Cliffy Biro Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. I would piss myself at that response but you proved my point for me. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) 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. Fair enough. I didn't realise that it was in response to that. 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 As I've already said, some of us didn't see the need for another striker at all. So there is no reason why we'd have to list alternatives. However, if you are going to go to the effort of loaning somebody, at least bring somebody in that contributes something. Lets face it, the players he has usurped in the pecking order wouldn't have offered any less. Edited March 5, 2014 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffy Biro Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well he's only really replaced helenius hasn't he? And you could argue he hasn't really replaced anyone because Bowery is never realistically a cover option in fact has he ever even played as a striker for villa and helenius hasn't had a sniff all season. To me it makes sense considering everything and i dont even rate the player and at this point i fail to see why people are so up in arms as if we paid 10m for him on a 4 year 50k a week contract. He'll come on for 10 minutes here and there to cover for kozak and then come the summer he'll be on his way. If he joins permanently in the summer then i'll join you in disgust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. I didn't say that is all that matters. I will presume you can't name an alternative option from that response but if you are going to persist with the 'no player' argument I see little point continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 I would piss myself at that response but you proved my point for me. Thank you. You've proved nothing of the sort I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Bowery came on a few times this season and helped close the game out which seems to be the only justification people have for Holt getting any minutes at all. Just totally pointless and a waste of whatever wages we are paying him every week. Edited March 5, 2014 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. I didn't say that is all that matters. I will presume you can't name an alternative option from that response. You can presume what you like. You're quite incorrect, but I refuse to be drawn into the usual puerile games that such a question results in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 Can I just ask how you expect Risso to know what players were available for loan or interested in coming to villa? I would imagine outside of the pro football world that info is hard to come by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. Have you got a link to any quotes on that by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season? No the January transfer window should be used to strengthen your squad, not sign your old mate who offers nothing and makes you worse whenever he's on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. Go on then. While you are right it isn't possible to know for sure it is possible to be able to say with some certainty which players wouldn't and which clubs wouldn't be likely to want to loan them. So out of this "at least a dozen" surely there must be at least a couple of almost sure things, so come on name them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season? No the January transfer window should be used to strengthen your squad, not sign your old mate who offers nothing and makes you worse whenever he's on the pitch. Ah okay. So a manager shouldn't add to his squad when a player breaks his leg even if he thinks, in his opinion, doing so strengthens his squad. But he should use the transfer window to strengthen his squad unless you approve of the choice of player. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season? No the January transfer window should be used to strengthen your squad, not sign your old mate who offers nothing and makes you worse whenever he's on the pitch. Ah okay. So a manager shouldn't add to his squad when a player breaks his leg even if he thinks, in his opinion, doing so strengthens his squad. But he should use the transfer window to strengthen his squad unless you approve of the choice of player. Got it. Well that's pretty daft. Of course the manager is going to sign who he feels strengthens the squad. Does that mean I had to agree with every decision McLeish did? Because he thought it was for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season? No the January transfer window should be used to strengthen your squad, not sign your old mate who offers nothing and makes you worse whenever he's on the pitch. Ah okay. So a manager shouldn't add to his squad when a player breaks his leg even if he thinks, in his opinion, doing so strengthens his squad. But he should use the transfer window to strengthen his squad unless you approve of the choice of player. Got it. Well that's pretty daft. Of course the manager is going to sign who he feels strengthens the squad. Does that mean I had to agree with every decision McLeish did? Because he thought it was for the best. You are the one contradicting yourself. One minute the manager shouldn't sign players and should use the squad he has then you think he should sign people. Basically your argument basically boils down to you don't rate Holt. That is about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. Have you got a link to any quotes on that by any chance? Rosler gave the reason that he left him out of the squad because he had to work on his fitness. He barely played after that. http://www.wiganer.net/news/tmnw/chairman_supports_roslers_fitness_charge_818926/index.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 Can I just ask how you expect Risso to know what players were available for loan or interested in coming to villa? I would imagine outside of the pro football world that info is hard to come by. Yet people keep saying he could have got better. Odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted March 5, 2014 Share Posted March 5, 2014 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.And how about when one of that squad breaks his leg? So I assume you think the January transfer window should be scrapped and no manager should sign any player mid season?No the January transfer window should be used to strengthen your squad, not sign your old mate who offers nothing and makes you worse whenever he's on the pitch. Ah okay. So a manager shouldn't add to his squad when a player breaks his leg even if he thinks, in his opinion, doing so strengthens his squad. But he should use the transfer window to strengthen his squad unless you approve of the choice of player. Got it. Well that's pretty daft. Of course the manager is going to sign who he feels strengthens the squad. Does that mean I had to agree with every decision McLeish did? Because he thought it was for the best. You are the one contradicting yourself. One minute the manager shouldn't sign players and should use the squad he has then you think he should sign people. Basically your argument basically boils down to you don't rate Holt. That is about it. Well yeah. What did you think my argument was? And I'd say the actual evidence backs it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 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. Have you got a link to any quotes on that by any chance? Rosler gave the reason that he left him out of the squad because he had to work on his fitness. He barely played after that.http://www.wiganer.net/news/tmnw/chairman_supports_roslers_fitness_charge_818926/index.shtml Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted March 5, 2014 Well yeah. What did you think my argument was? And I'd say the actual evidence backs it up. Well its hard to tell, it keeps changing. One has been that we would be better off without him which is pretty far from being backed up by evidence. If your only argument is you don't rate Holt though I think you've covered that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts