any player who is not consistently and regularly getting games for the first team of more than 10 minutes at a time is a ''fringe'' player, the fact that only 4 of our 12 midfielders have played less than Wes should indicate that he is NOT a key component of our first XI setup - regardless of how highly you rate him etc.[quote]If he''s not in the matchday squad who can provide the same option to the manager?[/quote]Completely irrelevant because the manager clearly DOES NOT want that option!If he wanted it then Wes would have played more than he has, especially when players were going through bad dips of form or injured.You could have Carlton Morris sat on the bench every single week, but it''s totally irrelevant if that''s where he stays isn''t it![quote]Who would you have left out in order to give him more game time?[/quote]Already answered this in my last response (guess you were too busy skimming over it or ignoring the fair points that you missed it)...[/quote]

 

Round and round in circles and we finally get to the crux of the matter in that YOU believe the manager''s tactics are wrong. Well whoopedoo Indy, there''s F all you can do about that. Wes''s value to the manager is not determined by the tactics you think he should use or the players you think he should pick. It can only be determined by what he does. And Hughton has used Wes in nearly every match day squad and played him in over 400 minutes. Those are the facts.

 

So now I once again return to the question : -

 

Who would have played those 400 minutes and given Hughton the same option from the bench?

 

Who are the fringe players you reckon have had more game time than Wes?

 

And who would you have left out to give Wes more game time? And no you haven''t answered that you just changed the question and answered your own.

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Round and round in circles[/quote]Yep, and you''re still regurgitating the same nonsense and still blindly claiming not to have been answered...[quote]Wes''s value to the manager is not determined by the tactics you think he should use or the players you think he should pick. It can only be determined by what he does. And Hughton has used Wes in nearly every match day squad and played him in over 400 minutes. Those are the facts.[/quote]And the facts also state that he''s used SEVEN other midfielders more than he has Wes, despite two of them having been out injured for a dozen games!As previously said before - Becchio has been in nearly every match day squad, but that doesn''t make him the messiah either, and the number of times sat on the bench is absolutely no indication of supreme talent.So to clarify (and using your own words), Wes value is not dictated by how I think Hughton should play or who he should pick, but by Hughton himself, who has repeatedly and regularly failed to select Wes for the first team, and has preferred to play SEVEN other people ahead of him in regards to time on the pitch. Glad to see that Hughton really values him based on that amount of game time isn''t it...[quote]Cue more regurgitating of the same questions that have been repeatedly and effectively answered...[/quote][quote]And who would you have left out to give Wes more game time? And no you haven''t answered that you just changed the question and answered your own.[/quote]I have answered it, but if you''re either too stubborn or too foolish to accept my response then that''s your problem.Why would I possibly suggest leaving someone else out when I don''t agree that they should have been?F**k me, sometimes the sheer bull-headedness of people on here drives me wild...

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]F**k me, sometimes the sheer bull-headedness of people on here drives me wild...[/quote]Don''t get stressed about it Indy. He''s not worth the aggro.Like I said earlier....cut your losses.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Wes''s value to to Hughton is not determined by his value to you Indy. As you refuse to answer my questions I''ll answer them and perhaps you could indicate if you agree?

 

There is currently nobody in the squad who could provide Hughton with the option Wes does in the match day squad.

 

There are no fringe players with more game time than wes. You made that up.

 

But I''m afraid only you can answer who you feel Hughton should have left out to give Wes more game time. But it''s pretty irelevant anyway because the two previous points show his value to his manager.

 

 

[BigFish 1,988]

Sorry to intrude into this intellectual debate but has anyone actually bid for Wes?

[morty 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]Sorry to intrude into this intellectual debate but has anyone actually bid for Wes?[/quote]No official bid received as yet (as far as I know)

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]There is currently nobody in the squad who could provide Hughton with the option Wes does in the match day squad.[/quote]A point which is completely irrelevant either way because Hughton does not want to play him 75% of the time.It wouldn''t matter if we had five or six players who could provide Hughton with the same option that Wes does, because he wouldn''t be picking ANY of them...It''s utterly pointless banging on about how tasty your Lamb is, if guy who''s buying the meat only wants to eat Beef...[quote]There are no fringe players with more game time than wes. You made that up.[/quote]On account of his lack of minutes and regular starts (despite being fit and uninjured), Wes himself is a fringe player this season, the facts clearly show his lack of minutes compared to the other midfielders Hughton has to choose from (of which Wes was 8th out of 12 in the list with only 2 the two loanees - Fox and Surman, a youngster in Murphy and Benno who was injured pretty much in game 1, with less match time than he has), you just don''t like this fact so decide to be overly pedantic about my usage of the term ''fringe player''...[quote]But I''m afraid only you can answer who you feel Hughton should have left out to give Wes more game time.[/quote]And for the third (and final) time - I don''t think anyone should have been left out to accomodate Wes, it''s YOU that''s wants him to be playing more NOT ME!I''m more than happy with the combination of Fer, Tettey and Howson (or even Fox) in the centre of our midfield and see absolutely no need to make sacrifices in there simply to accomodate Hoolahan.Why is this so hard a concept for you to grasp????

