UK time is: 09:05:38
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Wolves interest in Man Utd defender

Mick McCarthy's attentions could be set to move towards Manchester United centre back Jonny Evans.

With our efforts to try and land Roger Johnson from Birmingham and Matt Mills from Reading becoming increasingly frustrating, Wolves could be set to keep to our promise and move on to other targets.

And that other target according to the Express & Star could be 24-year-old Manchester United and Northern Ireland international Jonny Evans.

Evans has made 84 appearances for Manchester United and would bring a vast wealth of experience despite his young age to Molineux, but it isn't clear if Sir Alex Ferguson is willing to let him leave Old Trafford.

With the arrival of Phil Jones, Manchester United are expected to sell someone, but it's unclear if it will be Evans, Wes Brown, John O`Shea or all three.

Tell us what you think

As well as joining in on the forum and article comments below, you can also write an article to appear on our site!

This website is 100% by the fans and we are always looking for people to get involved. If this interests you please contact Vital Wolves.




Use your social login to comment on front page articles. Login using you Facebook, Twitter, Google or LinkedIn accounts and have your say!



Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: Akela Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Saturday June 25 2011

Time: 12:00PM

Your Comments

I cant see Evans coming to Wolves on a permanent deal , I could envisage a loan how ever.
gibo
Mr. Morgan himself with me, by the looks of it. See the interviw in the Shropshire Star (NewsNow). A clear indication that the intention is to go for a more offensive game with Hunt and Fletcher up front, and just short of an apololgy for having 'Doyled around' with 4-5-1 last season.
lovesW
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 ???
ODDJOB79
Just read it , and hmmmm looks a dodgy link too me !
ODDJOB79
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.
lovesW
lovesW: you're right to emphasize the indispensability pf Doyles in a 4-5-1 formation but he is not a 'one trick pony'. He can play alongside another striker, as he does with Keane for Ireland. I would sell anybody in the team before I would part with Doyle. For me, it really would have to be silly money - and I mean, seriously silly money- before I would be willing to see him go ... and, even then, I would be very unhappy!
Southbank60
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.....
lovesW
lovesW: I take your point but in essence you are insulting MM. You make him out to be a Pavlovian dog, behaviourally reacting to the presence of Doyle by lining up the team in a 4-5-1 formation. Given your advocacy of our manager, surely you think him capable of adjusting the system, according to circumstances? As you state, Doyle can operate within a 4-4-2 formation but, when circumstances dictate (as they will against certain teams), he will perform brilliantly in a 4-5-1 system. If we sell him, we do not have this option.
Southbank60
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.
lovesW
lovesW: MM does not have to jettison Doyle to avoid the 'irresistible but pernicious' lure of the 4-5-1 formation. Rather, he has to acquire two central defenders and a left back of PL quality. If he does that (and he knows he has to), he would happily play Doyle in a 4-4-2 system. On the other hand, you would, to quote a phrase, 'throw out the baby with the bath water'.
Southbank60
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!
lovesW
Gosh, lovesW, that's a bit drastic! Far less painful - except on SM's pocket- is the purchase of two central defenders and a LB, even if we have to pay a little more than the board has in mind. As an aside, I am experiencing an unexpected warm glow as I champion our manager against the inferred slights to his tactical nous and breadth of vision.
Southbank60
Warm glow, Southbank? I thought you'd been body-snatched.
all4divisions
Why does everyone not like 4-5-1 , if the midfielders do there job 4-5-1 can work , If you have Jarvis Hunt O'Hara Guedioura all backing Doyle up and Henry just sitting its down the midfielders to bang the goals in aswell , There is hardly any teams that play 4-4-2 anymore , its usually 4-3-3 or 4-4-1-1 which is basically 4-5-1 , simple conclusion is , it does not matter 1 little bit what formation you use , if the players do there job a formation works , Kevin Doyle does the work of 2 strikers ( Fletchers only downside ) so why not use that to its potential , it means you can boss midfield which argue as much as you like is where games are won or lost , and as Southbank pointed out , i think we are fine attacking wise whatever formation we choose , we need the 2 centre halves and a left back , and im worried we are now going for options that weren't first choice , its taking to long to compared to previous seasons to snap players up , personally players would have been signed already if agents weren't involved , probably asking for too much so they can line there pockets , Scum of football !
ODDJOB79
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.
lovesW
 

Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Wolves Articles

Iwelumo retires (Wednesday October 29 2014)

Aston Villa set for Sako steal (Wednesday October 29 2014)

Jackett to make late decision on Sako (Tuesday October 28 2014)

Jackett praise for Clarke (Tuesday October 28 2014)

Stats: Leeds v Wolves (Monday October 27 2014)

Wolves comeback seals three points (Saturday October 25 2014)

Wolves players to take Ebola advice (Friday October 24 2014)

Archived Wolves Articles

List All Vital Wolves Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll

Vital Members League (view all)

League Results (view all)

Latest Results
Wolves 1 - 0 Bolton
Wolves 3 - 1 Blackburn
Reading 3 - 3 Wolves
Millwall 3 - 3 Wolves
Leeds Utd 1 - 2 Wolves
Fulham 0 - 1 Wolves

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
1. Derby County 14 7 5 2 +12 26
2. Watford 14 7 5 2 +11 26
3. Wolves 14 7 5 2 +6 26
4. Bournemouth 14 7 3 4 +14 24
5. Middlesbrough 14 7 3 4 +7 24
6. Norwich 14 6 5 3 +10 23
7. Forest 14 5 7 2 +7 22

Breaking League News

RUFC - Evans 'Performances Been Good'
Rotherham : 31/10/2014 09:02:00
Richard Beale Stays
Birmingham : 31/10/2014 09:00:00
12th Man - Let's Put The Frightners On Fulham
Wigan : 31/10/2014 08:39:00
Howe: It's great to have so much competition
Bournemouth : 31/10/2014 08:12:00
Cook: Finding another level
Bournemouth : 31/10/2014 08:07:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

Can Wolves pull off back-to-back promotions?
Suggested By:  
Yes 51%
No 49%