Have you read his article where he mentions Liverpool’s Aquilani as a flop, and this after watching just a handful of performances?
A flop would be disected as somethingthat failed badly or is totally ineffectual — so does Aquilani warrants such an insult?
If really he does deserve then certainly I’ll be forgiven for labeling Oliver Holt’s writing credential as a flop too, this after reading a few posts of his, because they failed in their accuracy and are also ineffectual especially in judging a player’s worth.
Am I too harsh on Holt then?
So what about Holt’s judgement of Aquilani, a player whom I value highly, where even though he has yet to cement himself as a key player in the squad, he definitely has a dormant bag of deft touches, glimpses of crafty vision and a definite sense of nimble mobility with his off the ball runs.
One thing for sure, and one which I strongly support, is that Aquilani is not a flop — or at the very least, not yet and not so soon, especially if you compare him against the likes of, say, Lucas.
Sure Aquilani is no Alonso, but it took Alonso a few seasons, where Rafa Benitez even tried trading him off, before he became a key player in the team.
Holt, it’s not that Liverpool is missing Alonso (okay maybe partly) but rather the lacklustre attacks is due to a certain consistently deep lying, backwards-running and shot-shy midfielder, known as Lucas.
What lucas does provide though, instead of an extra depth to Liverpool’s attack, is an extra dearth to Liverpool’s attacking plays.
And Oliver Holt, where just like Lucas, your comments on Aquilani, especially given the pitiful number of games involving the Italian, they pose a sense of inaccuracy, poor technique in execution and dearth in vision.
I’ll give Aquilani till the end of the season, more playing times and resist labelling anything just because there’s an impulse to do so.
And for goodness sake, play fair will ya?