He is saying

"history shows" Wes can't do two games in a week but actually it doesn't. It may be his justification for leaving him out but really all that "history" shows is we are a far, far poorer team without Hoolahan playing and whilst that remains the case we can't reallty afford to leave him out unless its unavoidable.

Bournemouth maybe the one time Wes struggled but to be fair they all did and they had played with ten men at Stoke prior to that match.

Which "history" is it that shows this. Is it when last season he played the following games in the same week?

Watford (h) (w)
Blackburn (h) (w)
Ipswich (a) (w)

or

Cardiff (a) (w)
Brentford (a)(w)

or

Watford (a) (w)
Blackburn (a) (w)

or

Forest (h) (w)
Brighton (a) (w)
Shef Weds (h) (w)

or

Bolton (a) (w)
Leeds (a) (w)

Think he also played in a couple of draws in the same week as well (possibly Derby and Hudds?).

Neil has clearly formed the view that Wes can't manage 2 games in a week because he regularly leaves him out when that scenario arises and he perceives one game to be more important than another. Fine, that's Neil's prerogative and he will be judged on results and whether he keeps us up but last season Wes did not seem to have any trouble doing it.

Posted By: Jim, Feb 5, 09:59:48