Concrete Ron

[peter w]

I think Westwood is. He just needs to be complimented with the right players around him. he is very exposed and isn't in there to be the tackler or enforcer but get things moving. he's been stretched and again, exposed, far too often meaning that he isn't able to play his natural game. Also, easily forgotten is his decent free-kick at Man U. Doesn't get a sniff usually.

[Dave]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

[saunders_heroes]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

He may not be shit but he's certainly average.

[paul_e]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

He may not be shit but he's certainly average.

By the very definition that makes him a mid-table player, which sounds fair.  It's a lot better than shit and if we sold him this summer it  would be for more than we paid.

If you work through the prices we'd expect for all of Lamberts signings you'd expect a good profit, we'd probably get most of the money back on Vlaar and Benteke alone.

[tomd2103]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

Fully agree with that assessment Dave in reference Westwood and would say the same about Bacuna.  I wasn't trying to be antagonistic, I just don't think any of the three mentioned can be considered an overwhelming success at this point.  We didn't really see enough of Kozak to make a proper assessment and I would like to see Bacuna used more as an attacking wide player, as I don't think playing him at full-back is doing him any favours.  Ashley Westwood really seems to divide opinion amongst fans.  I like him and I think in the right system and with the right players around him, he could be an effective player in the top flight.  The problem with him is that his lack of mobility and physicality means he can only really play that one role though.  Ideally he would have been rotated these past two seasons with a more experienced player, who he could have learned from.       

[Dave]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

He may not be shit but he's certainly average.

Good, so we're all in disagreement with the original point then.

[pauliewalnuts]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

Oh, I agree, he's not "shit" at all, just saying that the real question over him is elsewhere, and doesn't really lie in extreme terms like "shit".

The problem we've had with the likes of him and, to a lesser extent, Lowton, is that whereas in an ideal world, they would have been slowly introduced, they weren't, they were thrown into it.

That's been the problem with a lot of our players - they've been first or only choice in their position, far too often, even when having a hard time in the case of some of them.

[RussellC]

I have high hopes that Roy Keane can have a positive influence on Westwood. I think he showed numerous improvements to his game last season, and if he can continue to do is good enough to be a regular starter for us.

What I don't really get, however,  is this "he'd be better with better players around him" way of thinking. He plays in an absolutely pivotal position in the team. He needs to be one of the players having a major influence on the game, not relying on other players to deflect from any inefficiencies in his own game.

For me a central-midfielder should have a complete enough game for us to be able to switch to 4-4-2 and not struggle.

[saunders_heroes]

Presumably you missed the signings of Westwood, Kozak, Bacuna and Guzan then?

Guzan aside, the other three have hardly been roaring successes have they Dave. 

Kozak - yes, I would say that he has been a complete success and I look forward to having him back in the side.
Bacuna - when played in his proper position he is a good goalscoring midfielder, as evidenced by er... all those goals that he scored. And well worth the what, £700,000 that he cost?
Westwood - Has been more good than bad. Certainly not 'shit'.

You could argue that Westwood has been more good than bad, but the question is whether he's been good enough to play regularly in this league. See also Lowton.

Well no, the question was 'is he shit'. I agree that he would have been better for us had he been eased in more gently than he has been over the last couple of years, but he's clearly not 'shit'.

He may not be shit but he's certainly average.

Good, so we're all in disagreement with the original point then.

I don't think he's good enough if that helps? It's no wonder we have such a poor team when we have a squad packed out with players as average as Westwood.

[bobdylan]

I have high hopes that Roy Keane can have a positive influence on Westwood. I think he showed numerous improvements to his game last season, and if he can continue to do is good enough to be a regular starter for us.

What I don't really get, however,  is this "he'd be better with better players around him" way of thinking. He plays in an absolutely pivotal position in the team. He needs to be one of the players having a major influence on the game, not relying on other players to deflect from any inefficiencies in his own game.

For me a central-midfielder should have a complete enough game for us to be able to switch to 4-4-2 and not struggle.

I know what you mean but you only have to look at Gerrard for England in the summer to see how a quality centre mid can struggle when playing as one of a two and coming up against a 3, I think he should have been played as one of a 3 and could have been very effective in such a formation.  This was in stark contrast to Pirlo who is still very effective as one of a 3.  When we had Petrov with Barry or Milner in the middle I still felt we struggled to get to grips with games, even though we had two quality players in there when they came up against a 3 man midfield it was tough for them.

