Pilchard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ferguson paid 20 million for RVP who is as injury prone, nobody blaming Fergie now he broke down again I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Ferguson had other experienced strikers in the squad when he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ferguson paid 20 million for RVP who is as injury prone, nobody blaming Fergie now he broke down again 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Has he gone yet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Has he gone yet ? Clearly not, so what other purpose does this post serve other than attention seeking? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Has he gone yet ? No, fortunately he's still here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I think he will turn out OK. With the emphasis on OK, not good or great, but neither will he turn out to be terrible (imo) Like I've said elsewhere, if this is our only business of the transfer window then I'll be annoyed and frustrated. But I can see the logic in getting in a short term, cheap(ish) replacement for Kozak while he's out. Holt wouldn't be my first choice, or even 20th choice, but I can see the logic behind getting a player there and understand why Lambert would have faith in a player he's managed before. I would hope that we'll have a couple of other signings to add to this. Indeed. It certainly isn't a good signing and I don't think I've seen one person categorise it as that (not sincerely anyway). It is the very definition of a logical, 'ok at best' signing with more potential for bad than good. But right now, without dealing in hypotheticals I'm not too concerned That's a fair view point and I'm not too worried about the Holt signing per say either but it does say a lot about Lambert when we have an awful lot of strikers at our disposal but he still wants to steer towards a lump struggling in the Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I think he will turn out OK. With the emphasis on OK, not good or great, but neither will he turn out to be terrible (imo) Like I've said elsewhere, if this is our only business of the transfer window then I'll be annoyed and frustrated. But I can see the logic in getting in a short term, cheap(ish) replacement for Kozak while he's out. Holt wouldn't be my first choice, or even 20th choice, but I can see the logic behind getting a player there and understand why Lambert would have faith in a player he's managed before. I would hope that we'll have a couple of other signings to add to this. Indeed. It certainly isn't a good signing and I don't think I've seen one person categorise it as that (not sincerely anyway). It is the very definition of a logical, 'ok at best' signing with more potential for bad than good. But right now, without dealing in hypotheticals I'm not too concerned That's a fair view point and I'm not too worried about the Holt signing per say either but it does say a lot about Lambert when we have an awful lot of strikers at our disposal but he still wants to steer towards a lump struggling in the Championship. I agree to an extent, but one could argue that it's far easier and safer to go for a player and a personality he knows. I think football fans have a tendency to forget that footballers are people as well (myself included) and personalities are aspects of players as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 it does say a lot about Lambert when we have an awful lot of strikers at our disposal but he still wants to steer towards a lump struggling in the Championship. One of them has broken a leg. The others aren't scoring goals. We have very little money, and we're mostly agreed that whatever money we do have should go on a playmaker. It's a backup signing, on loan, and will cost very little. Whether he plays or not, there's no harm done getting him in, given the state of the finances available. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 14, 2014 I don't think we do have a lot of strikers though that play Kozak's position. Like i Said previously, Benteke, Kozak, Bent and Delfouneso. 2 of those are out on loan and one is injured. All of our other strikers are wide attackers. Gabby and Andi can obviously play CF but are being utlised out wide, so we'd be weakened if we moved them to CF. So we have a fair few strikers, but not many that fit into that position in Lambert's current system Again, Holt wouldn't be anywhere near my first choice. But I can see why Lambert brought him in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 14, 2014 Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, if this is a replacement for Kozak, short term, then we'll have had very little time to scout for any strikers (as Kozak isn't long injured) So again I can see the logic behind Lambert taking a "safe" option and signing a player he knows he can work with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 it does say a lot about Lambert when we have an awful lot of strikers at our disposal but he still wants to steer towards a lump struggling in the Championship. One of them has broken a leg. The others aren't scoring goals. We have very little money, and we're mostly agreed that whatever money we do have should go on a playmaker. It's a backup signing, on loan, and will cost very little. Whether he plays or not, there's no harm done getting him in, given the state of the finances available. Theres a whole world of reasons why we arent scoring goals and Grant Holt is highly unlikely to change that. Its a signing that imv wasnt needed and if he is the cover to Kozak well again signing a guy struggling in the Championship and struggling for fitness probably isnt the answer either. I dont know the costs, could be cheap but it also might not be, I'm just commenting on the merits of the player alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 All of our other strikers are wide attackers. Gabby and Andi can obviously play CF but are being utlised out wide, so we'd be weakened if we moved them to CF. Would we? I'd rather one of them down the middle and albrighton out wide than Holt down the middle with those 2 wide. Neither of them are exactly world beaters out wide. If we play a front 2 we have Bowery Hekenius Gabby Weimman Benteke 3 signed by lambert and one given a new contract by Lambert. If we play a front 3 you can add Albrighton and tonev to the list. Another player signed by Lambert I fail to see how a good manager couldn't make it work with the squad of players he signed and coached. Like I said give me weimman or gabby upfront and albrighton out wide any day over holt in the team. The problem is we then can't play hoofball and it requires the manager to actually try and get the players he signed to be able to pass the ball to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 14, 2014 All of our other strikers are wide attackers. Gabby and Andi can obviously play CF but are being utlised out wide, so we'd be weakened if we moved them to CF. Would we? I'd rather one of them down the middle and albrighton out wide than Holt down the middle with those 2 wide. Neither of them are exactly world beaters out wide. If we play a front 2 we have Bowery Hekenius Gabby Weimman Benteke 3 signed by lambert and one given a new contract by Lambert. If we play a front 3 you can add Albrighton and tonev to the list. Another player signed by Lambert I fail to see how a good manager couldn't make it work with the squad of players he signed and coached. Like I said give me weimman or gabby upfront and albrighton out wide any day over holt in the team. The problem is we then can't play hoofball and it requires the manager to actually try and get the players he signed to be able to pass the ball to each other. But we don't play a front 2. We play a CF with 2 wide attackers (Gabby and Andi mostly) Which was my point. if Lambert wants to carry on playing that system then I can see why he'd want to replace Kozak as he was one of only 2 players currently at the club who could play the role he wanted his CF to play. You might prefer gabby up front and someone else out wide than Holt up front, but that's your opinion. My point still stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobler Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere, if this is a replacement for Kozak, short term, then we'll have had very little time to scout for any strikers (as Kozak isn't long injured) So again I can see the logic behind Lambert taking a "safe" option and signing a player he knows he can work with. I sort of agree but on the flip side of that, Kozak's injury came at a time when agents would be on the phone non stop trying to flog a lot of their players to other clubs, so I do believe that there would be better options on the market than Holt but it's clear that Lambert feels he can't afford to take any more gambles as he sees patience of the fans in rapid decline, so he's just going with what he knows. Problem is, Holt is not the player he was three years ago and of course time will tell, but just by Lambert's enthusiasm when talking him about him I believe he'll play a much bigger part than people expect. Edited January 14, 2014 by nobler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well you said it would make us weaker losing gabby or weimman from a wide position. I can't see how. If we played Albrighton......gabby..........weimman That to me is stronger than Gabby.........Holt.........weimman Mainly because the first group are all fit and good enough to have an impact in the championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well you said it would make us weaker losing gabby or weimman from a wide position. I can't see how. If we played Albrighton......gabby..........weimman That to me is stronger than Gabby.........Holt.........weimman Mainly because the first group are all fit and good enough to have an impact in the championship. That's great. Your opinion is valid. It still doesn't change my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well you said it would make us weaker losing gabby or weimman from a wide position. I can't see how. If we played Albrighton......gabby..........weimman That to me is stronger than Gabby.........Holt.........weimman Mainly because the first group are all fit and good enough to have an impact in the championship. Its a valid opinion but I'd argue that Holt is a much more reliable goal scorer than Gabby, and that Gabby out wide is a bigger threat to Gabby through the middle or Albrighton out wide. I'd be tempted (on current form) to drop Weimann and play Albrighton RF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Ferguson paid 20 million for RVP who is as injury prone, nobody blaming Fergie now he broke down again I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Ferguson had other experienced strikers in the squad when he did. So Fergie bought a striker when he already had strikers at the club? Lambert must know a thing or two then eh? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Well you said it would make us weaker losing gabby or weimman from a wide position. I can't see how. If we played Albrighton......gabby..........weimman That to me is stronger than Gabby.........Holt.........weimman Mainly because the first group are all fit and good enough to have an impact in the championship. By your own admission above you can't see how. Fortunately for us then that your not picking the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Vlaar. Who you'd be hard to argue against being a good signing. 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. If Vlaar was injury-free he wouldn't have come to us and certainly not for the cut-price we paid. It's was a gamble worth taking and has paid off. No chance of us signing a prominent international any other way He's missed only a handful of games with the recurring knee injury - his current calf injury is unrealated and could have happened to anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts