Wolves interest in Man Utd defender

I cant see Evans coming to Wolves on a permanent deal , I could envisage a loan how ever.

When was this interview ? , Personally i dont care what Morgan thinks on football matters , he is there to get his chequebook out n to make sure the club is run correctly , I have never ever heard him say anything on tactics before , and neither should he , its down to McCarthy no one else , and also i doubt Morgan would ever give out players names in an interview , do you have a link for this ???

Surprised me too, Oddjob, never before have I written here in prompt reaction to something I had read. Of course, the tacit concession for the defensive formation is on behalf of MM. That is how I read. I do not know what others make of it. Having argued all season long for the total abolishment of 4-5-1, seeing it as the cause of our striking potential ever remaining seated on the bench, I was of course pleased to read this. Whether it is true is another matter. I am now all for actually selling Doyle (!!) - just because, with him available, MM would not be able to resist the temptation to at least consider 4-5-1, and Doyle is the 4-5-1. Without him, it is unplayable. This was proved after he was injured, as I had said it would be. It is all right if he were to play wide, with Fletch as the central striker, but better do away even with the possibility in the first place.

I did mention I would have him twinned with another striker, so why use this as a counter-argument? He can play alongside another striker, or wide to either flank of him, I would have both, but only so far. Though he is an excellent player I would like to see the back of him just because without him 4-5-1 would be out of the question, and that is what I would like to see. The two of us know we are in total disagreement on this Doyle/4-5-1 point, and have been so all along. So what of it? Healthy airing of views between gentlemen is what it is all about, and, allow me the opportunity once it has arisen, I hope to see no name-calling in comments on here, ever, or off I go again. It had put me off for weeks, and with the season fast approaching.....

All through from about the 10th game from last in the first season to practically all of the last one it had been 4-5-1. Only when CIRCUMSTANCES dictated and it was vital to get wins was it abandoned. The logic of it was, at first it was a necessary evil, sacrificing football to get a point in order to maintain the cushion that existed from the bottom three or four at the time. It worked and Wolves were safe. I saw the danger of this right then: with not a few, indeed with most teams in the PL seen as better than Wolves, a point from any match is most welcome, and if one looks at the mathematics of it, that amounts to 38, meaning safety or near-safety in most cases. So why risk, why play entertaining, flowing football? And this is precisely how it went the following season (the last one) up to the point where wins became absolutely vital, then the switch to 4-4-2. It seems to me that MM is only human in that he finds it difficult to resist the temptation of putting into effect a system of play which he himself came up with and which worked. The down side of this is the bottling up of the team's attacking and entertaining potential. I never saw this as an insult to MM, I am surprised it can be taken for such - I had said that for me he is the best manager the Club have had since Bill McGarry. I still hold that view, this damned (! in my view)irresistible fascination with 4-5-1 notwithstanding.

True, Southbank, Doyle could, and should in my opinion, be used in a 4-4-2. We agree on one point at least, and at last. The possibility I see, however,is this, and it is this very possibility that I would like to see eliminated from the start: we have just had a good run of 7 or so points from three games and a difficult away match is to follow. Had those games been defeats instead, MM would go out for a win, for points are needed (Man.C away last season, for instance), but, satisfied with the recent run, he would go for a point, that is, 4-5-1 again, and would you not say that that would be almost irresistible for MM to do? You and others may laud this as adaptability, I see it as defeatism, to use a military term (no other word comes to mind). It is the third season now, and we should be thinking about asserting ourselves, taking on whichever team is up with the attitude that the points are there for either team to pick up, not giving up, or nearly so, on a win from the start. If that means that the baby has to go, well, he goes. Come to think of it, he does look like a baby in stature and in facial features! You once refered to him jokingly as our mascot, and on more than one occasion our talisman. I would like him to stay, probably he will....if only I could have the exact location of '4-5-1' in MM's memory pinpointed, get a surgeon.... enough, this risks getting criminal now!

Warm glow, Southbank? I thought you'd been body-snatched.

All these formations are nothing but a series of numbers really. All virtual and paper tactics. It is one thing sending out a 4-5-1, 'boss midfield', Oddjob, with any of the central '5' being able to improvise as a striker when the opportunity arises, and given that they do move forward in the first place. With 'our' 4-5-1 it has often been, often not always, that a lone forward has no support from anywhere, and if he has, that support comes from one who looks lost so far upfield. As you say, 4-4-2 is not played much, I only advocate it as the next offensive step up from 4-5-1. I am more for 4-3-3, ideally for a 3-4-3 - of course, again ideally, with Puyols and Lahms in the back '3'. And I make out that the only obstacle for one Mills becoming a WW defender is £200,000! Hard bargaining, holding tight, perhaps I have not been taking in the whole picture.