Vinicius Souza

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

It's fairly easy to rack up raw numbers when we have fuck all of the ball, that needs converting to a rate stat to consider amount of possession. City have players who are better at ball acquisition than 80% on that list, but don't really have that much of a need to do so
 

We totally f’d up with this one! I’m judging him against Tommy Doyle and that what confuses me even further! We could’ve had Doyle for less money! A player who has more quality, is mobile, gives his all and fits our club like a glove! But someone decided that Souza was worth the extra funds??? That person should be sacked for utter incompetence!
And before anyone mentions the relegation wage drop… consider everything in the package. That’s the fee and wages! Souza costs more! We could’ve got Doyle for 7m and offered him 60k a week and that still doesn’t match Souza’s fee alone!
Like I said… utter incompetence!
 
Gin&Juice said:
Davies and Hamer as two box to box with Cousin Vinnie elbowing cunts and McAtee gliding around was probably the plan.

But snipers get bored.
Click to expand...

With our currently personnel and with them being fit this should be our midfield
 
SUFCScorecard said:
100%.

He was a DM at Coventry. He has all the tools to be a great B2B midfielder, but a winger/forward?? An absolute waste of our best player.

Osborn made a huge difference when he came on for Souza because bringing on a lower Championship level midfielder alongside Norwood was a huge upgrade on what Souza was offering. Now imagine if Hecky would just try playing arguably the best midfielder in the Championship last season there.

Hecky trying to turn Hamer in Ndiaye is going to get him fired.
Click to expand...
Osborn was playing in a side more focused on attacking against 10 men.

Nobody looked good in that first hour.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
We totally f’d up with this one! I’m judging him against Tommy Doyle and that what confuses me even further! We could’ve had Doyle for less money! A player who has more quality, is mobile, gives his all and fits our club like a glove! But someone decided that Souza was worth the extra funds??? That person should be sacked for utter incompetence!
And before anyone mentions the relegation wage drop… consider everything in the package. That’s the fee and wages! Souza costs more! We could’ve got Doyle for 7m and offered him 60k a week and that still doesn’t match Souza’s fee alone!
Like I said… utter incompetence!
Click to expand...
Doyle only cost Wolves what he did because of the deal to take Nunes to Man City.

There was no way we were getting him at a similar price.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
We totally f’d up with this one! I’m judging him against Tommy Doyle and that what confuses me even further! We could’ve had Doyle for less money! A player who has more quality, is mobile, gives his all and fits our club like a glove! But someone decided that Souza was worth the extra funds??? That person should be sacked for utter incompetence!
And before anyone mentions the relegation wage drop… consider everything in the package. That’s the fee and wages! Souza costs more! We could’ve got Doyle for 7m and offered him 60k a week and that still doesn’t match Souza’s fee alone!
Like I said… utter incompetence!
Click to expand...

I like Doyle but he's not the big strong enforcer we need. He'd replace Norwood well enough though. As everyone will tell you, Doyle to Wolves was the only deal in town as a makeweight for Nunes going the other way.

I just dont get why we didn't take a few £3m championship players that have looked solid in the championship rather than press the MEGA GAMBLE button on Souza. At least we'd have a bench that wasn't made of absolute randoms that way and hopefully at least one would be decent enough to be starting and we'd be better fixed if we were to go back down.
 
Last edited:
Tarqs said:
Doyle only cost Wolves what he did because of the deal to take Nunes to Man City.

There was no way we were getting him at a similar price.
Click to expand...
We was offered Doyle for 7m with a relatively cheap buy back clause
 
I think we would have had to pay £10-£12m for Doyle, which I totally would have paid. I really think we need to be in for him in the future especially with his position in wolves starting 11, he's totally Norwood's replacement.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
We was offered Doyle for 7m with a relatively cheap buy back clause
Click to expand...
Really? I'm surprised at that and seems an absolute no brainer if true.... absolutely ridiculous not to take this up.
 
I'm willing to accept that Souza with Norwood is the major issue rather than Vinni himself. It needs to change though. They don't work together as a double pivot because we concede more chances than any other side in the league and neither can do the box to box role because they never get anywhere near the oppositions box.
 
