: D On 21 January 2011 21:52, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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! > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out!
