Did selling Grant Holt get us relegated?

[Kingston Yellow 220]

Morty - I wasn''t asking you to predict anything. I just asked who would you rather have had in the squad this season, RVW or Holt.

I''m still not clear but given all the caveats, I''ll assume the answer''s Holt.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lharman7"][quote user="Kingston Yellow"]Morty - why don''t you just answer the question instead of sidestepping the issue? Who would you rather have had in the squad this season RVW or Holt?[/quote]

Sidestep''s more questions than Snodgrass does full backs![/quote]I just answered the question.

[Salopian 1]

Surely not!

Our midfield, including wingers, has not been able to supply RvW or Hooper adequately, so Holty would have been foraging for himself and not scoring goals.

We had his best years, but the premiership was probably a little too much for him. He wangled an extra two years, at a million plus a year, and we let him go. He has not exactly set the world alight since then, for Wigan or Villa.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

No - selling grant (or buying hooper/RvW as replacements) did not get us relegated.

 

Play poor quality football,  losing possession and players not doing their jobs in central midfield, the clubs lack of success in strengthening the CB & midfield  positions together with the managers inability to get the players to understand and deliver a game plan is what has left us in our current predicament.

 

Anyone who still think RvW (or hooper or elmander) cost us the game on sat is sadly deluded,  the core problems start and finish behind them

[/quote]

 

The problem is that these aren''t the core problemns for games at Old Trafford. The core problem is that if we invite wave upon wave of attacks from some of the best footballers in the world the players behind the strikers are going to be breached. What is needed is more defending from the front and holding on to the ball for longer periods away from our goal. On Saturday we wouldn''t have done worse if we''d played with 10 men without RVW. Not his fault but there we are. Holty would have made a huge difference in us keeping the ball longer. Who knows we may even have scored a goal in those first 40 minutes.

 

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="Kingston Yellow"]Morty - I wasn''t asking you to predict anything. I just asked who would you rather have had in the squad this season, RVW or Holt.

I''m still not clear but given all the caveats, I''ll assume the answer''s Holt.[/quote]No, the answer isn''t Holt. He''s have been about as much use as Becchio this season.But well done for totally ignoring his contribution at Wigan and Villa though.

[lharman7 39]

Under Hughton, Grant Holt would have struggled either way.

Holty brought just as much off the field to our club than he did on it.

He would never be as effective in either aspect with the current crop of players.

He was a sensation at our club and was always going to struggle at another and when age set in as it does most other players!

[Kingston Yellow 220]

And well done for finally answering the question at the third attempt.

I didn''t think that anyone, not even Hughton, would honestly have looked back at this season and say that Holt wouldn''t have had a bigger impact on our fortunes than RvW has had.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Kingston Yellow"]And well done for finally answering the question at the third attempt.

I didn''t think that anyone, not even Hughton, would honestly have looked back at this season and say that Holt wouldn''t have had a bigger impact on our fortunes than RvW has had.[/quote]

Sorry, are you the police, am I under caution officer?

That statement is more about Ricky''s poor season than Holts great one though.

You strike me as the sort of person that would advocate starting Becchio because " he couldnt do any worse"

[Kingston Yellow 220]

You strike me as the sort of person who would deflect having said something as daft as they''d prefer RVW to Holt this season by making assumptions over something we''re not even discussing.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Kingston Yellow"]You strike me as the sort of person who would deflect having said something as daft as they''d prefer RVW to Holt this season by making assumptions over something we''re not even discussing.[/quote]I see you''re still managing to ignore the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season.[Y]

[Molly Windley 76]

We scored 22 goals from open play last season with Grant Holt in the side.This season we have score 23 goals from open play without Grant Holt in the side.Last season we scored 17 goals from set pieces and this season we have scored 4The problem is not the strikers, its our inability to score from corners and free kicks.

[MancCanary 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="morty"]Ahhhhh right, so this is actually about Hughton, not Holt...[/quote]

 

No its about Holt and whoever decided to undervalue him - thats not necessarily Hughton. But as you brought Hughton up, do you not feel he is responsible for the team sitting where it does Morty?

[/quote]You have seen Holts record since he left, haven''t you? I think that pretty much answers any questions you have.[/quote]

It''s a fair point Morty, but GMD did suggest that Holty''s output was more like 110% for us when he was happy here, due to him being captain and all round hero. Which I think is a valid point.

I wish Holty had never left. But he left because he was being played on his own upfront, isolated from play, with a massive reduction in chances. You could see his happiness and desire to play diminish as the season went on.

Holty would''ve been a great foil and/or mentor for both RVW and Hooper, who both clearly would''ve benefited from learning the premiership guile from the master.

But Holty would''ve also wanted to be the main man still, and first on the teamsheet. Hughton would never have dared play him and RVW or Hoopers together.

So basically, in a nutshell we can blame Hughton for Holty leaving, and for our subsequent probable demotion to the championship.

[Satoshi Nakamoto 0]

I don''t think that selling Holt got us relegated, but not replacing him as both a leader on the pitch and a goalscorer is certainly one of the major errors which have contributed to our plight.I would have kept him as club captain and tried to incorporate him into the coaching structure.On the pitch I think we''d have got 5 - 10 goals out of him this season, plus a much needed injection of backbone in key games.  At the very least our goal difference would look better.

[lharman7 39]

[quote user="Molly Windley"]We scored 22 goals from open play last season with Grant Holt in the side.This season we have score 23 goals from open play without Grant Holt in the side.Last season we scored 17 goals from set pieces and this season we have scored 4The problem is not the strikers, its our inability to score from corners and free kicks.

[/quote]

Inverted wingers who''s crossing ability is sub standard!

[The Great Mass Debater 1,075]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Kingston Yellow"]You strike me as the sort of person who would deflect having said something as daft as they''d prefer RVW to Holt this season by making assumptions over something we''re not even discussing.[/quote]

I see you''re still managing to ignore the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season.

[Y]
[/quote]

 

I brought up Holt''s record this season - the same number of Premiership goals as Elmander and RvW, in a fraction of the games played

[morty 0]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Kingston Yellow"]You strike me as the sort of person who would deflect having said something as daft as they''d prefer RVW to Holt this season by making assumptions over something we''re not even discussing.[/quote]I see you''re still managing to ignore the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season.[Y][/quote]

 

I brought up Holt''s record this season - the same number of Premiership goals as Elmander and RvW, in a fraction of the games played

[/quote]I give up as I am going out.Yep, you''re completely right[Y]

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Kingston Yellow"]You strike me as the sort of person who would deflect having said something as daft as they''d prefer RVW to Holt this season by making assumptions over something we''re not even discussing.[/quote]

I see you''re still managing to ignore the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season.

[Y]
[/quote]

 

I brought up Holt''s record this season - the same number of Premiership goals as Elmander and RvW, in a fraction of the games played

[/quote]

 

Before Saturday''s game Grant Holt had one shot on target and one goal this season giving him a strike rate of 100%. This makes him the most prolific striker in the Premier League, he''s better that Suarez, Sturridge, Rooney, in fact he''s better than all of them but no-one voted for him as PFA player of the season and do you know why, they''re all jealous.

 

 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,075]

Lol

[Kingston Yellow 220]

Morty - I see you''re still managing to ignore the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season.

I haven''t ducked any questions Morty. It took you 3 attempts before you finally answered my question, thus my reluctance to start answering yours.

So in response; you say, "the one thing that is fact in all of this, Grant''s record this season."

These are the facts:

- Holt has scored 1 Premiership goal from 7 Premiership game (only 3 of which he''s started).

- RVW has scored 1 goal in 27 games.

- Holt has scored 3 goals in total this season in 23 games (i.e. Villa & Wigan).

So the facts suggest your argument is flawed and common sense says the same. Neither of us can prove what Holt would have done in a City shirt this season but I find it hard to believe that Holt wouldn''t have outscored RvW, not to mention his overall contribution to the cause.

[BigFish 1,986]

Sorry but jutst being pedantic over your argument you really should include the number of goals/games Holt had in the Champs this season..........that is before Wigan shipped him out as not fit for the Champs.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="BigFish"]Sorry but jutst being pedantic over your argument you really should include the number of goals/games Holt had in the Champs this season..........that is before Wigan shipped him out as not fit for the Champs.[/quote]

Apologies, I see you did but still doesn''t negate the fact that Wigan''s view of Holt is very close to ours of RvW - a big waste of cash , not up to it. Except they dropped theirs and shipped him out

[Kingston Yellow 220]

The thing is Big Fish, the thread isn''t about what''s Wigan''s view of Holt. It''s about whether we got rid of Holt too soon / without finding a suitable replacement.

[Darth Catbeard The Old 0]

I doubt we could have kept him unless we got rid of Hughton and moved the stadium somewhere up north :P

He was just as good in his last year as he was in the 3 previous. 8 goals in an even more negative Hughton team than the one this year was a brilliant achievement. He''s a Carlisle fan not a Norwich fan and I completely understood why he wanted to leave and still a complete legend in my eyes.

