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

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Graham, I very much doubt if it would be Hughton''s decision to sell Wes. Or the boards. I would think that if Wes leaves in January it will be because Wes wants to go.

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Graham, I very much doubt if it would be Hughton''s decision to sell Wes. Or the boards. I would think that if Wes leaves in January it will be because Wes wants to go.

 

 

[/quote]I agree here, I can''t see Hughton wanting to let Wes go given his performances in recent weeks. When he actually gets picked he often plays well.  For the months he didn''t get a game, who knows.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

I am sure that''s the case Nutty but then you have to ask why does he want to leave?  As you said earlier, he''s got a good contract here, one which is unlikely to be bettered elsewhere at his age (I presume).  He''s been here a long time now and has always appeared to be very happy and settled here.  Perhaps if the manager decided to utilise his most creative player more often and in games that are practically made for him (Swansea, Sunderland and a start against Fulham) then nobody would even be thinking about this scenario.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]I am sure that''s the case Nutty but then you have to ask why does he want to leave?  As you said earlier, he''s got a good contract here, one which is unlikely to be bettered elsewhere at his age (I presume).  He''s been here a long time now and has always appeared to be very happy and settled here.  Perhaps if the manager decided to utilise his most creative player more often and in games that are practically made for him (Swansea, Sunderland and a start against Fulham) then nobody would even be thinking about this scenario.[/quote]Nobody takes a new job for less money.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]I am sure that''s the case Nutty but then you have to ask why does he want to leave?  As you said earlier, he''s got a good contract here, one which is unlikely to be bettered elsewhere at his age (I presume).  He''s been here a long time now and has always appeared to be very happy and settled here.  Perhaps if the manager decided to utilise his most creative player more often and in games that are practically made for him (Swansea, Sunderland and a start against Fulham) then nobody would even be thinking about this scenario.[/quote]Spot on mate

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Graham, I very much doubt if it would be Hughton''s decision to sell Wes. Or the boards. I would think that if Wes leaves in January it will be because Wes wants to go.

 

 

[/quote]I agree here, I can''t see Hughton wanting to let Wes go given his performances in recent weeks. When he actually gets picked he often plays well.  For the months he didn''t get a game, who knows.[/quote]

Foggy. Wes is still an important player for us. He has proved his doubters wrong time and time again. The fact that Hughton includes him in the 18 almost weekly shows he is valuable. However the signings of Fer, Redmond, Hooper, Elmander and RVW last summer would surely have a bearing in how many appearances he makes. So that''s those five plus Bennett, Howson, Tettey, Pilks and Snodgrass all signed since we were promoted to the PL. The fact that Wes still makes the match day squad and has played 400 minutes this season defines him and his ability far better than any individual praising post can. Ditto Bradley Johnson. Different player but no less important.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]I am sure that''s the case Nutty but then you have to ask why does he want to leave?  As you said earlier, he''s got a good contract here, one which is unlikely to be bettered elsewhere at his age (I presume).  He''s been here a long time now and has always appeared to be very happy and settled here.  Perhaps if the manager decided to utilise his most creative player more often and in games that are practically made for him (Swansea, Sunderland and a start against Fulham) then nobody would even be thinking about this scenario.[/quote]

 

Maybe Graham. But all I can say is what I see. If you think Wes should have started more games who would you have left out to accomodate him?

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]The fact that Hughton includes him in the 18 almost weekly shows he is valuable. [/quote]Surely it is just indicative of the injuries at the club this season and the 25 man squad.  You have to be quite unlucky to be left out.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

If Wes wants to go, he will and should be allowed / encouraged to do so.

In coaching terms Wes remains a conundrum. He is wonderfully, impishly unplayable on his day and floats into pockets of awkward space, shielding and shepherding the ball onwards. With time and space, and goalscoring forwards around him, he is a wonderful option. He pulls team out of their comfort zone shape and creates tactical issues for opposing managers. As Lavanche says for a relatively paltry £1.5m he is a wonderful resource to tap into and should be kept....

....except you have to alter the set up of the side to accommodate him as he isn''t disciplined tactically and I''ll-suited to anything other than central (though floating) role. At lower levels this can be hugely effective, whereby an open game of out-score- the-opposition-and-hang-the- structure is as good a tactic as any. In the Premier League such an approach is suitable only to the newly-promoted with no burden of expectations and the already trailing late on.

Hoolahan not only doesn''t score, he doesn''t shoot. Hooper went up hugely in my estimations following the Palace winner as he did not expect the ball from Hoolahan - and never should have received it. As an ex-striker I know that such apparently easy chances are easily missed, as you cannot comprehend you will receive the ball. Hoolahan - or any number 10 - must shoot from such a position. As a coach I have taught Academy strikers "how to miss". This may seem counter-intuitive and of course does not truly mean training them to miss, but rather to psychologically accept that they may miss but take the responsibility anyway. Hoolahan derogates his role in this way.

I would personally prefer to keep Hoolahan, but if he wishes to leave (I suspect a Villa / Lambert promise or hint of regular first team football is not worth the paper it isn''t written on however) then he must go.

His value is high to us Norwich fans emotionally, but sellers need more than one buyer to generate high prices, and Hoolahan is unlikely to have / want options better than Villa.

If the net trade is Hoolahan to Villa, £2m and Zaha arriving on loan - with the pace and extra goals we really need - that is clearly a good deal and a step forward.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

For me Wes has always been a bit too much of a luxury player - it is rather difficult to see where to put him in the side as he''s not really a m/f or a striker, unless you set the team around him which is on the excessive side to do in the PL for a guy who isn''t exactly Messi (for all his good play v Man U he missed our best chances and we still lost!). PL had the same problem, playing the diamond is very restrictive at this level.

He is 32 in the summer so IMO c£2m would be a very decent fee, but I certainly don''t think we should sell to Villa unless and until we have a replacement ready.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]The fact that Hughton includes him in the 18 almost weekly shows he is valuable. [/quote]Surely it is just indicative of the injuries at the club this season and the 25 man squad.  You have to be quite unlucky to be left out.[/quote]

 

He started the first game against Everton. Quite possibly because Fer was suspended I''ll grant you. But those two sentences surely answer your question as to where he is in the squad. Is that an important place? Well it is for me.

 

Foggy, would you expect us to carry on spending millions and yet still play the players who were already here in front of the signings? Wes, Russell Martin and Bradley Johnson deserve our respect for what they continue to achieve.

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Graham, I very much doubt if it would be Hughton''s decision to sell Wes. Or the boards. I would think that if Wes leaves in January it will be because Wes wants to go.

 

 

[/quote]

If I were a member of the board, Nutty, I would be weighing this decision very carefully , balancing what we need and are able to do to improve our own creativity needs in January against whether a player like Wes would contribute 3 or 4 points extra to a possible relegation rival in a Villa team that has some speedsters up front to take advantage of through balls.

I''d say the aces are in the hands of the board when looked at from that perspective.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Graham, I very much doubt if it would be Hughton''s decision to sell Wes. Or the boards. I would think that if Wes leaves in January it will be because Wes wants to go.

 

 

[/quote]

If I were a member of the board, Nutty, I would be weighing this decision very carefully , balancing what we need and are able to do to improve our own creativity needs in January against whether a player like Wes would contribute 3 or 4 points extra to a possible relegation rival in a Villa team that has some speedsters up front to take advantage of through balls.

I''d say the aces are in the hands of the board when looked at from that perspective.[/quote]

 

I agree. If you add to that the board being proud that they''ve never sold a player they didn''t want to then it reinforces their hand. Wes also signed a contract 12 months ago that runs until 2015 so they can make big demands of the potential buyers who would have to sanction a big transfer fee on top of at least matching Wes''s current contract which takes him up to the age of 33. Are they 5/6 aces in a pack?

