AntrimBlack Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It's bizarre how much attention Holt gets. His loan has cost us next to nothing (in the grand scheme of things) and he barely plays. It is not the cost that is the problem, it is that he contributes nothing and we would have been better off bringing on a different sub. Like one of our young guys who would love the opportunity. I don't think bringing on a youngster is a good idea, with the crowd being so hostile right now. Sunday would have been perfect, comfortable lead and containing the opposition. If he does not take the opportunity in a game like that to blood them, when will he do it. Bringing on Holt smacks of favouritism! And if said player gives away the ball and it leads to a goal, imagine how much crap the fans would give. We are not in the position to relax, let alone blood young players. I think Holt did give the ball away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papillon Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 The whole reaction/over reaction to the Holt signing (or should I say loan) is baffling to me. We have a manager working on limited resources, something which surely everyone now accepts, who lost Kovak through injury and so found himself lacking a target man style forward as cover for Benteke. When he saw the opportunity for a short term and you would figure cheap deal to bring in a potential cover option who just happened to have played and scored a lot of goals for him previously he took it. He hasn't played much and he hasn't done much when he has, he may well turn out to make no contribution at all. But really, so what? The amount we pay him in wages during the time he is here isn't going to make any difference to anything and there was no transfer fee. So its not like our wage bill has been affected for next season or our transfer budget either. Lambert took a cheap punt on a player he knew and who he previously got the best out of in order to try and see us through to the summer and give us a bit of extra protection. I don't have an issue with that myself. I think I would have been more critical of him had he not tried to do something in January given the loss of Kovak, sure I'd have liked a better player than Holt but it seems fairly obvious to me we can't afford that especially when its only needed in the short term. His name is Kozák, shouldn't be too difficult to get that right after him being here for six months. Secondly, a poor player like Grant Holt is worse than not buying a player when we already have other options. This is what the squad is all about and then comes Lambert's tactical nous. Change things around, use a different approach/tactic, utilize players, play the ones that aren't getting any game time. Getting Holt in sends all the wrong signals to both our current players and fans. It's a bit like Solskjær buying all these Norwegian players, even though the initial plan is to gradually put them into the side over the next years. When he is sacked, I guess that's a when rather than if at the moment, that thing alone will be put up as the main reason. Lambert going for an out of shape, out of form, out of favor former player reeks of desperation no matter the reasons behind it. Third, my main worry ; options. Is Grant Holt the single best option in the market for a loan? If we want to bring in another player we should get someone who is ready to go, ready to score some goals and then bugger off back to his club in the summer. Job done. There must have been better options in the market and in other leagues, ready to come on loan on a low wage to do a difference. At his best, Holt wouldn't make a difference. But he isn't at his best, he isn't getting games at Wigan, so why the hell would he get games at AVFC in the Premier League? People always talk about players coming in with potential talent and a low wage, like it wouldn't matter if they fail because we paid so little for them. I strongly disagree, that player will always be a part of the squad, he will most likely play once in a while and most importantly; he will take the position in the squad from another potential player. Too many of those and our general quality will plummet dramatically, because we will have injuries and those players have to play every once in a while. That player will be a part of training and that is what our own players have to compete with on the pitch, it will lower our competitive edge. Vlaar and Okore will become better if they play against a better striker in training, our strikers will become better if they learn from better players in training and so on. There is no room for crap players or old, washed out, out of shape strikers in our team - no matter how cheap or nice these guys are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaggy Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Did we think that Holt would contribute anything to the team when he couldn't even get into the Wigan side? No. Has Holt contributed anything to the team while on the pitch? No and doesn't look like doing so. A signing that wasn't going to contribute anything other than an extra body is a waste of resources no matter how limited his wage is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is nothing of the sort, I called your opinion daft not you there is a significant difference. As for the opinions of your Wigan supporting mates, that doesn't really change anything for me I stand by what I've said previously. I am though surprised anyone could have lots of Wigan supporting mates. I think anybody defending Holt is just doing it because they can't admit Lambert ever makes any mistakes. So ner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It's bizarre how much attention Holt gets. His loan has cost us next to nothing (in the grand scheme of things) and he barely plays. It is not the cost that is the problem, it is that he contributes nothing and we would have been better off bringing on a different sub. Like one of our young guys who would love the opportunity. I don't think bringing on a youngster is a good idea, with the crowd being so hostile right now. Sunday would have been perfect, comfortable lead and containing the opposition. If he does not take the opportunity in a game like that to blood them, when will he do it. Bringing on Holt smacks of favouritism! And if said player gives away the ball and it leads to a goal, imagine how much crap the fans would give. We are not in the position to relax, let alone blood young players. If 4-1 up at home isn't a good time to bring on a young player for 10 minutes then I doubt we will ever have a good time to bring them on. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is nothing of the sort, I called your opinion daft not you there is a significant difference. As for the opinions of your Wigan supporting mates, that doesn't really change anything for me I stand by what I've said previously. I am though surprised anyone could have lots of Wigan supporting mates. I think anybody defending Holt is just doing it because they can't admit Lambert ever makes any mistakes. So ner. I think it was a mistake. I said as much at the time. I could see the logic of bringing in a body to replace Kozak (i.e. as a backup to Benteke). And thus I could see WHY Lambert would go for Holt. Short term, a player he's worked with before, relatively cheap, quick and easy to tie up the deal to bring him here. But that being said I still wouldn't have wanted us to sign him. But that doesn't mean that I don't agree with Trent that the overreactions have been startling. Don't get me wrong, he was shit against Norwich. But apart from that I think he's just been average. Has done nothing of note but equally hasn't been awful in the very limited time he's been on the pitch. I don't think it's done us any harm in signing him, whilst ultimately being unfruitful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't think it's done us any harm in signing him, whilst ultimately being unfruitful. I disagree. Liverpool and Everton were two games we could have got more from if the manager hadn't resorted to this failed tactic of lumping it to a target man. And against west brom I think we we're very fortunate to score when we did because 3-3 I don't see us winning with holt coming on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 I agree entirely with the above (Stevo's post), thanks for saving me some time. I'm not sure I see anyone defending Holt as such, I've certainly not defended him or his performances what I have defended was the logic or what I perceive to the logic of the signing in the circumstances. That it hasn't worked out or hasn't done yet doesn't really detract from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Holt coming in has given us a bit of experience. The alternative was no-one. No, the alternative was sticking with the five strikers (excluding Kozak) that we had already. Who have no experience at all, and also can't play as a target man. Just because Lambert is too tactically limited to play without a target-man, that doesn't make it a justified signing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Holt coming in has given us a bit of experience. The alternative was no-one. No, the alternative was sticking with the five strikers (excluding Kozak) that we had already. Who have no experience at all, and also can't play as a target man. Just because Lambert is too tactically limited to play without a target-man, that doesn't make it a justified signing. This. People say they saw the logic. Can't say I did. We had benteke, gabby, weimman, helenius, albrighton and tonev in the squad. 3 of them signed by Lambert. I question what kind of manager builds a squad with that many attacking players and still needs Grant Holt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 5, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Holt coming in has given us a bit of experience. The alternative was no-one. No, the alternative was sticking with the five strikers (excluding Kozak) that we had already. Who have no experience at all, and also can't play as a target man. Just because Lambert is too tactically limited to play without a target-man, that doesn't make it a justified signing. This. People say they saw the logic. Can't say I did. We had benteke, gabby, weimman, helenius, albrighton and tonev in the squad. 3 of them signed by Lambert. I question what kind of manager builds a squad with that many attacking players and still needs Grant Holt. Only one, possibly two if you count Gabby, of those players you've listed is a central striker. I agree there are other options to using a target man but that's almost another discussion. My point is it's hardly baffling, when our most expensive summer signing gets injured for the season, that our manager gets in a quick, short term replacement for that position and is a player he knows he can work with to boot. Like I said, Grant Holt would have been far from the top of my list of players to sign. But if you truly can't see the logic behind it then you're just being deliberately obtuse. Edited March 5, 2014 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Weimman and benteke can both play central and gabby has played most of his career as a central striker. We were a top 6 side with gabby as a central striker. I'm sure helenius played central for his old club as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is nothing of the sort, I called your opinion daft not you there is a significant difference. As for the opinions of your Wigan supporting mates, that doesn't really change anything for me I stand by what I've said previously. I am though surprised anyone could have lots of Wigan supporting mates. I think anybody defending Holt is just doing it because they can't admit Lambert ever makes any mistakes. So ner. Thats absolute tosh Risso, It's like you never admitting when Lambert has done anything good, in that instance it's either luck or the gods were with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 It is nothing of the sort, I called your opinion daft not you there is a significant difference. As for the opinions of your Wigan supporting mates, that doesn't really change anything for me I stand by what I've said previously. I am though surprised anyone could have lots of Wigan supporting mates. I think anybody defending Holt is just doing it because they can't admit Lambert ever makes any mistakes. So ner. Thats absolute tosh Risso, It's like you never admitting when Lambert has done anything good, in that instance it's either luck or the gods were with us. It was a joke.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Like I said, Grant Holt would have been far from the top of my list of players to sign. But if you truly can't see the logic behind it then you're just being deliberately obtuse. There would only have been some logic behind it if Holt wasn't completely over weight and at least two years past his best. By all means Lambert can sign a back up target man, just don't sign one that isn't good enough for a then struggling Championship side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I can just about see the logic in signing a back up target man but really I don't think one was needed. I don't however see the logic and signing a guy who a championship team decided wasn't good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I echo the above. You don't have to be 'obtuse' to fail to see the logic in signing an unfit has-been who offers nothing on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I hope Lambert isn't pigheaded enough to keep playing Holt. He's clearly not up to it and has had a nice little run out against his old team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I hope Lambert isn't pigheaded enough to keep playing Holt. He's clearly not up to it and has had a nice little run out against his old team. He barely plays Holt as it is though. He's basically the new Bowery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villan_007 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I can just about see the logic in signing a back up target man but really I don't think one was needed. I don't however see the logic and signing a guy who a championship team decided wasn't good enough. Signed by Coyle - then came Rosler. Different managers, different ideas, players. The above is not fact, just you adding it in to suit your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts