Hammill is a right winger isn't he whereas Jarvis and Hunt are both left? I think Hunt probably has a bit more bite than Jarvis in winning the ball.
I think he can in 451 with Henry or Foley as the other MF On 11 February 2011 11:10, Morris, Lee SGT <[email protected]>wrote: > > > In reality Hunt hasn't cut the mustard yet , and it looks like Hamill > will get his spot. > > The question is, can he fit both O'Hara and Milijas in the same team? (and > who misses out for Henry) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Friday, 11 February 2011 10:07 > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [BTMO] McCarthy > > Fair enough. I think we might be getting closer to meeting some of those. > I think O'Hara, Foley, Hamill, Miljas and Hunt would be a good midfield > five. > > On 11 February 2011 11:04, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Great questions Steve but not sure I can answer them in anything short >> enough for people to read (but I’ll try). >> >> >> >> First and foremost, I would need Thick Mick to demonstrate on a regular >> and consistent basis that he actually has some tactical ability to influence >> and/or change a game. His stubbornness in selecting players who are out of >> form/out of position simply because he likes them doesn’t cut it with me, >> especially when there are more talented options sitting on the bench. >> >> >> >> This season has been a bit of an anomaly but looking back over the past >> few seasons I would be happy if we were competing with the likes of Villa, >> Everton and Fulham. Meaning that we are capable of winning most of our home >> games and then springing the occasional surprise away from home. If we were >> competing at this level we would be in a position to attract decent overseas >> players as well as some of the top younger talent on loan as they would be >> confident of staying in the division and play with a higher quality of >> players. >> >> >> >> Regarding style of play, I’d like McCarthy to actually use the midfield on >> a regular basis rather than have them stand in the middle of the park >> watching the ball sail over their heads. We normally have a decent pitch at >> Molineux so we should learn to use all of I and pass the ball on the ground >> and utilise 2 traditional wingers to attack. >> >> >> >> Then I would be happy. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Friday, 11 February 2011 10:51 AM >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [BTMO] McCarthy >> >> >> >> Let me ask all the nay-sayers. >> >> >> >> What would it take for you to change your mind about Mick? >> >> >> >> What position in the league would we need to finish in? >> >> What sorts of players should he be buying? >> >> What should change about the style of football? >> >> >> >> For example: >> >> >> >> "If we played like we did against Manure every week, were tenth in the >> table and signed X rather than Y, I'd be willing to support him as the >> manager." >> >> On 11 February 2011 10:44, Marcus Chantry <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Careful Mark. It seems that QLD air has magical properties and you’re in >> danger of turning into a Happy Clapper. >> >> >> >> The results so far this year, in my mind, seem to suggest that it is the >> players themselves who are lifting for the big games almost as if they want >> to prove that they are Premier League quality. But when it comes to the >> lesser games they don’t have that same desire or commitment. So to me that >> suggests that Mick has no influence what so ever over the players. If he >> was able to make the team better than the sum of the parts then we should be >> performing more consistently and getting results against our direct >> competitors, not only the big clubs that inspire the players. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Friday, 11 February 2011 10:38 AM >> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [BTMO] McCarthy >> >> >> >> "he is tactically canny and adept at making a team more than the sum of >> its parts" >> >> >> >> in my opinion, this sums up why we aren't already relegated, because i >> don't think our squad is really much better than a good Championship one. >> Certainly not good enough to beat Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool or Man Utd. I >> also remember he got Ireland a lot further through the World Cup than they >> should have. He deserves a lot of credit for getting 110% out of players. >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Marcus Chantry < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Maybe that’s our problem, it’s not that Mick is thick and rubbish at his >> job, it’s just that he’s misunderstood. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Friday, 11 February 2011 10:28 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [BTMO] McCarthy >> >> >> >> "since they were promoted in 2009, Wanderers have been a revelation, >> using combative midfielders, pacy wingers and shrewd buys to forge a team >> whose work ethic, spirit and skill have made them a credit to a >> much-maligned and misunderstood manager". woohoo. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Marcus Chantry < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> For those of you who don’t get the Fiver, here is a piece about McCarthy. >> >> >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/feb/09/mick-mccarthy-barnsley-wolverhampton-wanderers >> >> >> >> 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! >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out! >> >> >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out! >> >> -- >> Boo! Thick Mick Out! >> > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out! > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out! > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out!