 

 

[ricardo 7,385]

I doubt they''d let him go without a replacement having been lined up

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]The fact that Hughton includes him in the 18 almost weekly shows he is valuable. [/quote]Surely it is just indicative of the injuries at the club this season and the 25 man squad.  You have to be quite unlucky to be left out.[/quote]

 

He started the first game against Everton. Quite possibly because Fer was suspended I''ll grant you. But those two sentences surely answer your question as to where he is in the squad. Is that an important place? Well it is for me.

[/quote]

I have shown you where he is in the squad.  Ahead of Becchio, Murphy and Fox. 

I agree, he started the first game, due to injuries, then was a sub at Hull, before featuring for a sum total of 11 minutes in the next three months. I guess we were scoring plenty in this time as he wasn''t required, even off the bench.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Maybe Graham. But all I can say is what I see. If you think Wes should have started more games who would you have left out to accomodate him?[/quote]I''d have played the same system we played against Manchester United in the Sunderland and Fulham games.  If we played like we did in the United game against those two we''d have got more than one point.  Against Swansea it was fair enough not starting him after we did so well the previous week but he should have come on later - the subs we did make ended up killing the game stone dead.  And as for the times earlier in the season we played Elmander in the ''number 10'' role... why make things difficult for ourselves?  Either play him up top or use a player who has proven he can play that role very well over the years.I realise he was never going to play every game and there are some games that you''d want to use a different formation but he simply should be used more often than he is - we still don''t have another player who can do what he can.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,547]

There''s been no transfer request despite other papers saying there has. The gossip''s all aimed at destabilising. Ignore it.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Maybe Graham. But all I can say is what I see. If you think Wes should have started more games who would you have left out to accomodate him?[/quote]I''d have played the same system we played against Manchester United in the Sunderland and Fulham games.  If we played like we did in the United game against those two we''d have got more than one point.  Against Swansea it was fair enough not starting him after we did so well the previous week but he should have come on later - the subs we did make ended up killing the game stone dead.  And as for the times earlier in the season we played Elmander in the ''number 10'' role... why make things difficult for ourselves?  Either play him up top or use a player who has proven he can play that role very well over the years.I realise he was never going to play every game and there are some games that you''d want to use a different formation but he simply should be used more often than he is - we still don''t have another player who can do what he can.[/quote]But Graham, with respect, you are still not addressing the fact as to why, when we''ve found goals so difficult to come by, Hughton has basically not ever used a player who , supposedly, can unlock defences at will. It''s clear to many of us that Hughton just does not see him as anything more than a bit part player,almost in the same mould as Becchio. And there''s no shortage of folk on here who are suggesting that we should move Becchio on if he''s not part of CHs plans, so why should Wes be any different.I''m sorry, but, Wes has been a legend for us, but it''s time to move on and freshen the squad up with players who can feature far more. don''t you think ?

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Maybe Graham. But all I can say is what I see. If you think Wes should have started more games who would you have left out to accomodate him?[/quote]I''d have played the same system we played against Manchester United in the Sunderland and Fulham games.  If we played like we did in the United game against those two we''d have got more than one point.  Against Swansea it was fair enough not starting him after we did so well the previous week but he should have come on later - the subs we did make ended up killing the game stone dead.  And as for the times earlier in the season we played Elmander in the ''number 10'' role... why make things difficult for ourselves?  Either play him up top or use a player who has proven he can play that role very well over the years.I realise he was never going to play every game and there are some games that you''d want to use a different formation but he simply should be used more often than he is - we still don''t have another player who can do what he can.[/quote]

 

That''s fair enough Graham. I''m certainly one of those who enjoys watching Wes and as I''ve said I don''t believe another player in the squad offers what he does.

 

You were at Palace last week. Wes started then Elmander replaced him. In one game you probably saw the different qualities each brings to the side. Hughton picks the team he feels is best suited to each game and I don''t doubt he sometimes gets it wrong. But ultimately he will be judged on the league position he attains.