Tarqs said:
Really? I'm surprised at that and seems an absolute no brainer if true.... absolutely ridiculous not to take this up.
Click to expand...
It’s what was said at the time. Folk were marvelling at how low the fee was. The sticking point was that Doyle’s wages were too high and he wasn’t prepared to have a relegation wage drop clause in the contract.
Of course this info didn’t officially come from the club, rather from Mr Smith et al, so we can’t be 100% I guess. But it totally makes sense, especially considering that Wolves have a 4m option!
 

Roygbiv said:
I'm willing to accept that Souza with Norwood is the major issue rather than Vinni himself. It needs to change though. They don't work together as a double pivot because we concede more chances than any other side in the league and neither can do the box to box role because they never get anywhere near the oppositions box.
Click to expand...
The problem for me though is now we are totally dependent on Norwood again… spending that money should’ve strengthened our midfield so that Norwood wasn’t the key component anymore. But it seems now that Norwood is the main man again and we’re wondering who comes in for Souza!
Maybe he’ll come good in time… to give him some credit I thought he was great against Forest. But since then all I’ve seen in a slow, un athletic lump moving about the pitch. I don’t usually get on a players back, but I’m utterly perplexed by Souza, it’s got to the point where even his antics are starting to get on my tits!
 
CoatesyBlade said:
The problem for me though is now we are totally dependent on Norwood again… spending that money should’ve strengthened our midfield so that Norwood wasn’t the key component anymore. But it seems now that Norwood is the main man again and we’re wondering who comes in for Souza!
Maybe he’ll come good in time… to give him some credit I thought he was great against Forest. But since then all I’ve seen in a slow, un athletic lump moving about the pitch. I don’t usually get on a players back, but I’m utterly perplexed by Souza, it’s got to the point where even his antics are starting to get on my tits!
Click to expand...
Said this myself, norwood was dropped back end of last season to the positivity of the results. He was also sub beginning of this season, but somehow (injuries have contributed), he's back in and we're playing Norwood Ball again. Everyone is compelled for some reason to give it Norwood.
 
CoatesyBlade said:
The problem for me though is now we are totally dependent on Norwood again… spending that money should’ve strengthened our midfield so that Norwood wasn’t the key component anymore. But it seems now that Norwood is the main man again and we’re wondering who comes in for Souza!
Maybe he’ll come good in time… to give him some credit I thought he was great against Forest. But since then all I’ve seen in a slow, un athletic lump moving about the pitch. I don’t usually get on a players back, but I’m utterly perplexed by Souza, it’s got to the point where even his antics are starting to get on my tits!
Click to expand...

It's probably in our interests to give Souza a go at DM despite how poor he's been. We've spent a bit on him and he's on a longer contact than Norwood so it's worth giving him a go next to Hamer if we are serious about building for the future
 
Tarqs said:
Said this myself, norwood was dropped back end of last season to the positivity of the results. He was also sub beginning of this season, but somehow (injuries have contributed), he's back in and we're playing Norwood Ball again. Everyone is compelled for some reason to give it Norwood.
Click to expand...
Exactly Tarqs
 
Roygbiv said:
It's probably in our interests to give Souza a go at DM despite how poor he's been. We've spent a bit on him and he's on a longer contact than Norwood so it's worth giving him a go next to Hamer if we are serious about building for the future
Click to expand...
Yes I agree! I’ll judge him (even more than I already have 🤣) after a good run of games in his preferred position. Souza holding and Hamer box to box pulling the strings!
 
Balham Blade said:
Souza isn't the DM. Norwood is. Hamer and Souza are being deployed as LCM and RCM respectively and that wide-CM role doesn't do either of them any favours.

When Ahmedhodzic is back we need to go to 4-4-1-1. Souza and Hamer in central midfield; McAtee ahead of them. Bogle and Larouci as defensive wingers.
Click to expand...
Bogle and larouci as defensive wingers?? They can't defend! 😂
 
Totally agree with those saying tje problem is having to accommodate Norwood. Souza holding with Hamer pushing on has ro be our best central midfield option.

