News:

Use a VPN to stream games Safely and Securely 🔒
A Virtual Private Network can also allow you to
watch games Not being broadcast in the UK For
more Information and how to Sign Up go to
https://go.nordvpn.net/SH4FE

Main Menu


Why did we let Oliver Norwood go

Started by The Swan, March 13, 2019, 08:50:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Swan

I know that he was on loan from Brighton but what a player.
He helped Brighton get promoted , he helped us get promoted and now he might help Sheffield United get promoted.
Its a shame he is not playing in our midfield.
The Swan

bog

I always rated Oli. Wont forget his block in added time in the penalty area in the closing seconds at Wembley or his pen at Boro 90+5.  :54:


092.gif

Southcoastffc

The consensus from most folk on message boards and sitting around me in the HE was that he is a decent Championship player but not more than that.  That's surely why Brighton let him go.  IMO it'd be looking at history through rose-tinted spectacles to suggest otherwise, but if he makes it to the Prem and does well, very good luck to him.
The world is made up of electrons, protons, neurons, possibly muons and, definitely, morons.


Woolly Mammoth

He would have provided more value for money and commitment than some of the imports that we have been lumbered with at high cost, he had the right attitude.
Its not the man in the fight, it's the fight in the man.  🐘

Never forget your Roots.

@jolslover

Quote from: Southcoastffc on March 13, 2019, 09:17:35 PM
The consensus from most folk on message boards and sitting around me in the HE was that he is a decent Championship player but not more than that.  That's surely why Brighton let him go.  IMO it'd be looking at history through rose-tinted spectacles to suggest otherwise, but if he makes it to the Prem and does well, very good luck to him.

Agree
STH H3

ALG01

I thought he was an OK squad player in the championship and not good enough for the Prem. But given the choice between him and some of our high cost midfild signings, Norwood is a better choice IMO.


HV71

As Woolly says he was very committed ( particularly given that he was only on loan ) That puts him leaps ahead of some of the players this season. He also had a range of passes and wasn't afraid to put his body on the line or getting stuck in . Shame he had to go given that some of his qualities have been sorely missed this campaign

Statto

It sums up everything wrong with Tony Khan's approach to transfers this summer. Norwood is English, cheap and low profile - exactly the kind of player Mike Rigg would have signed. That is anathema to TK, who preferred to smash our transfer record on an exciting, new, exotic French stats-based target, Anguissa.

Now I still suspect Anguissa has more potential and inherent talent than Norwood, but I don't think anyone could dispute that Norwood would have been at least as effective as Anguissa has been this season, probably better, and would have had the added bonus of not disrupting the team we had last season.

The same goes for Button (vs Fabri, and arguably even Rico, who's looking less and less useful as the season wears on) and Kalas (vs MLM) and Piazon (vs Vietto). 

@jolslover

#8
Quote from: Statto on March 13, 2019, 10:57:39 PM
It sums up everything wrong with Tony Khan's approach to transfers this summer. Norwood is English, cheap and low profile - exactly the kind of player Mike Rigg would have signed. That is anathema to TK, who preferred to smash our transfer record on an exciting, new, exotic French stats-based target, Anguissa.

Now I still suspect Anguissa has more potential and inherent talent than Norwood, but I don't think anyone could dispute that Norwood would have been at least as effective as Anguissa has been this season, probably better, and would have had the added bonus of not disrupting the team we had last season.

The same goes for Button (vs Fabri, and arguably even Rico, who's looking less and less useful as the season wears on) and Kalas (vs MLM) and Piazon (vs Vietto). 

Later two are different from the first two examples given as Le March was cheaper than Kalas (cost 3.6m whereas Chelsea wanted 6m for Kalas) and Piazon vs. Vietto is hard to compare as perm vs. loan. But am sure Vietto on loan was cheaper than signing Piazon permanently. I also think Vietto is probably better than Piazon. Kalas vs. Le March I'd probably go with Kalas but not for almost double the price. I think Rico is head and shoulders above Button aswell.
STH H3


The Rational Fan

I cannot see how Slavisa is not to blame for letting Norwood go, he was telling papers early August we need cover for McDonald and Mitro; if he thought Norwood and Piazon were cover he would have said that.

Penfold

Quote from: The Rational Fan on March 13, 2019, 11:41:29 PM
I cannot see how Slavisa is not to blame for letting Norwood go, he was telling papers early August we need cover for McDonald and Mitro; if he thought Norwood and Piazon were cover he would have said that.

Probably because he had no say over the matter.


The Rational Fan

Quote from: Penfold on March 13, 2019, 11:54:09 PM
Quote from: The Rational Fan on March 13, 2019, 11:41:29 PM
I cannot see how Slavisa is not to blame for letting Norwood go, he was telling papers early August we need cover for McDonald and Mitro; if he thought Norwood and Piazon were cover he would have said that.

Probably because he had no say over the matter.

TK liked Norwood as a loan which was succesful, but you think that Slavisa couldn't talk TK into buying him as a homegrown player for £2m. Norwood's stats are awesome for that price, plus you may have noticed TK bought Mitrovoic and Markovoic because of recommendations.


the nutflush

Quote from: bog on March 13, 2019, 09:03:12 PM
I always rated Oli. Wont forget his block in added time in the penalty area in the closing seconds at Wembley or his pen at Boro 90+5.  :54:


092.gif

Two great moments from a good honest contributor.

colinwhite

#13
Oli is a good player but wasnt getting in our championship side. We ,like Brighton and others  before ,deemed him not good enough for the premiership. Could he have done a job ?maybe ,but if we had hung ours hopes on him people really would have been up in arms ,before the season got started.
Piazon and kallas ? Understand the sentiment Statto. Perhaps no worse than Vietto or Le marchand granted ,but would have cost us alot more to buy than them.

