Grant Holt

[markavfc40]

I'd be very worried if Benteke was out and Holt was his replacement. He is the only logical player he could be back up for though. He certainly couldn't play the role either Weimann or Gabby do which is usually playing wide right/left supporting both Benteke and working their bollocks off getting back or in Weimanns case on Sunday playing just behind Benteke in an advanced midfield role.

I think looking at it from Lamberts point of view he saw that with Kozak out he wanted a short term back up and didn't have a lot to spend. I think it also shows that he didn't think Helenius was capable of providing that back up which is perhaps a sad assessment of how he rates Helenius given that he sees Holt as a better option.

I think to come on in the last 15 mins or so to hold the ball up and help us see out a game is his best and perhaps only use. He is hardly likely to worry most opposing Prem teams who are a goal or two up and then see Holt stroll out onto the pitch to be a game changer.

[Risso]

 

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.

 

 

He was hardly a success under Coyle though, which is why he was used mainly as a sub after coming back from injury.  But it is a fact that a Championship decided he wasn't good enough, or he wouldn't be here.

[Big_John_10]

But it is a fact that a Championship decided he wasn't good enough, or he wouldn't be here.

Was going to say the same. Don't see how you can argue with that fact.

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.

And Bowery was played too much.

[Isa]

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.

Nothing to do with 'different ideas'. Rosler sidelined Holt because he wasn't satisfied with his fitness levels. It's a shame that all managers can't share his level of expectation of the players in this regard.

 

[Cliffy Biro]

Alright then considering some people don't understand why it made perfect sense to sign holt, give me some better alternatives that were available for loan and realistic? I.E was perfectly aware that he was nothing more than cover for the last 10 minutes of a game.

[Risso]

Alright then considering some people don't understand why it made perfect sense to sign holt, give me some better alternatives that were available for loan and realistic? I.E was perfectly aware that he was nothing more than cover for the last 10 minutes of a game.

 

That's a typical unanswerable question used to defend the indefensible.

 

"Player A"

 

"Player isn't realistic"

 

Utterly pointless.

[Isa]

Alright then considering some people don't understand why it made perfect sense to sign holt, give me some better alternatives that were available for loan and realistic? I.E was perfectly aware that he was nothing more than cover for the last 10 minutes of a game.

We didn't even need another striker. How hard is that for people like yourself to fathom?

Edit: And even if we did, you'd expect somebody fit enough, let alone good enough, to play at this level.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Isa

[TrentVilla]

Not as hard as it seems to be for some to fathom the man paid to do the job thought we did, which ultimately is what matters.

Please could name a few of these better options that Lambert could have got on a short term loan to the end of the season?

[LordSepulchrave]

Lambert's words when we signed him?

 

"He's a proper guy" or something like that. Seems to me that we signed him to help in the dressing room as an experienced voice. The role he plays on the pitch, he seems more like an upgrade on Bowery than anything else, a defensive forward.

 

This does seem to be much ado about nothing - cheap short term cover whom the manager has hinted has been signed for his presence off the pitch as well as on it.

[Risso]

Perfect sense?

 

Fit enough? X

Good enough X

Scoring goals in the Championship? X

Real man? ü

 

Yes, perfect sense....

[Risso]

Not as hard as it seems to be for some to fathom the man paid to do the job thought we did, which ultimately is what matters.

Please could name a few of these better options that Lambert could have got on a short term loan to the end of the season?

 

Well if all that matters is what Lambert thought, close the website now.

 

And here's a better option, NOT signing Grant Holt. 

[Isa]

I don't need to name any alternatives on the basis that I believe five strikers was already enough to get through the season. The 'anything is better than nothing' mindset is very flawed indeed though it has to be said.

[LordSepulchrave]

In his four sub appearances, we've only conceded one goal (the pen against L'pool) from when he's come on. Four games isn't enough to make a definite conclusion, but that certainly suggests he's a decent shout for helping to close out games. I certainly can't imagine that would have been the case if we'd been reduced to ten men in all these games.

 

Not keen on him starting mind.

