BrookingsBellEnd wrote:
Joey Deacon wrote:
Flash when the discussion is

"Our midfield seem better without Nolan pointing at them all game telling them how to play, must be very off putting that."

and

"maybe the rest of the squad have learnt what they need from Nolan and don't need him any more."

You really do have to question the point of it.

It was a statement of opinion, not a discussion, but as my quote has been lumped in with FF's I have to defend it, I just can't bear the shame.

Why is that any different than saying "Noble played well", it's just offering an opinion?
My point was a cross between hypothesis, opinion and question.

As I see it (but without the benefit of seeing as many games as others) Nolan is here to get in refs faces, score goals, get in the oppositions' faces, and get WHUFC playing with a grit, determination and professionalism rarely seen at UP before.  Part of his wages are down to his all-round game (and he does play some nice flicks / one-touch stuff around the box) but there is a lot more to it than that.  I am pretty sure that Nolan is being paid a fortune because he is an Allardyce man, as much as because he is a great footballer.  Allardyce needed to have his man on the pitch to do the managing for him out there.  The last few games have shown me that we are Allardyce's team, 100%, without Nolan.  That does not make Nolan redundant, it does not make him a bad player, it does not mean he should sit on the bench for the rest of the season.  But it does suggest that we don't need him as much as we did at the start of the season when the team had not fully adopted the Allardyce philosophy and determination.  It suggests that he is now droppable.  That is a good thing.

Clack said - Of course, Nolan will be back, but he doesn't have the right to walk straight back into the team.

Agreed.