But yes it would have made a difference, putting him on like 50k a week might just have persuaded him to stay but that would have seemed like madness and we all thought our two new strikers were decent back then so was never gonna happen, letting go of Holt is not something I blame the club for

[The Great Mass Debater 1,075]

Holt was a special player for us. Joining a new team, going back to a league with a different style, getting to know new team mates and fitting in with a different role and a different approach - all very different from Holt continuing at a place he knows, is known and where he should be valued, especially the fans. I know it is pure conjecture to suggest what he might have done in a city shirt - but to Wigan he was just another player, one perhaps the fans doubted. He was never just another player here, he led by example, - hard to do when you are the new boy.

 

All of these arguments of course extend to RvW and Hooper and Elmander, they all had the same set of circumstances. But had Holt stayed it wouldnt be new for him. The problem this season has regularly been who to play and whether to play them together. Im pretty sure keeping Holt would have helped get the best out of Hooper or RvW. Perhaps his star was falling, but he would have remained a damn good captain and a damn good inspiration - something we have sorely lacked this season. I really believe Holt could have been a good partner for any of our new strikers, and would have done what none of them do, helped us retain the ball, gain some territory and show some b*llcks. He wouldnt have gone missing in games thats for sure. Maybe Elmander was supposed to be a pedigree snooty version of Holt. Poor mans Holt if you ask me. I know Elmander has a billion caps for Sweden, but Holt has done more in canary yellow

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

The way he was used which pissed him off and the subsequent sale did have a major impact despite him getting older and slower he would have held up the ball and got at least 6 goals i am sure

[Jacko 0]

Selling Grant Holt did not get us relegated. It was the right time for him to move on. His record of 3 goals in total this season (much of that played at championship level) is testament to the fact he was past his best when he moved on.

He also didn''t want to play for Norwich any more, so we didn''t have much of a choice but to sell him. You can argue that much of that was down to Hughton''s management and tactics but that is for another thread altogether.

What did get us relegated was failing to sign an effective replacement capable of playing up front by themselves. In Hooper and Van Wolfswinkel I think we signed two very effective "penalty box poachers." Sadly, they are totally ill equipped to hold the ball up and bring others into the game.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Whilst it was the right time for Holt to move on. His replacement should have been in place before Holt left and he should have been phased in. We bought from outside the premiership meaning the new guy needed to adapt and at the bottom of the premiership we don''t have the margin for error to simply allow new players "a season to adapt" without reliable cover/ competition.

Perhaps if Wolf had come in January last year we might have been better prepared.

[Sussexyellow 55]

Jimmy, better prepared or forewarned at the start of last Summers transfer window? Warned that Wolf was not a Holty replacement and that one was needed!

[ashboy 0]

Our manager brought in so called better players but lost the team.

He ignored the basic simple principle of the game that of scoring goals.

His one only playing in the opponents half of the pitch against three opposition defenders was enough to discourage any unfortunate lone striker.

Nobody in the squad this season covered as much ground in the striker role as Grant Holt did in his last year and at most times without support.

With their tactics the management destroyed him and did little to aid his successors.

How long did the Board think the supporters would go on paying big money to watch the boring unentertaining performances..

[Six Pack 91]

Molly Windley wrote:

We scored 22 goals from open play last season with Grant Holt in the side.

This season we have score 23 goals from open play without Grant Holt in the side.

Last season we scored 17 goals from set pieces and this season we have scored 4

The problem is not the strikers, its our inability to score from corners and free kicks.

-----------------------------------------------------------

We only scored 4 goals from set pieces, not because of the service to the strikers - it''s because we won so few free kicks in the opposition "red" zone.

RVW & Hooper are pathetic players and carry no threat whatsoever to opposition defenders. Holt''s an entirely different proposition- he has the ability to unsettle the opposition by roughing them up. Defenders can''t knock him off the ball unless they foul him.

Holt and Hoolahan are experience campaigners. If Holt had stayed, this pair would have had us comfortably in mid table.

But with 50 million to spend, the dreamers demanded a top 8 finish. Allowing Holt to leave before a ball had even been kicked ! No need to see if these new recruits are any good. I''m just an ordinary fan - but it needn''t take me too many games to recognize that the new strikers did not process any flair whatsoever in open play. Elmander was ok.

We had plenty of games left to retrieve things but of course Holt had left the club.

Sometimes you don''t appreciate what you''ve got - the grass is always greener on the other side.

Simple - if Holt (and Hoolahan) had played the majority of the games this season - we wouldn''t be deadmen walking now !

Rant over now !