RaySmith

Quote from: colinwhite on March 14, 2019, 05:48:19 AM
Oli is a good player but wasnt getting in our championship side. We ,like Brighton and others  before ,deemed him not good enough for the premiership. Could he have done a job ?maybe ,but if we had hung ours hopes on him people really would have been up in arms ,before the season got started.
Piazon and kallas ? Understand the sentiment Statto. Perhaps no worse than Vietto or Le marchand granted ,but would have cost us alot more to buy than them.

All those players already played a role in the squad though, but I remember on here the  general consensus was that they weren't good enough for the Prem, and we needed to get better in, and people seemed confident that we would. I was disappointed we didn't sign them, and wondered if we'd regret it.

I was criticised when I said I felt sorry for Kalas, missing out on promotion with us after losing his place to Odoi, but people said  he chose to sign a new contract with Chelsea and  doesn't deserve your sympathy, but I donn't know   how much choice he had, if Fulham decided he was too expensive to buy, Piazzon too.

I don't know what the point is in keep going over these things, reopening wounds.


hovewhite

Quote from: Statto on March 13, 2019, 10:57:39 PM
It sums up everything wrong with Tony Khan's approach to transfers this summer. Norwood is English, cheap and low profile - exactly the kind of player Mike Rigg would have signed. That is anathema to TK, who preferred to smash our transfer record on an exciting, new, exotic French stats-based target, Anguissa.

Now I still suspect Anguissa has more potential and inherent talent than Norwood, but I don't think anyone could dispute that Norwood would have been at least as effective as Anguissa has been this season, probably better, and would have had the added bonus of not disrupting the team we had last season.

The same goes for Button (vs Fabri, and arguably even Rico, who's looking less and less useful as the season wears on) and Kalas (vs MLM) and Piazon (vs Vietto). 
[/quote statto,your spot on .

The Old Count

Quote from: @jolslover on March 13, 2019, 11:03:59 PM
Quote from: Statto on March 13, 2019, 10:57:39 PM
It sums up everything wrong with Tony Khan's approach to transfers this summer. Norwood is English, cheap and low profile - exactly the kind of player Mike Rigg would have signed. That is anathema to TK, who preferred to smash our transfer record on an exciting, new, exotic French stats-based target, Anguissa.

Now I still suspect Anguissa has more potential and inherent talent than Norwood, but I don't think anyone could dispute that Norwood would have been at least as effective as Anguissa has been this season, probably better, and would have had the added bonus of not disrupting the team we had last season.

The same goes for Button (vs Fabri, and arguably even Rico, who's looking less and less useful as the season wears on) and Kalas (vs MLM) and Piazon (vs Vietto). 

Later two are different from the first two examples given as Le March was cheaper than Kalas (cost 3.6m whereas Chelsea wanted 6m for Kalas) and Piazon vs. Vietto is hard to compare as perm vs. loan. But am sure Vietto on loan was cheaper than signing Piazon permanently. I also think Vietto is probably better than Piazon. Kalas vs. Le March I'd probably go with Kalas but not for almost double the price. I think Rico is head and shoulders above Button aswell.

This is spot on.  Also it is not inconceivable that one or two of Norwood and the others mentioned might have raised their games to another level in the Prem given the chance. Much like some of the Cardiff players this year and Brighton and Bournemouth players in previous years.

RaySmith

Fabri is looking weak as a keeper - not as good as Betts.

Teams like Cardiff, Bournmouth and Brighton, sho that it is the team that's important.

But Kalas, Norwood, Piazzon, Targett were all loans.Were all attempts made to sign them? Should we have paid any price? Opinions were divided at the time, I think.

Slavisa chose to play most of our new players immediately,when he could have introduced them slowly, but obviously didn't have confidence in the players we had.

People used to say that Ream and Odoi could never play in the Prem - but they have regularly, and our goals conceded have been awful - but is it just their fault. In some respects they have done well considering, but could they have  performed better with some decent defenders and defensive midfielder alongside them. They make errors, but  are under a lot of pressure which has just got worse as the season unfolded, and their confidence  got more fragile- as have our players generally.

But that second half at home to Brighton,  has shown, frustratingly, what our players are capable of.


Statto

Quote from: @jolslover on March 13, 2019, 11:03:59 PM
Later two are different from the first two examples given as Le March was cheaper than Kalas (cost 3.6m whereas Chelsea wanted 6m for Kalas) and Piazon vs. Vietto is hard to compare as perm vs. loan. But am sure Vietto on loan was cheaper than signing Piazon permanently. I also think Vietto is probably better than Piazon. Kalas vs. Le March I'd probably go with Kalas but not for almost double the price. I think Rico is head and shoulders above Button aswell.

If the difference between Kalas and MLM was £2.4m we'd have been better off going for Kalas, surely. Clearly money wasn't a limitation, and in case we'd have had a lot more to throw around if we'd bought Norwood for £2.5m instead of Anguissa for £25m. Also if certain stories about the Seri/MLM deal are true, MLM cost a lot more than £6m anyway.

As for Piazon, I'm sure we could have loaned him as we have done with Vietto, if preferred, and probably for less in wages/loan fee.

I agree Rico is better than Button but wonder, what was the off-pitch impact of swapping a familiar face with a new one who also doesn't speak English (or even French)? In any case Fabri for Button looks a pointless trade and one on which we made a net loss of about £2m.


Southcoastffc

Point of order, Max Le Marchant cost very much more than £3.6m. Between 4 and 5 times that.
The world is made up of electrons, protons, neurons, possibly muons and, definitely, morons.