Hob Nob Anyone?

Wolves are set to beat Portsmouth to the £2m signing of Bristol City midfielder Marvin Elliott according to the Daily Mirror.

IMAMATEOFJOVSKY wrote:Wolves are set to beat Portsmouth to the £2m signing of Bristol City midfielder Marvin Elliott according to the Daily Mirror.

That would be a shame to see a very Reading type of player going elsewhere.

I think he'd make an excellent addition to our midfield, and we definately missed a trick when City picked him up for nothing when he left Millwall. He'd have been a great long term, like for like, successor for Sidwell.

Even at £2m I'd love to see us sign him now, maybe chucking in Gunnarsson to go the other way to make room in the squad for him.

Not to be though...shame.

Gunnarsson, a free in 6 months, and old = worth very little in any swap deal, or any deal actually.

Maybe if we offered Lita plus £1.5m. But we wont spend that sort of money on one player at this level. Sorry Ian.

Deathy wrote:Gunnarsson, a free in 6 months, and old = worth very little in any swap deal, or any deal actually.

Maybe if we offered Lita plus £1.5m. But we wont spend that sort of money on one player at this level. Sorry Ian.

I wasn't thinking of him being of much worth in the deal, more a way of giving them a replacement capable at this level plus getting him off of our wage bill and making room in the squad.

It's not going to happen so it's really an issue though.

Throwing Lita in might make the deal a little more appealing to them though, although it's still not going to happen!

I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

Ian Royal wrote:I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

The fact that Coppell has openly said he doesnt even know his best midfield shows that there are questions to be asked there - yes we have the volume of midfielders but I dont think we have the quality there, certainly to compete in Premiership

IMAMATEOFJOVSKY wrote:

Ian Royal wrote:I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

The fact that Coppell has openly said he doesnt even know his best midfield shows that there are questions to be asked there - yes we have the volume of midfielders but I dont think we have the quality there, certainly to compete in Premiership

The fact that Fabio Cappello hasn't decided the make up of his best midfield means he must still be looking for more players ......oh, wait a minute.

The fact that Sir Steve (how the Queen has missed him again, I'll never know) doesn't know the best combination does not necessarily mean that there isn't enough quality.

IMAMATEOFJOVSKY wrote:

Ian Royal wrote:I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

The fact that Coppell has openly said he doesnt even know his best midfield shows that there are questions to be asked there - yes we have the volume of midfielders but I dont think we have the quality there, certainly to compete in Premiership

Yes the questions are "Which 2 of the 5 good midfielders I already have work best"

He's also said we don't need a midfielder. We aren't in the Premiership. We have much higher priorities to consider getting bodies in for than midfielder. IF we go up, we can look at whether we need more in midfield then. When I would assume we'd release Gunnar and bring in a new body to keep to 5.

I agree it's not a top priority to get in a midfielder but I think it might be another missed opportunity.

We'll need to strengthen our midfield if we go up and this is surely Gunnarssons last season with us and personally I still don't think Cisse will cut it in the Premiership as the game's just too fast for him.

I think Elliott would allow us to sign, and bed-in, a physical box to box midfielder (the type we've missed since Sidwell left) who has all the qualities to be a half decent Reading type player in the Premiership.

The way Elliot ran the midfield in our game at Ashton Gate really does make you think he'd be a worthwhile addition to the squad (*)





*OK, I know it's wrong to judge him on one game.....

Ian Royal wrote:I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

Do you think Wolves "need" one?
It's all about progression surely and if a player becomes available at a fair price who is better than what we have got I would like to think we might be in for him whether he is another central midfielder or not.
We kept on buying centre-backs didn't we when on here people felt it unnecessary?

Sun Tzu wrote:The way Elliot ran the midfield in our game at Ashton Gate really does make you think he'd be a worthwhile addition to the squad (*)





*OK, I know it's wrong to judge him on one game.....

I took a look at one of the City forums a while back specifically to see how he was getting on. The concensus seemed to be that he's not been as good as last season and I think he's proven over the last few seasons that he's got something about him.

Victor Meldrew wrote:

Ian Royal wrote:I see one huge reason not to give a toss about this.

We don't need a bloody midfielder!

Do you think Wolves "need" one?
It's all about progression surely and if a player becomes available at a fair price who is better than what we have got I would like to think we might be in for him whether he is another central midfielder or not.
We kept on buying centre-backs didn't we when on here people felt it unnecessary?

That's a point, but Coppell has gone on record he realised he made a mistake in just getting in quantity of bodies rather than quality. We have much much more important places to progress and strengthern.

This chap must be something pretty special if he'd be a better bet for the Premiership than 4 of our current midfielders. The summer is the time to look at our midfield, when we know whether we'll be in the Prem and how well Cisse and Karacan have come on this season.

I think our only Prem quality midfielders are Matejovsky and Harper, who can't play together at least in a two. So we will need to strengthern, although Cisse or Karacan MAY just about be good enough to play with both Harps and Marek.

Ian Royal wrote: I think our only Prem quality midfielders are Matejovsky and Harper, who can't play together at least in a two. So we will need to strengthern, although Cisse or Karacan MAY just about be good enough to play with both Harps and Marek.

I'd agree with the first bit of that. Cisse may prove me wrong and be able to handle it now he's had more time to adjust to British football but I just think he's revelling in the lower quality of the Championship and he'll still be too slow in the Prem.

I see Karacan as too similar to Harper to really be an effective partner for him. He has more bite in his tackling than Harper, but he's not different enough for them to complement each other.

I do think that Elliott is one of those that just looks right for us and we'll regret not being in for him (assuming we're not of course) in the future.

having seen him play 20 odd times he is no better than what we have imo

juanpablo wrote:having seen him play 20 odd times he is no better than what we have imo

Would you say he's different though?

As good as Harper or Mateovsky are at what they do?

Hoop Blah wrote:

juanpablo wrote:having seen him play 20 odd times he is no better than what we have imo

Would you say he's different though?

As good as Harper or Mateovsky are at what they do?

People on here will say he's not the same type as Harper - but he's a better player than Harper. They defend Harper saying that other players arent the same as Harper - just not sure what Harper is??...apart from ineffective most of the time - so we wouldnt want any other player to be the same!

To say Harper is ineffective shows a distinct lack of footballing knowledge.

IMAMATEOFJOVSKY wrote:

Hoop Blah wrote:

juanpablo wrote:having seen him play 20 odd times he is no better than what we have imo

Would you say he's different though?

As good as Harper or Mateovsky are at what they do?

People on here will say he's not the same type as Harper - but he's a better player than Harper. They defend Harper saying that other players arent the same as Harper - just not sure what Harper is??...apart from ineffective most of the time - so we wouldnt want any other player to be the same!

Some fellow nobbers found my explanation of Harper's role helpful on a different post. It might help with the "just not sure what Harper is" bit.

Re: Birmingham away...The facts
OLLIE KEARNS, 23 Dec 2008 08:47
I have to smile at all of the Harper debates. I spent 15 years playing CM in non league football and so watch that position with added interest. The one key point would be that you have to watch what the player is doing when he doesn't have the ball to really understand the role. When an attack breaks down your CM players have to be smart enough to immediately drop into positions to delay a counter attack. They also need to be extremely fit to do that over 90 minutes. Delaying an attack doesn't always mean making a tackle because that can lead to even bigger trouble. For example, Iver tried to tackle Phillips in that key CM area on Saturday and missed. The result is lots of players out of position which results in dangerous situations as the opposition breaks on you. The more effective action is to delay the attack and force a sideways / backwards pass which in turn allows the rest of the team to recover their positions.
In addition to this the a CM player will be required to keep possession well and pick the occasional forward run when genuine space opens up. Something that Harper is especially good at as goals v Blackburn, Boro, Liverpoool, Wigan, Man City etc demonstrate. Remember also that making dozens of forward runs in a game will only impair your ability to do the key part of the role which is prevent opposition breaking on you. You have to pick your forward runs in that role.
All in all Haper is extremely fit, reads the game very well, organises those around him, rarely wastes a forward run and keeps possession. He is a good player ! If you still have the Brum game recorded try watching Harper regardless of where the ball is. You'll get a compltely different perspective of his contribution to the team.
Football has become extremely technical nowadays not least because the tackle has almost become extinct. It is all about each player doing a specific job within a specific team framework. Reading are the best in the league at this (see McLeish comments) and Harper is an integral part of that. Some of you should give Mr Coppell a bit more credit rather than see Harper as his pet.

IMAMATEOFJOVSKY wrote:

Hoop Blah wrote:

juanpablo wrote:having seen him play 20 odd times he is no better than what we have imo

Would you say he's different though?

As good as Harper or Mateovsky are at what they do?

People on here will say he's not the same type as Harper - but he's a better player than Harper. They defend Harper saying that other players arent the same as Harper - just not sure what Harper is??...apart from ineffective most of the time - so we wouldnt want any other player to be the same!

Change the record, you've moaned about Harper roughly 500 times in your 385 posts.