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Why is this so hard a concept for you to grasp????[/quote]Indy, if the club could have a tenner for the number of times NN has had this question (or very similarly worded ones) put to him, they could double the transfer kitty money they''d get for Wes.And if they also had a tenner for every time that , despite this, he has failed to grasp the concept, we could afford to go out and buy Cristiano Ronaldo in the transfer window.....

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Chris Hughton obviously values Wes enough to have played him for over 400 minutes and to have included him in nearly every match day squad. As we have no other player who can provide Hughton with the same options then why would it not matter if he was at the club or not. Indy and Reggie giving a demonstration of the chuckle brothers will not alter these facts. To throw another one in Hughton gave Wes a three year contract just 12 months ago. Why would he do that if he didn''t want the option that Wes gives him?

 

http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/hughton-wes-deserves-contract-546015.aspx

 

You and reggie have a lot more in common than being this boards version of the Chuckle Brothers. You both have been caught out making stuff up to promote unsustainable points of view.

 

 

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Wey-hey. Absolute textbook, classic,   NN gold......

Once the ridiculous entrenched views have been blown out of the water, it''s a quick ;"you''re making stuff up"

Followed by the name-calling and insults.Vintage Nige at it''s best. Enjoy.To you....to me.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Name-calling and insults! Love it Reggie. After reading you two on this thread calling you the chuckle brothers is more of a compliment...

 

  

[Indy_Bones 441]

Same old garbage from you again NN, glad that some other posters can see this as well.You seem to think that being 8th choice in our midfield makes someone an irreplaceable part of our squad, this is where I beg to differ - end of...

[nutty nigel 7,539]

What you fail to grasp or are incapable of comprehending is that he''s 1st choice when the manager wants to use his abilities. How often that may be is not relevant. Ther relevant bit is that there''s nobody else gives the manager that option.

 

 

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]What you fail to grasp or are incapable of comprehending is that he''s 1st choice when the manager wants to use his abilities. How often that may be is not relevant.[/quote]Instant Classic!!!Let''s not forget that I''m 1st choice for Hughton when he wants to use me as well - how often that is, is also apparently irrelevant and I''ll probably go to Villa for a couple of mil along with Wes...Clown.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]What you fail to grasp or are incapable of comprehending is that he''s 1st choice when the manager wants to use his abilities. How often that may be is not relevant.[/quote]Instant Classic!!!Let''s not forget that I''m 1st choice for Hughton when he wants to use me as well - how often that is, is also apparently irrelevant and I''ll probably go to Villa for a couple of mil along with Wes...Clown.[/quote]

 

So nearly every matchday squad and 400 minutes is the same as you...

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

Wow, you even managed to miss that one as well!Is this actually you using the PC or do you have a carer who does it for you - surely nobody can really be this dumb in reality (outside of those who have registered learning difficulties or mental handicaps)???

[Lavanche 0]

Indy Bones, I''m sorry but I have agree with Nigel.

Your main argument is that we should sell no matter how good player he is, because we are not using him.

He has played only 30 minutes less than Tettey and a bit over one game less than Pilkington. Even thought this is mainly because injuries, but both of these players are quite important for us. Wes might be only bench player, but he is regulary sitting at least on the bench and used from there if situation reguires it.

Also we know for quite sure he is under 30k per week wages and that is quite low for attacking midfielder.

In this contest and in a situation where we almost certain will have only 2 wingers fit, 2 out of our 4 midfielders are still at least half fit I really see him and I think Hughton sees him as a useful squad player.

So if we sell him for ridiculous price of 1,5millions. Where we can find upgrade in January window who is reliable as him and with similar wage.

Before we are almost sure of getting a replacement or clearly better offer. We would be almost insane to sell him.

We still have half season left and anything can happen during that period. Those players who are now warming the bench can become our most important players.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"]Wow, you even managed to miss that one as well!Is this actually you using the PC or do you have a carer who does it for you - surely nobody can really be this dumb in reality (outside of those who have registered learning difficulties or mental handicaps)???[/quote]

 

That post kinda sums you and reggie up a treat[Y]

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That post kinda sums you and reggie up a treat[Y] [/quote]Can''t even come up with your own retorts and have to regurgitate mine...You''re getting sadder with every post Nigel, give up whilst you''re down tbh...

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Lavanche"]Your main argument is that we should sell no matter how good player he is, because we are not using him.

He has played only 30 minutes less than Tettey and a bit over one game less than Pilkington. Even thought this is mainly because injuries, but both of these players are quite important for us. [/quote]Both have been injured for a DOZEN games - it''s hardly a minor difference is it???And, yes, I do think we should sell if the manager has no real use for the player, otherwise we''re wasting wages on jack all...

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="nutty nigel"]That post kinda sums you and reggie up a treat[Y] [/quote]Can''t even come up with your own retorts and have to regurgitate mine...You''re getting sadder with every post Nigel, give up whilst you''re down tbh...[/quote]

l

Indy...

 

What do you reckon is the saddest post on this thread?

 

It''s not my fault you can''t comprehend how a football squad works and how different parts of that squad are important. If you had been prepared to debate this properly earlier on you wouldn''t have ended up looking such a tit now...

 

 

[Lavanche 0]

Indy well Wes has started our two previous games in league so we certainly have some REAL use for him.

Also you still have to have full bench and as I said his wages are quite low in this league for his quality attacking midfielder. So replacing him on the bench with similar or better quality would still "waste" same money.

Even if we sign someone to start games in that position I''m quite sure Howson, Elmander and Tettey are quite much in same wages and one of them would have to sit on the bench.

Squad depth is almost equally important than strong starting 11.

Also should we sell Ryan Bennett? 1 appearance less than Hoolahan and only 200 minutes more playtime in a position where he is second choise for two places in any formation we use.

So at the end your reasoning has a big hole in it. I would agree with you if Hoolahan really would be easy to replace from our current squad, but even if all our midfielders and wingers would be fit he would be quite important player to have in bench to have a different option for last third and until he is someway replaced we really shouldn''t sell him until the summer where we have bigger pot to spend.

[The gut 0]

I hope that Wes stays, so the next manager has the option of utilising him.

I love watching him and want him in the team most of the time. Yes he has weaknesses, but there isn''t a player in our team that doesn''t. I accept he isnt everybodys cuppa, but fail to understand how everyone doesnt want to keep him. He provides an option that I cannot think of anybody else being able to do.

[Six Pack 93]

ricardo wrote:

Six Pack wrote:

[

So you won''t replace him easily unless you''ve got real deep pockets like Man City or Chelsea. Watch the game, understand the game - but don''t come on here and talk garble !!!

The very reason that we need to be looking.

Reggie Strayshun wrote:

Took the words right out of my mouth Ricardo. Wes will need replacing and soon. And if we can get good money for him, that will help.It matters not one iota if that comes from Paul Lambert/Aston Villa.

As for changing the subject, SP, well I do not see how I''ve done that. I''m dealing with the wider issue of whether Wes is a long term prospect for us.

You say he''s a "Premiership player". Because he "plays in the Premiership." Well, unfortunately, he doesn''t, SP, does he ? Not with any regularity anyway.

As some others have said, I wish you and the other Wes champions would stop flogging a dead horse. Wes clearly does not feature in CH''s long term plans, so he needs to be replaced with someone who is . End of.

.....................................................................

Not in Hughton''s plans - can we go by that ? There are indicators yes but at the start of last season he wasn''t in Hughton''s plans either., Hughton wasn''t even prepared to bring him on against Westham - He didn''t rate him. After a series of negative results Hoolahan was installed into the team and we immediately went on a 10 game unbeaten run.

In this industry all players over 30 are earmarked for replacing. But we shouldn''t replace until a suitable replacement is found.

We don''t know what Hughton will do.

If a player performs well there is every chance he''d get retain in the team.

On the subject of championship level

He was playing regularly in the premiership last season - over 30 games, the same the season before - again about 30 games. That makes him a premiership player. Yes that was last season and hes a year older but after seeing his performances this season - hes still got it. You don''t see the Villa fans calling him Championship level. So leave the derogative remarks of club legends to the binners - clueless sod.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="The gut"]I hope that Wes stays, so the next manager has the option of utilising him.

I love watching him and want him in the team most of the time. Yes he has weaknesses, but there isn''t a player in our team that doesn''t. I accept he isnt everybodys cuppa, but fail to understand how everyone doesnt want to keep him. He provides an option that I cannot think of anybody else being able to do.[/quote]Bingo!It would be an absolutely scandalous decision to sell him and if it does transpire then with any luck Hughton and co will follow him out of the door soon enough.