[Clampy]

When people say Westwood would be better with better players around him, I presume they mean experienced players. Someone like Barry for example might have helped Westwood's game along enormously.

[Chris Smith]

I have high hopes that Roy Keane can have a positive influence on Westwood. I think he showed numerous improvements to his game last season, and if he can continue to do is good enough to be a regular starter for us.

What I don't really get, however,  is this "he'd be better with better players around him" way of thinking. He plays in an absolutely pivotal position in the team. He needs to be one of the players having a major influence on the game, not relying on other players to deflect from any inefficiencies in his own game.

For me a central-midfielder should have a complete enough game for us to be able to switch to 4-4-2 and not struggle.

I think good, experienced players often improve those around them. They make the right runs, they organise those around them and talk others through the game. You can be the best passer of the ball in the world but it means little if there isn't anyone in position to receive it.

[RussellC]

I have high hopes that Roy Keane can have a positive influence on Westwood. I think he showed numerous improvements to his game last season, and if he can continue to do is good enough to be a regular starter for us.

What I don't really get, however,  is this "he'd be better with better players around him" way of thinking. He plays in an absolutely pivotal position in the team. He needs to be one of the players having a major influence on the game, not relying on other players to deflect from any inefficiencies in his own game.

For me a central-midfielder should have a complete enough game for us to be able to switch to 4-4-2 and not struggle.

I think good, experienced players often improve those around them. They make the right runs, they organise those around them and talk others through the game. You can be the best passer of the ball in the world but it means little if there isn't anyone in position to receive it.

I agree with this. I think my point (which probably wasn't articulated very well),was that in the system we play the holding midfield role is pivotal. It will be even if switch to a back 3 more frequently this season. It's not a position that we could afford the luxury of blooding a player in (which is what we've doe with Westwood over the past 2 years and, in my opinion, one of the reasons that we've struggled so much.

Barry himself is good example. When he first game into the side he did so on the left hand side of a back 3, playing in a team packed full of experienced players. It wasn't until he was much older, and more experienced, that he assumed a role with as much responsibility as the one Westwood currently has.

I think Westwood's ok, but he's 24 now, and we need more than ok from whoever plays there. I also think Lambert realises this, if the links to Ki are anything to go by, as I really don't see how Westwood and Ki would fit into the same midfield effectively.

[bobdylan]

I have high hopes that Roy Keane can have a positive influence on Westwood. I think he showed numerous improvements to his game last season, and if he can continue to do is good enough to be a regular starter for us.

What I don't really get, however,  is this "he'd be better with better players around him" way of thinking. He plays in an absolutely pivotal position in the team. He needs to be one of the players having a major influence on the game, not relying on other players to deflect from any inefficiencies in his own game.

For me a central-midfielder should have a complete enough game for us to be able to switch to 4-4-2 and not struggle.

I think good, experienced players often improve those around them. They make the right runs, they organise those around them and talk others through the game. You can be the best passer of the ball in the world but it means little if there isn't anyone in position to receive it.

I agree with this. I think my point (which probably wasn't articulated very well),was that in the system we play the holding midfield role is pivotal. It will be even if switch to a back 3 more frequently this season. It's not a position that we could afford the luxury of blooding a player in (which is what we've doe with Westwood over the past 2 years and, in my opinion, one of the reasons that we've struggled so much.

Barry himself is good example. When he first game into the side he did so on the left hand side of a back 3, playing in a team packed full of experienced players. It wasn't until he was much older, and more experienced, that he assumed a role with as much responsibility as the one Westwood currently has.

I think Westwood's ok, but he's 24 now, and we need more than ok from whoever plays there. I also think Lambert realises this, if the links to Ki are anything to go by, as I really don't see how Westwood and Ki would fit into the same midfield effectively.

Westwood is tidy enough in possession but doesn't read the game as well as Petrov did in that posiion, which probably comes with experience, Petrov was great at intercepting attacks.  Ki would be an upgrade on KEA, but I agree a midfield 3 of Ki, Delph and Westwood, whilst better at protecting the defence, would not offer enough creativity.  I'd play it away to the top 6, but in other games we'd need more creativity.

[RussellC]

Agreed. I think the holding midfielder has to also be competent at breaking up play, as well as just 'fetching and carrying' from the back 4. Petrov was very good at both jobs, Westwood's pretty good in possession, but not very effective without it.