In my opinion Jarvis is shite. The Actim Index somehow has him ranked as the 78th best player in the Premier League. Some stupid experienced managers allegedly want to pay 10m for him based on him being sub-standard for the England squad. I would rather Wolves had 10m in the bank than a pacey attacking winger who according to Actim Index has contributed 2 assists all season when we are fighting for survival. Hammill seems a much better option and when we get relegated we will have next to no chance of attracting anyone of quality.
Good to have you back. ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 21 21:45:23 2011 Subject: Re: Fwd: [BTMO] Hammill I see, so you use stats to make a point but when it's pointed out that they are specious, we are supposed to move on and ignore that it ever happened. What a wonderful, magical world you inhabit. I'd be happy with your email if you said: "In my opinion Jarvis is shite, but I accept that it Actim Index he's ranked as the 78th best player in the Premier League, allegedly wanted by several experienced managers of big clubs and is on the verge of the England squad. I would rather Wolves had 10m in the bank than a pacey attacking winger when we are fighting for survival and have next to no chance of attracing anyone of better quality than Jarvis." I'll say it again: It's good to be back. On 21 January 2011 21:36, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: Don't let stats get in the way of a good story. The simple matter is Jarvis is shite and if someone is willing to give us decent money for 2 or 4 assists from 21 games then show me the money. Hammill can't be any worse. ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 21 21:33:42 2011 Subject: Re: Fwd: [BTMO] Hammill The comparable stats have Jarvis with 4 assists. It's only one goal difference, which is hardly statistically significant. I note that the Actim stats you use have Hahnemann in the Premier League team of the season. They must be really good stats. On 21 January 2011 21:23, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: I'm sure the Actim Index doesn't factor is the quality of the opponent but I'm more than happy to flog Jarvis to the highest bidder. Aside from running around a lot I don't think Jarvis has added anything that Ward couldn't provide (and that's saying something). I don't see how you can compare 2 goals & 2 assists from 21 games against any of the 3 you have listed. Aside from Hleb who has mainly made substitute appearances, the others have better stats from less appearances. Just accept that Jarvis is pants and we could make £10 million quid if we can find some sucker willing to buy him. ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: nswolves <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 21 21:17:00 2011 Subject: Fwd: [BTMO] Hammill And yet he got named in the provisional England squad at one point. We established some time ago that he got between you and Mick in Perth and that's why you hold a grudge. As for comparing his and Hammill's Actim Index numbers, does that take account of one playing against premier league opposition and one playing against Championship opposition. Jarvis is also ranked 78th in the Premier league, above great wingers such as Luk Modric. The stats I've got say it's 2 goals and 4 assists What have the other good wingers in lower ranked teams got Rodriguez (LIV) 16p 3g 1a Kuyt (LIV) 17p 4g 3a NZogbia (WIG) 18p 3g 3a Hleb (BIR) 14p 1g 1 a The last two are very highly rated footballers. Jarvis's stats are on a par. It's great to be back. There's nothing like that feeling of being right all the time. On 21 January 2011 18:25, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: Why sell Jarvis when he is one of our best player's? No need at the moment, he is under contract and we can sell him if we go down. Another WUM! 2 - 1 to the Wolves on Saturday! He looks flash but adds nothing. 2 assists in 21 games and 2 goals from 25 shots. That's not premier league quality (or England international quality). ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 21 18:23:06 2011 Subject: Re: [BTMO] Hammill Sent via BlackBerry from Telstra ________________________________ From: Steven Millward <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:08:06 +1100 To: <[email protected]> ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BTMO] Hammill I don't see how you get much more reliable than a Wolves player. I know which player it is too. On 21 January 2011 17:16, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: Reliable source then. ________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Fri Jan 21 17:07:09 2011 Subject: Re: [BTMO] Hammill One of the Wolves teamgets his hair cut in a place next to the pub where my dad drinks. The rumour is that Jarvis is off toEverton for cash plus Ross Barkleyand the cash is being spent onLecott is coming back. On 21 January 2011 16:32, mark worrall <[email protected]> wrote: Just a thought... but I wonder if rumours of other clubs coming in for Jarvis and us buying another(potential replacement)winger are a cunning plan to make some $$$ ? On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:13 PM, LEESE Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: I'm deflated as right now. Villa spend 24 million on Darren Bent and we get Adam Hammill for half a mil. Where's our ambition eh? Surely if we just spent 24 million on a striker (and played him up front) we'd be well clear of this relegation fight we find ourselves in. We obviously didn't realise Bent was available but every player has his price. I reckon if we offered Chelsea 24 million for Drogba they'd sell. We'd stay up then. Definitely. ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mark worrall Sent: Friday, 21 January 2011 2:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BTMO] Hammill Yet another debatable signing from a team lower than us. Sigh. We need another Paul Ince right now. :-) On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: Ive had a look at the Actim Index numbers for both players and Hammill scores much higher than Jarvis. Could be a good signing. Jarvis return of 2 goals and 2 assists in 21 matches is very poor. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Friday, 21 January 2011 1:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [BTMO] Hammill <http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://hubba-u.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/sad_face.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sodahead.com/living/what-is-your-worst-blizzard-nightmare/question-1412429/%3Fpage%3D3&usg=__3cMaLjwuQ-f8KP60I2R9ch3_z6o=&h=271&w=241&sz=16&hl=en&start=13&sig2=LrP9CYjXd-MPYwbut51nWA&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=jyamnE_afC0bTM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmiserable%2Bface%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=qfI4TamoDoTyvQPvu4CMCg> On 21 January 2011 12:43, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> wrote: Lets hope he can cross a ball and shoot better than Jarvis. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Friday, 21 January 2011 12:35 PM To: nswolves Subject: [BTMO] Hammill Seems like a good signing. Super Mick strikes again. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! Before printing, please consider the environment. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out! -- Boo! Thick Mick Out!