[Cliffy Biro]

 

Alright then considering some people don't understand why it made perfect sense to sign holt, give me some better alternatives that were available for loan and realistic? I.E was perfectly aware that he was nothing more than cover for the last 10 minutes of a game.

 

That's a typical unanswerable question used to defend the indefensible.

 

"Player A"

 

"Player isn't realistic"

 

Utterly pointless.

 

 

The sort of answer i'd expect tbh, basically you don't have any names and are using an assumption of a reply to defend it. If you're looking for an example of utterly pointless then it would be the likes of you still complaining about a guy that is clearly only going to be here for a few months to cover for a long term injury.

[Big_John_10]

Alright then considering some people don't understand why it made perfect sense to sign holt, give me some better alternatives that were available for loan and realistic? I.E was perfectly aware that he was nothing more than cover for the last 10 minutes of a game.

I'd have preferred the manager to use the squad he assembled and not use a player not good enough for the team.

[Isa]

In his four sub appearances, we've only conceded one goal (the pen against L'pool) from when he's come on. Four games isn't enough to make a definite conclusion, but that certainly suggests he's a decent shout for helping to close out games. I certainly can't imagine that would have been the case if we'd been reduced to ten men in all these games.

Not keen on him starting mind.

Eh? How in any way does that scenario have any basis in reality?

Firstly whether we did or didn't need a striker is entirely your opinion so dont talk to me about fathoming things like im thick you complete and utter imbecile.

Just as it is your opinion that it made 'perfect sense' to sign Holt.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Isa

[LordSepulchrave]

 

In his four sub appearances, we've only conceded one goal (the pen against L'pool) from when he's come on. Four games isn't enough to make a definite conclusion, but that certainly suggests he's a decent shout for helping to close out games. I certainly can't imagine that would have been the case if we'd been reduced to ten men in all these games.

Not keen on him starting mind.

Eh? How in any way does that scenario have any basis in reality?

 

Further up the thread Risso said that we'd be better with nobody than having Holt. I'm just making the point that Holt's absolutely better than nobody.

 

Edit:

 

 

A bad player is worse than no player in my opinion.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2014 by LordSepulchrave

[Cliffy Biro]

 

In his four sub appearances, we've only conceded one goal (the pen against L'pool) from when he's come on. Four games isn't enough to make a definite conclusion, but that certainly suggests he's a decent shout for helping to close out games. I certainly can't imagine that would have been the case if we'd been reduced to ten men in all these games.

Not keen on him starting mind.

Eh? How in any way does that scenario have any basis in reality?

Firstly whether we did or didn't need a striker is entirely your opinion so dont talk to me about fathoming things like im thick you complete and utter imbecile.

Just as it is your opinion that it made 'perfect sense' to sign Holt.

 

 

Yes and that is why i asked the people who dont agree with it what alternatives there were, shock horror absolutely none of them have offered one instead making every excuse under the sun not too offer one. Its not their job etc etc

[Risso]

 

 

In his four sub appearances, we've only conceded one goal (the pen against L'pool) from when he's come on. Four games isn't enough to make a definite conclusion, but that certainly suggests he's a decent shout for helping to close out games. I certainly can't imagine that would have been the case if we'd been reduced to ten men in all these games.

Not keen on him starting mind.

Eh? How in any way does that scenario have any basis in reality?

Firstly whether we did or didn't need a striker is entirely your opinion so dont talk to me about fathoming things like im thick you complete and utter imbecile.

Just as it is your opinion that it made 'perfect sense' to sign Holt.

 

 

Yes and that is why i asked the people who dont agree with it what alternatives there were, shock horror absolutely none of them have offered one instead making every excuse under the sun not too offer one. Its not their job etc etc

 

 

No, the reason is that it doesn't matter who is suggested, you WILL say that that it isn't a realistic alternative, so there really is no point.  But FWIW, I can name at least a dozen players who would have been a better bet than Holt, but whether they'd have come on loan isn't possible to know.

[Kwan]

So much arguing over a player who won't be here in 3 months. I don't like him or the signing either but hasn't really done anything negative to warrant such a following.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Kwan