bobzy

No you sure couldn't but we have similar responses each window so I would have thought by now I should have expected it. It still surprises me that it surprises me I remember similar comments last year and by jove the retorts were correct as we ended up with Sylla and borrowed Dawkins in the last few minutes of the window. And they are both important parts of this well oiled, well performing team. Oh hang on. That's right, Dawkins hardly featured and Sylla is another one of those players Lambert has bought but doesn't appear to want to play them. Don't let me get in the way of your constant negativity, but we also signed Darren Bent in a) January and b ) further along in the month than we are now. Back to moaning though, please.

A lot of the criticism towards Delph stems from the fact that we have almost zero creativity in the middle of the park. For example, people say he has no end product. Now this is fine, and fair enough really as he doesn't, but that shouldn't (in my opinion) be his main role - it's just that alongside Westwood and KEA, he actively looks like a more attacking player. What works for him is his engine and ability to run with the ball. His passing/awareness needs to improve but there have been games where he has absolutely bossed the midfield (esp against Chelsea). If we continue to play a midfield trio and get a genuine creator in there, I think Delph will flourish.

If we added 5 quality players to our first team, I think our squad is good enough - yes. Is our first team good enough at the moment? No. Next idiotic statement please.

The problem is though that most of Lambert's signings have proven to be crap. At a push only four out 16 Lambert signings would be kept under a new manager, Guzan, Vlaar, Benteke and maybe Bacuna which would mean another rebuild. Someone has never heard of a squad.

It's not even about Benteke learning from Holt. Lambert likes playing with a target man, our backup target man has a broken leg. Holt is a cheap alternative to bring in for 5 months. Furthermore, Lambert has worked with Holt and knows his strengths and how he likes to play etc. Guidetti is an unexperienced risk. Academy players are unexperienced risks. There are probably no other suitable players to draft in for such a short term period that won't cost over £20k a week. Grant Holt is not an exceptional footballer, but we're not **** signing him permanently. Really can't see the problem with this.

That is a strange way of looking at things. --- So based on whatever predicted amount of game time any one thinks he will get, I'm interested in finding out roughly (Or you can do it gently if you want) the quantity of goals he could score for any one to consider him a success? I will say seven. I also feel he may contribute a few assists too but I didn't ask that. I'll say nine assists if you were wondering. Assuming he gets, say, 25 minutes a game on average - I'd say 4 or 5 goals is a successful loan period. That's the same amount Benteke has scored in 6 months.

Are you 6ft 4+? Can you head a football? Are you available to be drafted in as a striker for 5 months?

Complete guesswork then. Good stuff.

What does this have to do with Grant Holt? He signed a big money contract, at 32 do you really think he's going to sign a contract for less money 12 months later in order to drop down to the championship? Common sense would tell you this is highly highly unlikely He signed a big money contract did he? Big money in world football, probably not. Big money for a team like Norwich and certainly championship level, I'd say yes. This is what he said when he signed "I'm really pleased we've agreed things and I've got the deal which gives me and my family a bit of security," I doubt he gave up that security to drop down a level on probably his last professional contract. This all sounds opinion based. But you've stated that; "Holt did not drop down a division to take a decrease in pay." and also; "He signed a big money contract" Can you make your mind up please? Or are you, yet again, just having a dig at Lambert/Lerner/Villa for the sake of having a dig at Lambert/Lerner/Villa?

What does this have to do with Grant Holt? He signed a big money contract, at 32 do you really think he's going to sign a contract for less money 12 months later in order to drop down to the championship? Common sense would tell you this is highly highly unlikely He signed a big money contract did he?

FACT. No, no wait.... it's not You could use common sense but that might mean you can't praise everything the club does all the time. I don't praise everything the club does... however, I don't knock everything that happens just for the sake of it. I take it players in League Two earn more than Premier League players though, right? Because of the lower quality of the league and everything.

FACT. No, no wait.... it's not

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Ferguson had other experienced strikers in the squad when he did. ...and we had Richard Dunne and James Collins.

When he's fit. Lambert's fault for injuries. No injured player can ever be good. Van Persie is crap. Hasn't learnt the lesson from injured Dutch players. LAMBERT OUT!! I don't think anyone would be stupid enough for that. It's his fault for signing a player who has a long history of injuries, though.Especially when it's going to be the one experienced player in the back line. Martin Laursen was terrible too. I wish we'd stop buying these injury-ridden centre backs.

When he's fit. Lambert's fault for injuries. No injured player can ever be good. Van Persie is crap. Hasn't learnt the lesson from injured Dutch players. LAMBERT OUT!!

Incorrect - last season it was defence (much improved). This time out it's midfield.

If you've got a strategy of getting balls up to the "big man" (Benteke, Kozak) why on earth would you bring back Darren Bent as cover? Not even touching the wage issues. Christ, I hate our fan base sometimes. Haha yeah me to. The pathetic acceptance of absolutely anything is very frustrating. So what you're saying is the manager is incapable of playing anything but hoof ball so we need to sign holt because we can't use the other players the manager has signed. Fills you with faith for the future doesn't it? Yes, obviously I was saying that we're incapable of playing anything but hoof ball. And obviously the 5 month loan signing of Grant Holt is "one for the future". Obviously. Obv.

If you've got a strategy of getting balls up to the "big man" (Benteke, Kozak) why on earth would you bring back Darren Bent as cover? Not even touching the wage issues. Christ, I hate our fan base sometimes.

The commentary report last night said he was unconscious for about a minute on the pitch. He was "sitting up" but with "mild concussion" symptoms in hospital afaik.

An anagram of "Miroslav Klose" is "some Villa skor". Good omen, definitely a good omen.

Does anything, though?

Good idea, we'll put experience and if we know them ahead of abilty. What could possibly go wrong? If I could bold on my phone, I'd be bolding 'short term' and 'cover' He's not very good regardless of how long he is on the pay roll. Let's look logically and rationally at the signing, while making a reasonable assumption that he's coming as cover. Bowery or holt coming on with 20 mins to go? Bowery because I'm being stubbornly anti-Lambert. Wait, Lambert signed Bowery. Errr... Holt because he's only a loan signing which is better than permanent. Errr... LAMBERT OUT.

Similar ball from Lowton to the one at Everton (I think?) last season - we really need to be serving up more of those for Benteke.

Any optimism would only be skewed into negativity at the moment. Pointless doing that.

Edit: Beaten