Wes
Furious Anel Trusty Robbo
Bogle Souza Hamer Thomas
Archer Macca

With Macca playing as a roving number 10. Got to be worth a go as if nothing else most of thst team will be the foundation for next season
 
Do we take these figures for Sousa as red? Did he not come from one of these entanglements we have out in Europe - played in Spain last season but belonged to a Belgian team (or something?). We probably got him for (next to) nothing with wages that reflect his transfer value.

First few appearances he looked like the tough tackling bloke in his youtube video, with a hitherto unseen zinging 30 yard shot that scraped the post rather than the corner flag, the ideal long term replacement for Norwood. I can't work out what's gone wrong. In my lifetime, the two best midfield pairings we had were Hockey/Currie and Patterson/Cowans - a bloke who could take the ball off anybody and roll it five yards to someone who could drop it on a sixpence.

With everyone fit we if we revert to 352 we should try

Anel/Egan (or Trusty)/Robinson
Baldock/Bogle/Sousa (or Norwood)/McAtee/Thomas
Archer/McBurnie

Making sure we have a bench where we have players who can come on and do one or more jobs (Osborn for Baldock/McAtee for example). Currently its the actual substitutions which continue to baffle me. You can't say 'oh we've got a bench full of kids', its very rare, with the exception of the strikers that the kids come on, its usually Osborn or Fleck for the creatives without any rhyme or reason.
 
puppet said:
Do we take these figures for Sousa as red? Did he not come from one of these entanglements we have out in Europe - played in Spain last season but belonged to a Belgian team (or something?). We probably got him for (next to) nothing with wages that reflect his transfer value.

First few appearances he looked like the tough tackling bloke in his youtube video, with a hitherto unseen zinging 30 yard shot that scraped the post rather than the corner flag, the ideal long term replacement for Norwood. I can't work out what's gone wrong. In my lifetime, the two best midfield pairings we had were Hockey/Currie and Patterson/Cowans - a bloke who could take the ball off anybody and roll it five yards to someone who could drop it on a sixpence.

With everyone fit we if we revert to 352 we should try

Anel/Egan (or Trusty)/Robinson
Baldock/Bogle/Sousa (or Norwood)/McAtee/Thomas
Archer/McBurnie

Making sure we have a bench where we have players who can come on and do one or more jobs (Osborn for Baldock/McAtee for example). Currently its the actual substitutions which continue to baffle me. You can't say 'oh we've got a bench full of kids', its very rare, with the exception of the strikers that the kids come on, its usually Osborn or Fleck for the creatives without any rhyme or reason.
Click to expand...
Agtee with most of this, but we don't need a long term replacement for Norwood, we need a replacement now, he offers nothing, annoys the hell out of me with his waving his arms about too. I'm sure he's a great bloke who's done well for us, but his times up, three other teams saw this when they made the premiership, we're still playing him!
 
Pintor75 said:
Agtee with most of this, but we don't need a long term replacement for Norwood, we need a replacement now, he offers nothing, annoys the hell out of me with his waving his arms about too
Click to expand...
I agree its now not in future, I think it should be one or the other whilst we're in this current predicament, preferably Sousa.
 
jt64 said:
Imagine thinking that what Wolves "paid" City for Doyle is what other clubs would have had to pay
Click to expand...
He didn't say we'd get him for what Wolves paid.
It was circulated quite a lot that the fee wanted by City was very manageable.

I'm in the Hecky in brigade, but Souza was apparently his 'number 1 target of the summer' and that is quite worrying.
 
Pintor75 said:
Agtee with most of this, but we don't need a long term replacement for Norwood, we need a replacement now, he offers nothing, annoys the hell out of me with his waving his arms about too. I'm sure he's a great bloke who's done well for us, but his times up, three other teams saw this when they made the premiership, we're still playing him!
Click to expand...
The club are probably hoping from next summer the Norwood replacement is the other Oliver on the books currently down in Burslem
 

CoatesyBlade said:
It’s what was said at the time. Folk were marvelling at how low the fee was. The sticking point was that Doyle’s wages were too high and he wasn’t prepared to have a relegation wage drop clause in the contract.
Of course this info didn’t officially come from the club, rather from Mr Smith et al, so we can’t be 100% I guess. But it totally makes sense, especially considering that Wolves have a 4m option!
Click to expand...
True It was the relegation clause but it was the level of the wage drop 40% wage and the club would not budge on that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom