Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: alanclare on November 01, 2010, 09:05:32 AM
-
From todays' Times.
Gérard Houllier warned Stephen Ireland last night that he needs to work harder if he is to start making an impression at Aston Villa. After the previous two games when Ireland played centre forward before being withdrawn Houllier described the club’s highest earner as looking “lost”. Yesterday he went a step further:
“He needs to work harder,” Houllier said. “He played against Chelsea and did well. He played against Sunderland and it was not good enough to me, as simple as that. He needs to work harder. The skill is one thing but you need to compete. He played against Burnley, but it’s a difficult period for him. We support him. We back him. He comes to a new club and there’s a change of manager in between. We will be 100 percent for him. We know he is a good player. But I don’t want to have players who you say, ‘He’s a good player but…’
“If you say, ‘He’s a good player but he doesn’t defend, but he doesn’t run back, but he loses too many balls in crucial areas’, that’s difficult. He needs to get rid of these ‘buts’ and be a good player. We put him in at Sunderland behind the striker and he needs to get hold of the ball and play.”
-
Fair enough. Over to you Stephen.
-
houlliers right,time for mr ireland to step up,if not get rid !
-
Fair enough.
Hopefully Ireland will see this as a challenge and be the class player we know he can be.
Unless he just sulks and fucks off.
-
The moral of the story being: don't move to a club during the interregnum between managers.
The truth from where I see it is that Ireland was forced out of Citeh against his wishes and his heart isn't really in it so far as playing for the Villa is concerned. Perhaps he may have started differently if MON was still manager, but that we'll never know. Where he finds himself at the moment is at a club he doesn't want to be at, playing for a new manager who didn't sign him and having failed to make any sort of good first impression with the fans. I hope he turns it around, but it is not looking good.
-
A case of "Right Player, Wrong Timing".
-
Ireland's performances have been pretty poor.
Hopefully Houllier has said all this to the player's face as well as to the press
-
He probably doesnt want to be here after been forced out at Man City. He needs to up his game or be sold to fund sone real attacking midfielder/striker
-
GH could start by picking the player instead of selecting one whose inferior aka Steve Sidwell.
-
I doubt that Ireland is fully 90 minute match fit.
I think once he's fully fit, looking sharp and gets his first goal we'll see a much better player.
He does get in some good attacking positions and always wants the ball, our players don't seem to pass to him.
-
I hope Ireland turns it around on is day he is a class player i'm hopeing he'll come good for us.
-
Agree with pete, Ireland hasn't been at his best in his handful of games but he deserves more of a chance than sidwell who has been awful in nearly every game he's played.
I think if Ireland had took that chance against Chelsea it would have given him a huge boost- but we need to play him and see how he does, too early to judge him yet.
-
I really fear I am becoming some sort of self loathing Irishman! Was never an O'Neill fan, think Dunne should be dropped and wasn't really enthusiastic about Stephen Ireland coming in!
We all recognise Stephen's ability, but I just saw him as a luxury. You can only play him in the final third as a Paul Merson type AM. But then you need to have good defensive midfielders to accommodate him or a goal scoring lone striker to convert chances. We lack those things which means we probably won't get the best out of Ireland. I'd sell him as there's no point tryint to adapt your style to accommodate somebody who doesn't want to be here and has a record of petulence.
-
Since Mark Hughes was sacked in December 2009, Ireland became a near permanent substitute under Mancini. His pre season preparation at City would have been constantly overshadowed by the likelihood of moving.
These arent offered as excuses but the reasons why we havent yet seen him produce.
If Ireland has his head right and Houllier & Co. gets his match sharpness right, we will have a very very good player.
-
I was very damning of ireland last week and agree with most of what GH said.
What is blatently obvious to me is that Ireland would rather be anywhere but at VP
-
I really fear I am becoming some sort of self loathing Irishman! Was never an O'Neill fan, think Dunne should be dropped and wasn't really enthusiastic about Stephen Ireland coming in!
Then again, Peter McParland and that bloke with the dodgy knees were OK.
-
I'm getting concerned that GH doesn't rate Ireland - leaving him out yesterday, preferring to use Clark in CM and then bringing Bannan on ahead of him has started ringing alarm bells for me. I really hope Houllier sees a role for Ireland because he is a class act and can deliver if nurtured correctly.
What we're beginning to see now I think is that Houllier's sussing players out. Some he clearly likes - Clark stands out - and some he doesn't - step forward Delfouneso.
-
Ireland will be fine. We wont be selling him any time soon and once he settles in we'll see why City fans loved him.
Its important he keeps his head and accepts he is in a transitional period, that we are in a transitional period, and makes the best of it.
He has to work hard though. If he's not putting the effort in as he should be he deserves a public kick up the arse.
But lets not go overboard about him and give him time.
And yes, he does deserve to play ahead of Sidwell. At least Ireland can pass to a team mate, even out of form, depressed... whatever.
But it's Houllier's call and he just has to get on with it.
-
Ireland our highest earner!?! That's pathetic, how can he come straight in as highest earner after not playing for a year?
-
I really fear I am becoming some sort of self loathing Irishman! Was never an O'Neill fan, think Dunne should be dropped and wasn't really enthusiastic about Stephen Ireland coming in!
Then again, Peter McParland and that bloke with the dodgy knees were OK.
:)
-
He took a pay cut to come to Villa.
-
He's clearly got a lot of ability but when we were linked with him initially I argued that his application didn't always match it. So far we've seen plenty of the lack of application and precious little of the ability.
Hopefully he'll take note of what's been said rather than sulk.
-
He took a pay cut to come to Villa.
Oh bless him
-
Although I agree with what Gezza is saying, I am concerned that this may not be the best way to handle the player. Some react well to crtiicism and some need an arm round their shoulder - I think Ireland is the latter type!
-
He took a pay cut to come to Villa.
Oh bless him
I know. I know but that's why he's our highest earner.
Its a shame really as he would have been ideal in front of Milner and somebody else.
-
it's not obvious that O'Neill wanted him either. Perhaps in the interregnum, the owners thought one midfielder is much the same as another since we wouldn't be buying anyone else (ie the natue of the deal with Man City over Milner led to us getting a player neither the former nor the current machine want)
-
He's clearly got a lot of ability but when we were linked with him initially I argued that his application didn't always match it. So far we've seen plenty of the lack of application and precious little of the ability.
Hopefully he'll take note of what's been said rather than sulk.
Agreed. To be fair to Ireland, I could never understand why he's been played in a midfield central two with Petrov as the more advanced of the pair. Obviously not playing to his strengths but regardless, he needs to start getting more involved.
It recently struck me how Heskey now plays with a mentality of "this is MY Aston Villa team" rather than trying and failing to find a way to fit in. Downing is the same, it's all about ownership. Sidwell had it at Reading where he ran the place but has never achieved it since. Let's hope Ireland soon realises Man City is all in the past, hard work and dedication to the cause will give him the freedom to express himself the way wants.
Houllier has obviously thought long and hard before making public his opinion of Ireland. Now it's up to the player to respond in a positive way. Whether he will or not, I have my doubts but I really hope he does as he is most certainly a very talented player, the type we've been crying out for since Merson left. He really can give us a new dimension, especially in attack.
-
take his diamond earrings away and say he can have them back when he delivers the targets that GH sets for him -
-
One thing i do like about Ireland is his passing, sometimes his first time balls trying to play people through could well end up having a big effect, especially when Gabby comes back. He's worth perservering with, he'll be a heck of a player for us.
-
Yesterday Ireland, in addition to a verbal and very public kick up the backside from his manager would have seen two obviously technically limited midfielders and a young centre half picked ahead of him, with another untried youngster brought off the bench ahead of him.
If that was me I'd want to do something about it - hopefully Ireland feels the same.
-
I'm glad of the support he got when he warmed up, as I think he, of all players, needs to have the fans on his side. I'd worry if he became a target of those that love to boo
-
Playing him up front didn't really help Ireland on Wednesday, he just seems to float about at the moment without any real structure to his position.
I would play him in a midfield 3 and get him to break forward rather than this airy-fairy off the front man position than neither him nor Young seem to be mastering.
-
One thing we really missed yesterday was getting players into the opposition box. Heskey was in their fighting alone against 5. He never stood a chance. Ireland would probably have been up there supporting but it's the rest of his game he needs to work at. At the moment he's a passenger.
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
-
Although I agree with what Gezza is saying, I am concerned that this may not be the best way to handle the player. Some react well to crtiicism and some need an arm round their shoulder - I think Ireland is the latter type!
I agree with this John. Houllier may be getting to know the players and what makes them tick. I notice in an article on the BBC that he's praising Heskey talking about having "faith and ability". Heskey has definitely improved since Houllier arrived and that may be because Houllier knows the players. Lets hope he gets it right with Ireland.
With regard to Ireland he was claiming in interviews that one of his biggest assets is that he has energy to burn at the end of matches. From what I have seen and also read on here, this is not the case. Is he just not fit yet, or is he deluding himself about his fitness levels?
-
I'm glad of the support he got when he warmed up, as I think he, of all players, needs to have the fans on his side. I'd worry if he became a target of those that love to boo
Agreed Ger.
I'm surprised he hasn't featured more. I think for a player still trying to find his feet at a new club GH's comments were unnecessary. But then we're not party to what goes on in training and the like.
-
Lets hope this makes him sit up and work hard
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
Definately
I still think Ashleys best position is as a wide man as opposed to where he's been playing for the last few games
-
Ireland has offered very little in the games he has played so far, there could be a lot of reasons for this, moving to a new club, getting used to the new manager's tactics and requirements, getting used to his new colleagues, regaining match fitness and so on. But one of the most disapointing things is that when he has played he has offered very little defensively, by that i mean that almost every time he goes to close a player down, he generally trots over towards them and shows no intention of actually making a tackle. Any opposition player watching him run towards them wouldn't be worried in the slightest.
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
Definately
I still think Ashleys best position is as a wide man as opposed to where he's been playing for the last few games
I disagree.
We were far better at Sunderland when he moved into the middle.
-
Ireland has never looked fully fit to me, let's hope Gerard can get him up to speed.
-
One thing we really missed yesterday was getting players into the opposition box. Heskey was in their fighting alone against 5. He never stood a chance. Ireland would probably have been up there supporting but it's the rest of his game he needs to work at. At the moment he's a passenger.
Disagree, he hasn't been given a proper chance yet.
This is the type of advice that should be kept in house and not splashed all over the paper, unless that's GH's way of motivating.
If so, let's hope it works.
-
How many games has he played in the last 2 seasons? Im sure I read it was only 5 or so full 90 mins. What amazes me is he is expected to be at full tilt after just 3-4 games. I do worry that Houllier has seen things that must indicate poor attitude and willingness to really have a go. Where is the player rated at £20m plus with Manure looking at him? Mark Hughes got the best out of him and i dont think he slated him in public.
-
Instead of blasting GH, it might well work and help him to stop sulking and work harder. If it work we will have one of player. Otherwise he will be wasted like Stanley Victor Collymore / Sasa Curcic.
-
I think he'll be fine once he's up to speed and settled at the club, and he'll be a great asset.
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
Definately
I still think Ashleys best position is as a wide man as opposed to where he's been playing for the last few games
Eventually I'd like to see Delph and Ireland playing alongside someone better than Reo-Coker in a middle three.
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
Definately
I still think Ashleys best position is as a wide man as opposed to where he's been playing for the last few games
Eventually I'd like to see Delph and Ireland playing alongside someone better than Reo-Coker in a middle three.
I agree.
I'd also like to see Albrighton in the team. If he builds on his initial form then he could have either Downing or Young's shirt.
-
I remember we were having these threads a month or so after Milner joined.
And probably a year after Merson joined.
Have faith, Ireland will come good when Gabby returns.
-
I like Houllier, but I think he may have got it wrong airing this in the press. As others have said, seems to be more of an 'arm around the shoulder' sort of player.
-
Maybe, but then he's not exactly green and he's seen more of ireland than any of us. Let's face it it's not in anyone's interests for him to end up a busted flush. I'm pretty confident quality will out in the long run.
-
Does anyone have a kind of 'does he REALLY want to be at Villa ?' background thought ?
That is the slight concern I'd like to see removed.
I think he will be a VP star after a while, he has the ability alright - he has that in spades.
-
That Troy Eccles fella posted up some analytical tripe after Ireland's first interview, concluding that he looked rather uncomfortable and simply put, didn't want to be here. Oh how everyone mocked. Seems Troy was onto something. Ireland's heart bleeds for Man City. He's finished as a top flight footballer. He'll do just enough to try to keep his bank balance looking healthy but he'll never be what people want him to be.
If he does, I hope someone quotes me so I can eat some humble pie.
-
Let's get behind Ireland. I trust Houllier with how he's handling this.
-
Houllier has done nothing but talk honestly since he joined. He's acknowledged what we've all seen and will address.
I personally don't see the problem in him addressing the issue to the press. He was responding to a question. It's down to Ireland to up his game and really try to make an impact. Once he gets back into the swing in terms of practice and fitness, he'll be fine.
But Houllier is quite correct, players must adapt to how the manager wants them to play. If Ireland has to add facets to his game then he has to. Simple as that, or he gets moved on.
-
That Troy Eccles fella posted up some analytical tripe after Ireland's first interview, concluding that he looked rather uncomfortable and simply put, didn't want to be here. Oh how everyone mocked. Seems Troy was onto something. Ireland's heart bleeds for Man City. He's finished as a top flight footballer. He'll do just enough to try to keep his bank balance looking healthy but he'll never be what people want him to be.
If he does, I hope someone quotes me so I can eat some humble pie.
Thinking this somehow proves you right is worth a bit more mockery I reckon.
-
What did ireland cost us? Was he worth £8m in the deal? I read in the paper today newcastle & West Ham are interested, would we get anywhere near £8m?
I think we should give him a bit of time but if he continues not to perform then i'd have him out as he is a top earner
-
Maybe next season when GH has brought in some players who are on the same wavelength as Ireland re passing and movement, then we might see the player that is in there somewhere. As someone said previously, the present lot have to have the MON tactics coached out of them before they instinctively pass and move.
Also look at Downing tghis season compared to last, following a full pre-season with the team.
Sometimes, I think people believe a player can just step into a team as though they have played there for years. In reality it takes months for them to settle in, and we must be prepared to give people this time not expect instant results.
-
Playing him up front didn't really help Ireland on Wednesday, he just seems to float about at the moment without any real structure to his position.
I was very disappointed with his performance against Burnley. Playing up front against a Championship team was the perfect opportunity for him to boost his confidence with a few much needed goals, but he looked lazy and out of place. We all know he is a talented and gifted footballer, but where is he hiding?
-
Does anyone have a kind of 'does he REALLY want to be at Villa ?' background thought ?
I think that's an understandable concern and I have my doubts but one thing I'm pretty certain of is that Houllier having a pop at in him the press isn't the best way to motivate him.
He's generally responded to the carrot rather than the stick in the past. You could argue that £60k + per week is carrot enough and I'd tend to agree. But he seems to thrive in an environment when he's appreciated. The first whiff that he doesn't have the manager or coaching staff on side and he goes into his shell -or walks out completely as per Rep Ireland.
That sounds unprofessional - and it is to a certain extent. But then he'll go and do things like spend a whole summer doing fitness and strength conditioning to improve his game - more than most other professionals would.
He's a walking contradiction, one of those famous awkward characters. But at his best - or anywhere close to it- he would be a huge asset to us. So that should be our aim, to get the best out of him. I don't think taking pot shots at him in print is the way to go about it. In fact, if you asked me if there was one method guaranteed to have the opposite effect that would be it.
Time will tell.
-
Playing him up front didn't really help Ireland on Wednesday, he just seems to float about at the moment without any real structure to his position.
I was very disappointed with his performance against Burnley. Playing up front against a Championship team was the perfect opportunity for him to boost his confidence with a few much needed goals, but he looked lazy and out of place. We all know he is a talented and gifted footballer, but where is he hiding?
The thing with the Burnley game is, it wasn't as a result of some managerial brainwave to play him up front, Carew didn't turn up, GH didn't want Emile to have a full game and he didn't want to start Delf for some reason, so Ireland played up front, which isn't his position so I have a degree of sympathy with him, but I am amazed at how little he gets involved.
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
I think the £8m for Ireland as part of the deal was a good valuation.
Milner did need replacing.
-
Also,
If Ireland really didn't/doesn't want to be here then he didn't have to join us.
He could have just flatly refused and stayed at Man City. Who knows? Mancini might not be there for a long period and he might have even got named in the 25.
-
The general consensus at the time was that we were getting the better end of the deal.
That was of course dependant on Ireland playing somewhere close to his form of 08/09.
Still far too early (and quite frankly ridiculous) to write him off as bad buy.
In theory he's still got plenty of time to turn it around. That's if he wants to be here. If not that's a different matter altogether.
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
I think the £8m for Ireland as part of the deal was a good valuation.
Milner did need replacing.
Ireland is evidently not a like for like replacement.
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
I think the £8m for Ireland as part of the deal was a good valuation.
Milner did need replacing.
Ireland is evidently not a like for like replacement.
I didn't say he was.
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
i don't understand how you can say we didn't need him? Our midfield has been crying out for a creative player since merse left
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
i don't understand how you can say we didn't need him? Our midfield has been crying out for a creative player since merse left
What I'm saying is that in the circumstances what we needed was someone who could replicate Milner's role in the side which Ireland evidently can't do.
Ireland would have been a good addition to the squad had Milner stayed.
-
The general consensus at the time was that we were getting the better end of the deal.
That was of course dependant on Ireland playing somewhere close to his form of 08/09.
Still far too early (and quite frankly ridiculous) to write him off as bad buy.
In theory he's still got plenty of time to turn it around. That's if he wants to be here. If not that's a different matter altogether.
The general consenus was clearly wrong (again).
-
I was never happy with this deal.
Our owners sold a player that Man City wanted and we needed and replaced him with a player that Man City didn't want and we didn't need.
And seeing as we didn't have a manager at the time who were we relying on to come up with an accurate valuation of Ireland's ability?
i don't understand how you can say we didn't need him? Our midfield has been crying out for a creative player since merse left
What I'm saying is that in the circumstances what we needed was someone who could replicate Milner's role in the side which Ireland evidently can't do.
Ireland would have been a good addition to the squad had Milner stayed.
I see what your saying but Milner didn't want to stay. In an ideal world MON would have taken Ireland and replaced Milner with someone suitable, However he left. thus not allowing us to replace Milner, This is now what Gerrard must do.
Fingers crossed he will.
-
It shouldn't surprise anyone that some people are slagging off and writing of one of our players so quickly. It's no different to the emerging band of Houllier doubters. We could have landed Mourinho and Ronaldo and if we hadn't won 5 straight, and the player hadn't scored 4 hattricks out of 5, they's both be shit in the eyes of some.
-
Maybe, just maybe, it's simply down the the fact he can't actually be very good consistently?
He's in his 6th season as a professional and has had one good season to date. The same thing applies to many professionals in all sports, one standout year and the rest of their career they never reach those heights again.
There must be some reason that Houllier has felt the need to say what he said, and i'm sure Mancini said something last season about Ireland sorting himself out.
As for him not being match fit, while a fair few might have been from the subs bench, i'm pretty sure he played in about 30 games last season, it's not like he was never kicking a ball due to injury.
I'm currently at slightly concerned, on the worry-ometer.
-
It shouldn't surprise anyone that some people are slagging off and writing of one of our players so quickly. It's no different to the emerging band of Houllier doubters. We could have landed Mourinho and Ronaldo and if we hadn't won 5 straight, and the player hadn't scored 4 hattricks out of 5, they's both be shit in the eyes of some.
Although your'e right its also the manager saying he's not pulling his weight. I personally think Ireland can come good but its in his own hands
-
The general consensus at the time was that we were getting the better end of the deal.
That was of course dependant on Ireland playing somewhere close to his form of 08/09.
Still far too early (and quite frankly ridiculous) to write him off as bad buy.
In theory he's still got plenty of time to turn it around. That's if he wants to be here. If not that's a different matter altogether.
The general consenus was clearly wrong (again).
I'll give it a little longer than two and a bit months at the club, one full 90 minutes and four other starts before I make that kind of call.
Whilst we're on the subject of Milner comparisons, he wasn't a regular starter when he came back in 08/09 either. It was only in Nov/ Dec that he cemented a place as a first team regular - and even after that his form was up and down.
-
I'll give it a little longer than two and a bit months at the club, one full 90 minutes and four other starts before I make that kind of call.
Whilst we're on the subject of Milner comparisons, he wasn't a regular starter when he came back in 08/09 either. It was only in Nov/ Dec that he cemented a place as a first team regular - and even after that his form was up and down.
Your memory's letting you down there, he barely missed a match after his return in 2008.
-
'fraid not ace.
NRC was the regular starter at RM in 08/09 during the early part of the campaign -even bagging a few goals.
-
The general consensus at the time was that we were getting the better end of the deal.
That was of course dependant on Ireland playing somewhere close to his form of 08/09.
Still far too early (and quite frankly ridiculous) to write him off as bad buy.
In theory he's still got plenty of time to turn it around. That's if he wants to be here. If not that's a different matter altogether.
The general consenus was clearly wrong (again).
I'll give it a little longer than two and a bit months at the club, one full 90 minutes and four other starts before I make that kind of call.
Whilst we're on the subject of Milner comparisons, he wasn't a regular starter when he came back in 08/09 either. It was only in Nov/ Dec that he cemented a place as a first team regular - and even after that his form was up and down.
You already made the call by being part of the 'consensus' who claimed we had the better of the deal. We might one day have a decent player but I'd sooner have Milner any day of the week.
-
'fraid not ace.
NRC was the regular starter at RM in 08/09 during the early part of the campaign -even bagging a few goals.
A few?
1 league goal in 68 games.
-
he meant bookings.
-
The general consensus at the time was that we were getting the better end of the deal.
That was of course dependant on Ireland playing somewhere close to his form of 08/09.
Still far too early (and quite frankly ridiculous) to write him off as bad buy.
In theory he's still got plenty of time to turn it around. That's if he wants to be here. If not that's a different matter altogether.
The general consenus was clearly wrong (again).
I'll give it a little longer than two and a bit months at the club, one full 90 minutes and four other starts before I make that kind of call.
Whilst we're on the subject of Milner comparisons, he wasn't a regular starter when he came back in 08/09 either. It was only in Nov/ Dec that he cemented a place as a first team regular - and even after that his form was up and down.
You already made the call by being part of the 'consensus' who claimed we had the better of the deal. We might one day have a decent player but I'd sooner have Milner any day of the week.
Yes, i'd rather have Milner as well, but he wanted to go and pick up a stupid amount of money elsewhere and Ireland agreed to come here. I'm happy to give him longer than 2 months as well. We gave Petrov 2 years after all.
-
And that's fine.
You see Ireland's arrival/ Milner's departure as intertwined with the departure of MON. As you were distraught to see the latter depart it's understandable that Ireland will have some way to go to win you over.
-
'fraid not ace.
NRC was the regular starter at RM in 08/09 during the early part of the campaign -even bagging a few goals.
A few?
1 league goal in 68 games.
Who said league goals?
One v Spurs and one v Litex away - both early in that campaign.
-
And that's fine.
You see Ireland's arrival/ Milner's departure as intertwined with the departure of MON. As you were distraught to see the latter depart it's understandable that Ireland will have some way to go to win you over.
That's bollocks.
Ireland has someway to go to win me over because he hasn't performed for us.
I haven't written him off, I hope he'll come good but I was sceptical when we were linked with him well before MON left and argued the case on here because I see him as lightweight and a bit flakey. However, the argument here is about us getting the better of the deal and that's just wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Milner is twice the player.
-
Milner made 31 starts and 5 sub appearances in the league for us in 08/09, having already played 2 league games for Newcastle according to Soccerbase.
-
Doubtless been posted before on here or at least similar, but having only just watched it, i'm optimistic again...
-
From watching that clip again it's clear Irelands best position is in the middle just behind the striker. We haven't seen him play with Gabby up front yet and I think Gabby will benefit greatly from the threaded through ball. Ireland certainly has the brain/vision to play the defence splitting pass that we have lacked for so long. Milner did it on a few occasions.
-
And that's fine.
You see Ireland's arrival/ Milner's departure as intertwined with the departure of MON. As you were distraught to see the latter depart it's understandable that Ireland will have some way to go to win you over.
That's bollocks.
Ireland has someway to go to win me over because he hasn't performed for us.
I haven't written him off, I hope he'll come good but I was sceptical when we were linked with him well before MON left and argued the case on here because I see him as lightweight and a bit flakey. However, the argument here is about us getting the better of the deal and that's just wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Milner is twice the player.
Whenever these debates come around you are the normally the one preaching patience and advising against criticism of new players only in the door, snap judgements and the like. Usually mocking those making said judgements.
Yet now in the case of Ireland you already know without question that he won't be as effective as Milner was for us and you're quite comfortable criticising him. You've already decided that those who thought we were getting the better end of the deal are wrong. Again apparently (when were the other occasions, out of interest?) No grey area there, no wait and see. After two and a bit months at the club the verdict is in.
You'll forgive me if I'm sceptical that this change of approach has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances that brought Ireland to the club. And that a player who joined in less acrimonious circumstances- ie not against the backdrop of MON's departure- might have been allotted your usual Good Vicar routine after a slow start.
It could well be that Ireland doesn't turn out to be half the player Milner was for us. But in their careers to date their impact and contribution has been about par. Good periods in a few seasons but only one consistently good season each at present, Ireland in 08/09 and Milner in 09/10. Milner is the more reliable character, more stable even. But Ireland the more talented.
For that reason I don't see how anyone can come to the certain conclusion that Milner for Ireland + cash can't be the better end of the deal - we're barely a third of the way through the season.
-
Lot's of words but saying very little.
When we were first linked with Ireland many months ago I had the same concerns that I have now. I said he was lightweight and got taken to task for calling him border line mental. It's absoulutely nothing to do with O'Neill. I've also said that he's a talented footballer but at the moment he's not showing it and it appears that our manager has come to a similar conclusion. You've nailed your colours to the Ireland mast so I can see why you don't want to show any doubt but so far he's been everything I thought he might be meanwhile Milner has settled straight in at Man City.
-
Lot's of words but saying very little.
When we were first linked with Ireland many months ago I had the same concerns that I have now. I said he was lightweight and got taken to task for calling him border line mental. It's absoulutely nothing to do with O'Neill. I've also said that he's a talented footballer but at the moment he's not showing it and it appears that our manager has come to a similar conclusion. You've nailed your colours to the Ireland mast so I can see why you don't want to show any doubt but so far he's been everything I thought he might be meanwhile Milner has settled straight in at Man City.
If you look at what Man City fans are saying, Milner hasn't really made much of an impact at Man City.
I take your point, Chris, you did indeed say those things you said about Ireland before he joined, but you also used to say (when we'd signed the likes of Harewood and Heskey) that you'd wait until you saw what the players did in a Villa shirt before judging them.
If that was your standpoint then, and still is now, then surely you need to be giving Ireland a bit more time to show his stuff?
-
The issue with Ireland is that he has a habit of going missing for large parts of the game. That is why Houllier called him out the other day. Was it wise? I certainly do not know, as the lad obviously isn't all there.
-
Milner is twice the player.
Based on the value of the transfer being (18m + 8m) £26m then Milner is 3.25 times better than Ireland. Until the rest of the cash is spent then it's pretty impossible to say who got the better of the deal.
-
I was one of the ones who said the cash and Ireland would be a good deal if we could spend the money wisely. At the moment we haven't been able to do that and as we have lost such a key player it was always going to affect us.
I also did raise an issue that Ireland played really well when Robinho used to play. They had an understanding and it is no good playing really good balls if you do not have someone ready to anticipate them. Does anyone think Gabby has the same footballing brain and ability to read the game as Robinho?
-
The transfer fee is irrelevant, Milner will keep getting better, even on his off days he will still work his socks off. Ireland may well have an impact for us but it won't be anywhere near the consistency of Milner.
-
If you compare the stats of Irelands 08/09 season and Milner last season they are neck and neck.
The problem is getting Ireland to that standard.
-
Time will tell.
I think we will see a better Stephen Ireland in time. Whether that is an utterly top class player I am not sure.
-
I bet milner covers double the amount of ground Ireland does in a game, it's like comparing apples with pears
-
How can you say that the transfer fee is irrelevant? That is effectively the money we'll use to replace him so it'll have a direct bearing on how good the player we buy is.
-
I bet milner covers double the amount of ground Ireland does in a game, it's like comparing apples with pears
Probably, but Kevin Davies probably covers far more ground than Berbatov does. As you say, their games are about completely different things.
-
How can you say that the transfer fee is irrelevant? That is effectively the money we'll use to replace him so it'll have a direct bearing on how good the player we buy is.
The fee isn't relevant because players like James Milner don't come around very often.
-
How can you say that the transfer fee is irrelevant? That is effectively the money we'll use to replace him so it'll have a direct bearing on how good the player we buy is.
The fee isn't relevant because players like James Milner don't come around very often.
That is certainly true. It would have been great to see how good he could have become playing CM. He had a certain talismanic quality which I fear will get lost amongst the egos of man city.
Regardless of this we should be able to buy a decent replacement with 18m, then we just have to hope Ireland comes good.
-
I still believe ireland will come good, more so when Gabby is playing again regularly as at least he'll then have someone quick to aim for upfront.
That said, it's unquestionable we're missing Milner badly, far more so than we missed Barry at any stage last season who won't be a regular at Man. City for much longer.
So we desperately need to sign a decent central midfielder in January.
-
Lot's of words but saying very little.
Come on Smudger, you can do better than that.
Or maybe you can't.
But I suppose I'll take saying very little (or more accurately questioning why someone normally so tolerant of piss poor performances from either players or management has suddenly done a complete volte-face) in contrast to your frequently and consistently getting it so very, very wrong.
DOL, MON and weren't you pretty much adamant that Milner wouldn't leave us because he was 'different?' Have you still got that article from his old school teacher that formed the basis of your steadfast belief?
Your track record is not that hot, lets face it.
-
One thing I will say, Chris, is that on any thread regarding Gary Cahill, you always roll out the "he didn't want to stay, what could we do" argument, but with Milner, it is all about how he's twice the player Ireland is (the implication being that we've replaced a really good one with a much worse one in some downscaling exercise).
Surely Milner didn't want to be here either, so by your own measure, it's pointless bringing him into the equation when judging Ireland?
-
Also: as for nailing my colours to the Ireland mast I don't think that stacks up.
I want him to do well, think he has talent to do well but I have my doubts about this move.
I just don't see the sense in reaching any conclusions re his effectiveness for us so early into his Villa career. You may think that unreasonable, but there it is.
-
One thing I will say, Chris, is that on any thread regarding Gary Cahill, you always roll out the "he didn't want to stay, what could we do" argument, but with Milner, it is all about how he's twice the player Ireland is (the implication being that we've replaced a really good one with a much worse one in some downscaling exercise).
Surely Milner didn't want to be here either, so by your own measure, it's pointless bringing him into the equation when judging Ireland?
Cahill was a young reserve centre-back, and left when we seemed fully stocked there.
I think most people would accept that Milner was a bit more important than that when he left. Spectacular offside goals against Blues notwithstanding.
-
Also: as for nailing my colours to the Ireland mast I don't think that stacks up.
I want him to do well, think he has talent to do well but I have my doubts about this move.
I just don't see the sense in reaching any conclusions re his effectiveness for us so early into his Villa career. You may think that unreasonable, but there it is.
Exactly. People nailing their colours to the Ireland mast is just expecting too much of the lad so early on. Let the lad play his football and if he wants to get there then he will do it of his own accord.
-
Also: as for nailing my colours to the Ireland mast I don't think that stacks up.
I want him to do well, think he has talent to do well but I have my doubts about this move.
I just don't see the sense in reaching any conclusions re his effectiveness for us so early into his Villa career. You may think that unreasonable, but there it is.
Exactly. People nailing their colours to the Ireland mast is just expecting too much of the lad so early on. Let the lad play his football and if he wants to get there then he will do it of his own accord.
yup.
It's a pretty daft mistake to make when a player who got exactly the same kind of stick last season, Downing, has settled very well and is now amongst our best players.
You'd think people would learn.
-
The trouble is when Downing was playing poorly there wasn't interviews with him stating how players deserve to be on stupid amount per week as there was just after Ireland signed. Every interview from Downing related to how he was looking forward to be able to play for us as well and saw us as a step up.
-
Also: as for nailing my colours to the Ireland mast I don't think that stacks up.
I want him to do well, think he has talent to do well but I have my doubts about this move.
I just don't see the sense in reaching any conclusions re his effectiveness for us so early into his Villa career. You may think that unreasonable, but there it is.
Exactly. People nailing their colours to the Ireland mast is just expecting too much of the lad so early on. Let the lad play his football and if he wants to get there then he will do it of his own accord.
yup.
It's a pretty daft mistake to make when a player who got exactly the same kind of stick last season, Downing, has settled very well and is now amongst our best players.
You'd think people would learn.
True.
There are some folk who expect him to immediately become this world superstar and fill Jimmys boots without a problem. It simply isn't going to happen so early on. It will be the same people complaining after he puts in a bad performance. All that does is create unnecessary pressure and moaning, which ironically enough will affect the type of player that Ireland is. He appears to take everything to heart.
-
There are bad performances and unacceptable ones. Ireland so far fits into the later category. I thought he was a great signing at the time, still has the talent but all the other attributes - desire, heart etc are missing at the moment. Unless he seriously changes his mindset then he is doomed to failure at Villa Park. You never know what a goal or two would bring though. Houllier's comments simply had to be said imo. Lets hope he takes it to heart and remembers that to be a good footballer all that matters is what happens inside the white lines.
-
Unacceptable is going a bit far, I think.
He's trying things, they're just not working yet and its frustrating for him.
He's letting it get to him a wee bit by the looks of it.
But as has been said, we've seen this already in very recent times with Young, Milner, Downing etc and they've all done well after indifferent periods early on so I'm not going to make a judgement on him any time soon until he's had a proper chance to gel and settle. Especially as this is his first real move.
Houllier obviously feels this is the way to get a positive response from him. We'll see how it turns out.
Christ knows we need one.
-
There are bad performances and unacceptable ones. Ireland so far fits into the later category. I thought he was a great signing at the time, still has the talent but all the other attributes - desire, heart etc are missing at the moment.
In most of the games I've seen so far he's trying. It's an easy tag to label at a player out of form, his hearts not in it et.c He will always suffer in a direct comparison with a player like Milner when it comes to workrate and endeavour, most mere mortals would. This is obviously exacerbated when it's Milner who he's effectively replaced. As others have said, they aren't the same type of players, so the things I'd rather judge Ireland on would be the positions he takes up, the passes he makes and so on. In this area he's looked promising at times but I fully accept we need much more from him. I'd like to see him given a chance to play himself into form, and that can only happen after a run of games. Not one 90 minutes and four other bit part roles.
Houllier's comments simply had to be said imo. Lets hope he takes it to heart and remembers that to be a good footballer all that matters is what happens inside the white lines.
We'll see in the fullness of time but everything about Ireland to date indicates that he's not a player who responds to digs via the press or goading. Truth be told I couldn't give a shit about his feelings. I think it strange that a 24 year old professional footballer could be such a delicate flower. That said, I want Aston Villa to be the beneficiaries of any good form or talent he can bring to the table, so I don't want us to sink our own boat with piss poor attempts at cod psychology via the media.
Who knows, we could be hailing it as a masterstroke by GH in a few weeks.
But I'm more inclined to think it's either a heavy handed attempt to get a reaction or that GH has already decided that he doesn't need him and has started the process of ostracising him from first team affairs. We're not party to what goes on in training, perhaps he looks like he just doesn't fancy it.
It wouldn't actually surprise me if he was sent out on loan this Jan. But I think/ hope he has enough about him to turn it around. He could still be a very big player for us this season.
-
Eventually I'd like to see Ireland with NRC and Delph in a middle 3. With Downing & Young on the wings.
Yes, Yes and Yes.
-
Lot's of words but saying very little.
Come on Smudger, you can do better than that.
Or maybe you can't.
But I suppose I'll take saying very little (or more accurately questioning why someone normally so tolerant of piss poor performances from either players or management has suddenly done a complete volte-face) in contrast to your frequently and consistently getting it so very, very wrong.
DOL, MON and weren't you pretty much adamant that Milner wouldn't leave us because he was 'different?' Have you still got that article from his old school teacher that formed the basis of your steadfast belief?
Your track record is not that hot, lets face it.
Waffle and obfuscation.
The argument was about who got the better of the deal.
From a Man City perspective they got the player they wanted, got rid of one that under the new regulations they couldn't keep and who had been underperforming for 12 months and spent some cash which is small change to them.
We lost our most influential player signed one who doesn't adequately replace him and got some money that we might get to spend in the future.
I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.
As to Ireland himself, I said above that I haven't written him off. I'll give him time to come good but he's not the player that James Milner is. He's got the added issue that where he seems to prefer playing he has to compete with Ashley Young who Houllier seems to rate in that position.
-
I'll give it a little longer than two and a bit months at the club, one full 90 minutes and four other starts before I make that kind of call.
Absolutely. It's pretty hard for the guy to show any kind of form when he's been played so sporadically. I have faith in Ireland; if he's given the chance to flourish he can give us so much.
-
Lot's of words but saying very little.
Come on Smudger, you can do better than that.
Or maybe you can't.
But I suppose I'll take saying very little (or more accurately questioning why someone normally so tolerant of piss poor performances from either players or management has suddenly done a complete volte-face) in contrast to your frequently and consistently getting it so very, very wrong.
DOL, MON and weren't you pretty much adamant that Milner wouldn't leave us because he was 'different?' Have you still got that article from his old school teacher that formed the basis of your steadfast belief?
Your track record is not that hot, lets face it.
Waffle and obfuscation.
The argument was about who got the better of the deal.
This one is, yes. But you must see the irony in you of all people telling others they are wrong (again) with your track record.
I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.
And I don't see how the verdict can be in so soon. Both players are the same age, both careers have followed a similar trajectory to date. Agree to disagree?
-
I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.
As of today, it doesn't look like we have got the better end of the deal - although you could argue that we got a massively inflated fee for a player who looks distinctly average at present for City, playing anywhere but the position in which he excelled in last season, graduated to the England squad, etc.
But anyway. I'll put a sensible case forward: in six months time, we're getting the best out of Stephen Ireland, and we've spent a good proportion of the remainder of the Milner fee on another top-class midfielder. That scenario, surely, is not beyond the realms of possibility?
I have to say, my doubts are not about Ireland's ability, but Houllier's assessment and opinion of him. If he just doesn't see a future for the player at Villa, there's not a lot anyone can do about it. And that would be a real shame.
-
If we're ever going to lift ourselves out of the doldrums and banish the turgid football that has dogged us for ages now, we're going to need a player like Ireland to be at the top of his game. Houllier needs to work out how to get the best out of him, as the team just isn't looking at all effective going forward at the moment.
-
I think one of the problems facing Ireland is the fact that he was signed as part of the Milner deal, and a lot of fans will be expecting him to be a similar sort of player, when he clearly isn't.
As I've said before, his best time at Man City was as part of a quick front three with Robinho and Bellamy, so to recreate that we need to play him in a simlar position. Something like this -
---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------
Of course we'd then need to put three more disciplined midfielders behind them. So with our squad that would best being -
---Petrov------------------NRC---
---------------Delph---------------
---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------
Of course, as it stands we don't have the personnel available to do that, so we are not playing him where suits him best. That formation is also pretty cruel on Downing and Albrighton who have been a couple of our better performers so far.
-
Spot on, Merv and Risso.
-
I think one of the problems facing Ireland is the fact that he was signed as part of the Milner deal, and a lot of fans will be expecting him to be a similar sort of player, when he clearly isn't.
As I've said before, his best time at Man City was as part of a quick front three with Robinho and Bellamy, so to recreate that we need to play him in a simlar position. Something like this -
---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------
Of course we'd then need to put three more disciplined midfielders behind them. So with our squad that would best being -
---Petrov------------------NRC---
---------------Delph---------------
---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------
Of course, as it stands we don't have the personnel available to do that, so we are not playing him where suits him best. That formation is also pretty cruel on Downing and Albrighton who have been a couple of our better performers so far.
In think more than anything else we need two solid, genuine CM's behind him.
The rest is flexible.
-
Both players are the same age, both careers have followed a similar trajectory to date
I don't think Houllier, Hughes, O'Neill or Mancini would agree with you.
When Ireland is at the top of his game he's the more aesthetically pleasing player but it's at least 12 months since anyone has seen that whereas I don't think you ever get less than a 7/10 performance from Milner.
-
The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about.
I'm not going to try and second guess the ranking system any of them have vis a vis Ireland and Milner though. Apart from Mancini I don't see how you could possibly have a definitive answer either way.
-
The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about.
According to General Krulak yesterday, MON was deeply involved in the Ireland deal, and wanted it to happen.
-
Both players are the same age, both careers have followed a similar trajectory to date
I don't think Houllier, Hughes, O'Neill or Mancini would agree with you.
When Ireland is at the top of his game he's the more aesthetically pleasing player but it's at least 12 months since anyone has seen that whereas I don't think you ever get less than a 7/10 performance from Milner.
Both have done very little this season for their new clubs.
-
The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about.
I'm not going to try and second guess the ranking system any of them have vis a vis Ireland and Milner though. Apart from Mancini I don't see how you could possibly have a definitive answer either way.
Hughes dropped Ireland, Mancini more or less ignored him and Houllier isn't picking him yet Milner is a regular at Man City who have a stronger squad than us and was valued at 4 times as much.
I don't see that as a similar trajectory.
-
He appears to be quite a flamboyant character, and as such his football will differ from the non flamboyant Jimmy.
I hope GH gives him all the tools he needs to succeed and I include in that a decent striker to play alongside.
-
You seem determined to make Ireland out to be some kind of duffer yet:
Ireland was player of the year at Citeh under Hughes and national Young Player of the Year.
This during a time when Man Citeh had a whole host of world class players lets not forget.
In contrast, Milner played alongside the likes of Smith, Barton and Sibierski at Newcastle and Petrov, Sidwell and NRC at Villa.
So not identical backgrounds (Milner has also got a few years head start on Ireland as he broke through at 16) but a similar trajectory in so far as they are both 24, both play midfield, both have had one consistently good season and good periods in other campaigns and both have scooped the national Young Player of the Year gong.
It's not an unreasonable comparison on that basis, they're not exactly a million miles apart ability or experience wise. Even if they are different types of players. Yet you won't see it as a similar trajectory for the same reason you didn't see us visibly tire as a side past the 60 minute mark last year and you didn't see the signings of Harewood and Heskey as questionable - because you flat out don't want to.
It suited your pro manager argument to turn the other way when it came to the above (I can only assume it was because you had your back turned to most of our matches that you couldn't see what was so blindingly obvious). It suits your new position to be critical of any business dealings at the club - particularly a transfer that might have played a part in the departure of MON - so you can't/ won't see any merit in the signing of Ireland. Or in any suggestion that he could -in time- be as effective as Milner was for us.
We've seen this routine before. It's dull, change it.
-
Hmmm. The comment that Milner gives a regular 7 out of 10 performance is spot on - with Ireland you have to accept that you'll get some 6 out of 10s, even some 5 out of 10s but he'll also come up with 8 and 9s. Milner is steady and consistent but we have too many of that kind of player at the Villa already and we've been crying out for someone who can lift us, win us a match from nothing. Ireland can do that - if he's allowed to play and settle in. He's already shown us glimpses, against Rapid Vienna at home he was very sharp, he could and very nearly did win the game v Chelsea early on with a typical burst. He needs nurturing to get the best out of him, and I hope he's given the chance.
Just listing the managers Ireland has played under doesn't equate to them not rating him. He was absolutely outstanding under Hughes and, in fact, played pretty well under Eriksson. O'Neill was keen to sign him. Houllier is just getting to know him, so the jury's out on that at the moment. Only Mancini, as he was happy to make him available, you can say with any certainty didn't rate Ireland.... and Mancini is doing some fairly strange stuff tactically right now.
Milner... well, he was in and out of the side under several managers at Newcastle, made available for transfer (as we all know), loaned out, shunted around in terms of positioning, then had a reasonably average first season at Villa (where he took a few months to actually nail down a regular starting place) before having a very strong one last season.
So the comparison is a very valid one - both players have had their ups and downs; right now Milner's star is higher than Ireland's but I can see that changing. Milner already looks less of a player than he did six months ago, when he was a central midfield dynamo with a genuine chance of breaking the Lampard-Gerrard combo for England. Now he's back out on the wings, most often wide left, on the periphery. I wonder if City fans are really pleased with him, or a bit underwhelmed?
As much as I liked Milner last season, if you asked me to name his No.1 attribute, I'd have said: work rate or attitude. This Villa side needs more than that, which is why I hope we persevere with Ireland.
-
Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.
-
I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.
I would suggest then that this is down to your perception rather than the actual facts of the case.
Milner vs £18m + Stephen Ireland and you can't see a sensible case that we got the better of the deal?
£18m on its own would have been a very good deal considering what we signed Milner for, add Stephen Ireland in to that and we have an excellent deal. You seem to be just weighing up Ireland v Milner, and discounting the £18m because we have yet to spend it. We could get another two or three top quality players in for that money, for instance this summer Spurs picked up Van Der Vaart for £8m, Man Utd picked up Hernandez for £6m which would still leave £4m in small change. I'm amazed that you can't envisage the possibilities of what that £18m can buy, on top of the potential that Ireland could possibly realise, even if Ireland fails dismally we would still get £6m + for him.
Whatever we do with the £18m, that money has come into the club and will help the club, and Ireland will turn out to be a valuable asset, either if in time he flourishes as a player or for his resale value, if that "us" you talk of is AVFC, then 'we' have certainly got the better of the deal. I'm pretty sure most managers in the land would bite your hand off if offered the above deal.
Sorry but your above statement really does make it clear how myopic your argument really is.
-
We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.
We did not get the better of the deal.
-
[/quote]We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.
We did not get the better of the deal.
We did if we spend the money in hand wisely.
-
Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.
That would involve him having to look interested.
-
We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.
We did not get the better of the deal.
We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.
We did not get the better of the deal.
We did if we spend the money in hand wisely.
Well you could argue that we spent £8m of it on Ireland, and now we're all stratching our heads trying to think of formations that might fit him in, so that one's worked out well.
-
Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.
That would involve him having to look interested.
Against Chelsea he was constantly getting into decent space and looking for the ball, but getting frustrated when we didn't get it to him.
I think it is too easy to say he just doesn't look interested, he was certainly interested in that game.
-
Basically, Milner was a great centre-midfielder and I don't think there are many teams who could replace someone as good as him in their team.
Ireland is way short of Milners good abilities: running, fast, tackling, passing, shooting, dribbling etc., that much is clear.
It doesn't help that he just doesn't look like he's bothered. Surely any new player should be trying to endear themselves to the crowd and if that means running around and putting the effort in then so be it, even if the pass/shot/dribble doesn't come off then at least you know they're trying.
-
I'll give you that one Paulie, but one game since arriving is not good enough, and contrast that with the next game up at Sunderland, where he did a passable impression of Johnny X, Fulchester United's famous invisible striker.
-
Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.
That would involve him having to look interested.
Against Chelsea he was constantly getting into decent space and looking for the ball, but getting frustrated when we didn't get it to him.
I think it is too easy to say he just doesn't look interested, he was certainly interested in that game.
It is too easy to say it, that's what's worrying. He needs to try. OK, he has found himself in good positions and not recieved the ball, but, especially when the other team has the ball, he just cannot be bothered and we can't carry a player like that. Only certain players can get away with that. Merson was the last player for us who you could forgive because you knew he could, potentially, win us the game at any moment.
-
Well you could argue that we spent £8m of it on Ireland, and now we're all stratching our heads trying to think of formations that might fit him in, so that one's worked out well.
I'm not, I know exactly how we should fit him in. Just seems that Houllier doesn't. Yet.
-
Ireland is way short of Milners good abilities: running, fast, tackling, passing, shooting, dribbling etc., that much is clear.
I'll give you running fast and tackling but the rest: no.
-
Well you could argue that we spent £8m of it on Ireland, and now we're all stratching our heads trying to think of formations that might fit him in, so that one's worked out well.
I'm not, I know exactly how we should fit him in. Just seems that Houllier doesn't. Yet.
Well quite Merv, it's just a shame you were overlooked for the interviews. :)
Anyway, my view is that when you join a new team you fit yourself into it in any way you can, through graft.
-
You seem determined to make Ireland out to be some kind of duffer yet:
Ireland was player of the year at Citeh under Hughes and national Young Player of the Year.
This during a time when Man Citeh had a whole host of world class players lets not forget.
In contrast, Milner played alongside the likes of Smith, Barton and Sibierski at Newcastle and Petrov, Sidwell and NRC at Villa.
So not identical backgrounds (Milner has also got a few years head start on Ireland as he broke through at 16) but a similar trajectory in so far as they are both 24, both play midfield, both have had one consistently good season and good periods in other campaigns and both have scooped the national Young Player of the Year gong.
It's not an unreasonable comparison on that basis, they're not exactly a million miles apart ability or experience wise. Even if they are different types of players. Yet you won't see it as a similar trajectory for the same reason you didn't see us visibly tire as a side past the 60 minute mark last year and you didn't see the signings of Harewood and Heskey as questionable - because you flat out don't want to.
It suited your pro manager argument to turn the other way when it came to the above (I can only assume it was because you had your back turned to most of our matches that you couldn't see what was so blindingly obvious). It suits your new position to be critical of any business dealings at the club - particularly a transfer that might have played a part in the departure of MON - so you can't/ won't see any merit in the signing of Ireland. Or in any suggestion that he could -in time- be as effective as Milner was for us.
We've seen this routine before. It's dull, change it.
yet more obfuscation.
You've made claims that you can't back up so try to throw in all sorts of other shit.
Man City got what they wanted from the deal, we didn't. It's therefore highly contentious to say we got the better of it.
Milner's career is on the up, Irealand's gas, at best. levelled out.
I'm not claiming that he's a duffer, despite your consitent attempts to twist my words to pretend that I have, he's just not as good a player as Milner.
“If you say, ‘He’s a good player but he doesn’t defend, but he doesn’t run back, but he loses too many balls in crucial areas’, that’s difficult. He needs to get rid of these ‘buts’ and be a good player. We put him in at Sunderland behind the striker and he needs to get hold of the ball and play.”
-
Well quite Merv, it's just a shame you were overlooked for the interviews. :)
I know, what can you do? I was told I was above Sven in the pecking order and then K-Mac's chances took a massive knock after losing at Newcastle... but then Houllier suddenly threw his name into the frame and that was that.
Seriously though, he needs to be central midfield, in the thick of it - I'd have two deeper midfielders behind him but I'd also consider him alongside NRC. Worryingly, Houllier seems to have him pegged as some sort of second striker, which I think leaves him isolated, or a kind of stand-in for Ashley Young... which, let's face it, means Ireland is always going to struggle to get in.
-
I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.
I would suggest then that this is down to your perception rather than the actual facts of the case.
Milner vs £18m + Stephen Ireland and you can't see a sensible case that we got the better of the deal?
£18m on its own would have been a very good deal considering what we signed Milner for, add Stephen Ireland in to that and we have an excellent deal. You seem to be just weighing up Ireland v Milner, and discounting the £18m because we have yet to spend it. We could get another two or three top quality players in for that money, for instance this summer Spurs picked up Van Der Vaart for £8m, Man Utd picked up Hernandez for £6m which would still leave £4m in small change. I'm amazed that you can't envisage the possibilities of what that £18m can buy, on top of the potential that Ireland could possibly realise, even if Ireland fails dismally we would still get £6m + for him.
Whatever we do with the £18m, that money has come into the club and will help the club, and Ireland will turn out to be a valuable asset, either if in time he flourishes as a player or for his resale value, if that "us" you talk of is AVFC, then 'we' have certainly got the better of the deal. I'm pretty sure most managers in the land would bite your hand off if offered the above deal.
Sorry but your above statement really does make it clear how myopic your argument really is.
When the deal was first discussed we didn't want to sell him then we were asking for £30m, in the end we got £18m and one of the players they needed to get off the books valued at £6m. They got what they wanted we had to settle for what they'd give us. It's a better deal for them.
-
Valued at £6m, valued at £8m, I've read both.... City will put Ireland down as £6m because it makes the overall fee for Milner look better - if you can call £24m for Milner 'better'. But others may just easily say Ireland, at his best, is a £10m player at least, so we're nearer the £30m we originally wanted.
As of today, City look like they got the better of the deal. It may not look that way in a year.
-
*REMINDER*
This is what we purchased.
http://vodpod.com/watch/4058683-video-evidence-stephen-ireland (http://vodpod.com/watch/4058683-video-evidence-stephen-ireland)
-
The previous summer Milner would have been valued at about £10m and Ireland £20m so I'm not really bothered.
At the time I thought getting Ireland and £18m was about as good a deal as we could have possibly got for Milner.
Time and only time will tell how good this deal was.
-
yet more obfuscation.
You've made claims that you can't back up so try to throw in all sorts of other shit.
I've backed up my point of view with reasoned argument. I'll leave the hypothetical's and any other odd tangents to you.
Man City got what they wanted from the deal, we didn't. It's therefore highly contentious to say we got the better of it.
Milner's career is on the up, Irealand's gas, at best. levelled out.
Simple question, go back 12 months and had we been offered a straight trade -no cash involved- who do you think would have got the better end of the deal? I can guess your answer but I think most would have seen us as the winners in that one.
Fast forward 12 months and not only do we get Ireland but we also get £16 million.
I can accept that some see Milner as the better player, as it happens with the way we're currently set up I'd rather see him in our centre midfield. But there is not a £16 million difference between the pair, no way. Ergo we've got the better end of the deal. if we see something approaching his earlier form at Man City, that is.
Ireland at 22/23 was more than holding his own in a City side containing some of the world's best players. Milner at 24 currently isn't. It remains to be seen whether he can have the impact for City that Ireland managed. If he plays CM and discovers something approximating his form last year with us possibly. If he plays RM/ LM or RB I doubt it.
-
Valued at £6m, valued at £8m, I've read both.... City will put Ireland down as £6m because it makes the overall fee for Milner look better - if you can call £24m for Milner 'better'. But others may just easily say Ireland, at his best, is a £10m player at least, so we're nearer the £30m we originally wanted.
As of today, City look like they got the better of the deal. It may not look that way in a year.
Agreed Merv.
Or even in 2/3 months.
-
I don't see what difference Milner makes in this situation.
He wanted to go, we sold him. We bought Ireland. To use "not as good as Milner" as a stick to beat Ireland with seems very unfair - not only because what Milner did for us is nothing to do with Ireland, but because they are fundamentally different players.
I also wonder whether some of our criticism of Ireland is also down to the fact that what the team lacks currently is a Milner style player, and it gets - unfairly - taken out on Ireland.
-
A better comparision for Ireland is Luka Modric as they are similar attacking players, last night Modric played alongside Huddlestone with VDV ahead of them, when Kevin Mac tried Ireland there with Petrov and Young ahead we got overrun, the reason we were overrun is more to do with Ireland's lack of work rate than Petrov or Young.
We should be able to trust Ireland to play in a midfield 2, at the moment GH doesn't trust him to play in a midfield 3.
I bet Ireland's a good 5 a side player, I just hope he shows his talent in a proper match.
-
Ireland at 22/23 was more than holding his own in a City side containing some of the world's best players. Milner at 24 currently isn't.
You're losing it, Kev, go and have a sit down and a nice cup of tea.
Ireland couldn't get in their side last season and can't get in ours this.
They've improved their squad over the summer and Milner has started 9 league games for them, the same number as Yaya Toure. How is he 'not holding his own'?
-
I don't see what difference Milner makes in this situation.
He wanted to go, we sold him. We bought Ireland. To use "not as good as Milner" as a stick to beat Ireland with seems very unfair - not only because what Milner did for us is nothing to do with Ireland, but because they are fundamentally different players.
I also wonder whether some of our criticism of Ireland is also down to the fact that what the team lacks currently is a Milner style player, and it gets - unfairly - taken out on Ireland.
The issue is the claim that we got the better of the deal so it's clearly pertinent to mention Milner.
-
I think that definitely plays a part. We do miss Milner's drive and willingness to cover ground. We could get away with limited tactics at times last year through sheer workrate and willpower alone.
This season we're missing two crucial things in that regard. (1) Milner's tenacity and (2) stability at the back thanks to Dunne's increasingly erratic form. One of those we could probably compensate for. Both together and it's no wonder we've struggled so far.
None of those things are the fault of Ireland, but because we've struggled and because of the circumstances in which he joined it's understandable that he's viewed as central to our problems this year.
Twelve months is a long time in football. Twelve months ago not many would have viewed Milner as a better player than Ireland, certainly not twice the player.
In twelve months time Ireland could be fulfilling a crucial role for us as Ash's replacement. Or he could be gone altogether. I think it's reasonable to give him at least that period - effectively that same bedding in time that Petrov, Downing and Milner were allocated. Providing he's showing a willingness to adapt and improve.
-
In twelve months time Ireland could be fulfilling a crucial role for us as Ash's replacement. Or he could be gone altogether. I think it's reasonable to give him at least that period - effectively that same bedding in time that Petrov, Downing and Milner were allocated. Providing he's showing a willingness to adapt and improve.
I agree entirely with that.
-
Of course we miss Milner. We also miss not making any purchases in the summer. We also miss Ash on the wing and we miss Gabby playing up front. We miss having a balanced team and we miss the attacking player being able to play in his preferred role due to Ash being in front of him. (Has Ash scored this season?)
Ireland hasn't started too well, no, but that can be due to just taking his time to settle in. I think Ash neds to be moved out of the way for him to be truly effective at the moment but I also think he looks short of fitness. There's a player there that in the right team can still be as effective as he was for Man City two seasons ago.
The argument that he was then dropped by Mancini doesn't really hold much sway with me regarding Ireland's ability because Mancini also got shot of arguably their best player last season.
-
You seem determined to make Ireland out to be some kind of duffer yet:
Ireland was player of the year at Citeh under Hughes and national Young Player of the Year.
This during a time when Man Citeh had a whole host of world class players lets not forget.
In contrast, Milner played alongside the likes of Smith, Barton and Sibierski at Newcastle and Petrov, Sidwell and NRC at Villa.
So not identical backgrounds (Milner has also got a few years head start on Ireland as he broke through at 16) but a similar trajectory in so far as they are both 24, both play midfield, both have had one consistently good season and good periods in other campaigns and both have scooped the national Young Player of the Year gong.
It's not an unreasonable comparison on that basis, they're not exactly a million miles apart ability or experience wise. Even if they are different types of players. Yet you won't see it as a similar trajectory for the same reason you didn't see us visibly tire as a side past the 60 minute mark last year and you didn't see the signings of Harewood and Heskey as questionable - because you flat out don't want to.
It suited your pro manager argument to turn the other way when it came to the above (I can only assume it was because you had your back turned to most of our matches that you couldn't see what was so blindingly obvious). It suits your new position to be critical of any business dealings at the club - particularly a transfer that might have played a part in the departure of MON - so you can't/ won't see any merit in the signing of Ireland. Or in any suggestion that he could -in time- be as effective as Milner was for us.
We've seen this routine before. It's dull, change it.
yet more obfuscation.
You've made claims that you can't back up so try to throw in all sorts of other shit.
Man City got what they wanted from the deal, we didn't. It's therefore highly contentious to say we got the better of it.
Milner's career is on the up, Irealand's gas, at best. levelled out.
I'm not claiming that he's a duffer, despite your consitent attempts to twist my words to pretend that I have, he's just not as good a player as Milner.
“If you say, ‘He’s a good player but he doesn’t defend, but he doesn’t run back, but he loses too many balls in crucial areas’, that’s difficult. He needs to get rid of these ‘buts’ and be a good player. We put him in at Sunderland behind the striker and he needs to get hold of the ball and play.”
I wasn't aware that Stephen Ireland was 33 years old.
-
Of course we miss Milner. We also miss not making any purchases in the summer. We also miss Ash on the wing and we miss Gabby playing up front. We miss having a balanced team and we miss the attacking player being able to play in his preferred role due to Ash being in front of him. (Has Ash scored this season?)
Ireland hasn't started too well, no, but that can be due to just taking his time to settle in. I think Ash neds to be moved out of the way for him to be truly effective at the moment but I also think he looks short of fitness. There's a player there that in the right team can still be as effective as he was for Man City two seasons ago.
The argument that he was then dropped by Mancini doesn't really hold much sway with me regarding Ireland's ability because Mancini also got shot of arguably their best player last season.
Our best football this season has been when Ash has played in the middle with Downing and Albrighton out wide. He's scored 3 times.
I think it's a valid point that Hughes, Mancini and now Houllier have all successively thought Ireland not up to a starting place over the past 2 seasons. It might be up to him taking time to settle or it might be more to do with this
“He needs to work harder,” Houllier said.
If you say, ‘He’s a good player but he doesn’t defend, but he doesn’t run back, but he loses too many balls in crucial areas’, that’s difficult. He needs to get rid of these ‘buts’ and be a good player.
-
Seems to me that Ireland doesn't have a future at the club unless we set up a 451 formation especially to accomodate him.
Milner on the other hand could perform capably in any formation and in virtually any position on the pitch.
-
I think it's a valid point that Hughes, Mancini and now Houllier have all successively thought Ireland not up to a starting place over the past 2 seasons. It might be up to him taking time to settle or it might be more to do with this
Chris, that's stretching it somewhat - not that I expect for one moment that you'll concede the point.
Ireland was arguably City's best player under Hughes; he wasn't a guaranteed starter under Mancini, fair enough; he's started three of the last four Villa games under Houllier. It's obvious from his quote you've included there that Houllier is not 100% convinced but he was answering a question about why Ireland didn't feature against Blues.
It's inaccurate to say three managers have consistently overlooked him for two seasons.
5ft811st2 Durham - well, he can also play well in a 4-3-3. So that's 4-5-1 and 4-3-3. Leaves only 4-4-2 as a viable formation and I still think he can do fine in that, with the right player next to him. He's not a problem player needed a highly specialised position to perform. He doesn't need a specially-constructed formation to get him playing.
As for Milner... you're right. He can perform capably in three midfield positions.
-
I think it's a valid point that Hughes, Mancini and now Houllier have all successively thought Ireland not up to a starting place over the past 2 seasons. It might be up to him taking time to settle or it might be more to do with this
Chris, that's stretching it somewhat - not that I expect for one moment that you'll concede the point.
Last season he wasn't a regular starter under either Hughes or Mancini and this season he's started 4 league games for us so I don't see how it is stretching anything.
The season before he performed very well I believe but that was in a side that finished 10th.
-
Milner is a better player than Ireland.
£18m plus Ireland was a good deal for Milner.
Ireland will get better for us.
-
How long did we give Petrov?
-
I think Petrov got more time because he was in a team that was improving all the time, at a time when no-one at the club could do any wrong. Ireland is in a squad that has taken a step back and in an environment where everyone is being a bit more pragmatic/negative.
We actually need Ireland to start performing an creating chances.
-
How long did we give Petrov?
I'm not for a second suggesting that we give up on him.
What I'm saying that given the choice I'd have Milner ahead of him and the money.
-
How long did we give Petrov?
I'm not for a second suggesting that we give up on him.
What I'm saying that given the choice I'd have Milner ahead of him and the money.
Given the choice, so would I, we've missed him badly this season.
-
I'd rather have Milner as well, but Milner would rather have Manchester City.
-
I see you cut out the reasoned part of my argument when you quoted me there, Chris.
Where City finished in Ireland's season par excellence is beside the point, no? We're talking about a seemingly succession of managers who have failed to consistently select the player. The stretching it bit comes from your two seasons timeframe... which, in actual fact, encompasses one full season and two full months of this. Which paints a very different picture of Ireland's performances if you choose to overlook the full season before.
And yes, we gave Petrov around two seasons to find his groove. And James Milner a pretty ordinary first full season. And Stuart Downing half of last season. But Ireland doesn't seem to be extended the same rules - maybe because some people don't like his haircut (or his previous haircut), or his cars, or the pics of his house which do the internet rounds every so often, or the Superman pants he wore for a joke once... I realise he divides opinion and he's put himself there to be shot at in some ways, and I guess he's the kind of player some people make their minds up about before even seeing him.
Me? I rate the guy as a footballer, and recognise the fact that he chose - and he did choose - to come here to replace the rather saintly James Milner, who was happy to drop us like a stone when Man City came a-sniffing, despite the dramatic progress he made with us. Progress which, it seems, is slowing down now he's got a manager who won't trust him as one of this three central midfielders.
So I'm happy to cut Ireland some slack, allow him a settling in period, because I think he's got talent, and he's the type of player we need at Villa. One or two less steady Eddies, one or two more players who can pull something a bit special out of the bag the next time a team like Blues turn up at VP and stick 11 men behind the ball.
(exhales)
-
I'd rather have Milner as well, but Milner would rather have Manchester City.
Milner's bank manager would rather he had Manchester City as well.
-
Like Kev you keep picking an argument that isn't there, Merv.
It's getting tedious to have to keep repeating myself but I don't accept that we got the better of the deal; Man City did. They got the player they wanted, they got rid of one that they didn't want and needed off the books because of the new regulations and they spent an amount that is chicken feed to them.
We lost our best player, one of the most highly regarded in the country, and got some money that we might spend and a player that might recapture his form. I hope he does, I'll be patient and support him while he's here. I've never denied that he has talent but have always felt that he lacks the mental strength and the consistency to go with it.
It was probabaly the best deal we could get under the circumstances but that's not the same thing.
-
Like Kev you keep picking an argument that isn't there, Merv.
It's getting tedious to have to keep repeating myself
Tell me about it.
-
Like Kev you keep picking an argument that isn't there, Merv.
It's getting tedious to have to keep repeating myself
Tell me about it.
I see you cut out the reasoned part of my argument when you quoted me there, Merv. ;¬)
-
Absolutely, it seems the only way to win on here. ;)
-
Personally I can't really see how it's possible to pass judgement on who got the better of any deal ten weeks after it was signed.
-
Especially as we haven't seen what the extra money (hopefully) will be spent on. If we re-invest the rest of the money from that deal and get 2 £10 milliion standard players, then are those two players and Ireland not equal to Milner?
-
I think it's a valid point that Hughes, Mancini and now Houllier have all successively thought Ireland not up to a starting place over the past 2 seasons.
You've said this a couple of times Chris (about Hughes dropping him). Hughes was dumped on the 19th December 2009. Ireland had played 19 times for the team up to that point and continued to be a regular up to February under Mancini. So, Mancini didn't fancy him (and is that really too surprising as he seems to favour playing three defensive midfielders) and neither does Houllier, but it seems Hughes still did.
-
I think it's a valid point that Hughes, Mancini and now Houllier have all successively thought Ireland not up to a starting place over the past 2 seasons.
So, Mancini didn't fancy him (and is that really too surprising as he seems to favour playing three defensive midfielders) and neither does Houllier...
I still think it's far too soon to decide what Houllier wants to do with Ireland.
Ireland has started three of Houllier's four league games.
As a comparison, Milner started none of the first four league games that he had under O'Neill.
-
Seems to me that Ireland doesn't have a future at the club unless we set up a 451 formation especially to accomodate him.
Milner on the other hand could perform capably in any formation and in virtually any position on the pitch.
You say that, but he didn't start on Sunday. Ciaran Clark and Sidwell were ahead of him. If Sidwell is ahead of you in a football team, you've got to be bad.
-
I'd rather have Milner as well, but Milner would rather have Manchester City.
No, Milner would rather have money, and lots of it.
-
Ireland at 22/23 was more than holding his own in a City side containing some of the world's best players. Milner at 24 currently isn't.
You're losing it, Kev, go and have a sit down and a nice cup of tea.
Ireland couldn't get in their side last season and can't get in ours this.
They've improved their squad over the summer and Milner has started 9 league games for them, the same number as Yaya Toure. How is he 'not holding his own'?
Add to that Milner is playing in a position (wide) where he was no better than above average for us and we'd rather have A.Young playing there. As a centre midfielder, he's probably the best player Man City have got, but Mancini is too crap a manager to see it.
-
In 1957 there was a nuclear disaster at Windscale. The government simply changed the name of the plant to Sellafield and the problem went away. Indeed since that decision was made we have all enjoyed limitless cheap nuclear generated energy.
So the solution to Mr Ireland's disastrous start to his Villa career could be a simple change of name. I believe if this were effected the player would not only become the Premier League's top scorer but also a regular in England's No 9 shirt.
Here are a few suggestions:
James Milner
Gareth Barry
Sasha Curcic
Harry Gregory
Harry Worth
Charlie Drake
George N. Mildred.
-
The thing with Petrov and Downing is that they were kept in the side as they were the manager's choice, Ireland has been in and out of the team and Houllier is unsure about him.
We've needed a player like him for a while but GH needs to trust him before we can judge him.
-
In twelve months time Ireland could be fulfilling a crucial role for us as Ash's replacement. Or he could be gone altogether. I think it's reasonable to give him at least that period - effectively that same bedding in time that Petrov, Downing and Milner were allocated. Providing he's showing a willingness to adapt and improve.
I agree entirely with that.
I'm so glad. I hate it when we fight.
Which is why I almost (almost) overlooked this:
Ireland at 22/23 was more than holding his own in a City side containing some of the world's best players. Milner at 24 currently isn't.
You're losing it, Kev, go and have a sit down and a nice cup of tea.
Ireland couldn't get in their side last season and can't get in ours this.
Ireland is, what 24 now?
So that would make him 23 last year (when he was playing under Hughes for the first part of the campaign) and 22 the year before -when he was Player of the Season there.
-
What we expect of any player is to put in a genuine effort every time they go out. I dont mind Ireland missing chances, trying passes that dont come off etc. That will come with confidence. What I do mind is him hiding on the pitch, not demanding the ball and at best half hearted if not downright cowardly efforts at winning the ball back. So much for the kung fu training he does and the long running. people point to Luka Modric and it is an apt comparison - Mark Noble is another one. Not the biggest or quickest guys but still they put a genuine effort into winning the ball, when the get ahead of the ball they burst their arse to get back into position. Before the Bolton goal was a perfect example of this - he was unlucky to lose the ball in midfield but just kept running along like an u-12 instead of turning quickly and chasing back to his position. I saw Ireland play in a midfield 2 for City against Liverpool at Anfield before, he had a fine game. But there has been countless other times in which he abdicates all responsbility to do what he likes - Ireland's 5-2 defeat in Cyprus for one where he scored but was hopeless or any of his Villa appearances to date. Its up to him, he is not as good as Ronaldo to warrant not bothering getting the ball back, we arent as good as Real Madrid either where we can afford to have a player who only plays when he wants. If he can get his head right he will still be a serious addition to us but I suspect the money, fame etc has totally gone to his head and he feels he doesnt need to graft anymore. Really hope I'm proved wrong as he has huge ability.
Much and all that Milner is a loss - 24m was crazy money to pay for someone who had shown good form for Villa for about 6 months. He is an average wide player, leggy and one paced and its hardly a surprise he hasnt starred for City back in that position. Barry too has gone backwards since his Villa days. As the attacking midfielder in a 451 for Villa he was superb - remember him against Ajax. Capello and Mancini have made a huge mistake thinking he is a holding midfielder when he hasnt the pace or bite to play there. If Capello performs the necessary surgery to their national team they will lose their places so hard to know if it was worth it for their careers. Still and all its a pity MON couldnt hold onto them. Reo Coker, Milner and Barry in a midfield three would nearly have everything.
-
I'd rather have Milner as well, but Milner would rather have Manchester City.
No, Milner would rather have money, and lots of it.
I think this is just wrong. The money was always going to be better but he wanted what Man City could offer in terms of trophies and medals. Which is a lot more than we can.
-
Yes Ireland needs to improve but you can't help but think his confidence has been a bit shaken since leaving Manchester City.
The midfielder was one of the best players at Eastlands and within months he became surplus to requirements.
It will just take him time to settle in at Villa Park then I am sure he will be setting up and scoring goals as he did at City.
-
One of the positives today for me was the impact Ireland had when he came on. A few really great balls to set up Downing, ones that (barring Bannan, from what I've seen from him) none of our other midfielders would have been able to produce.
-
I know hindsight makes it easy but if he had come on 10 minutes before, I'm sure we would have opened them up a few more times on the break and snatched it.
-
One of the positives today for me was the impact Ireland had when he came on. A few really great balls to set up Downing, ones that (barring Bannan, from what I've seen from him) none of our other midfielders would have been able to produce.
Yep, it was only 7 minutes he played but for those 7 minutes he was very useful leading the line of attack. His passing and tackling is done with such precision.
-
He did very well in his few minutes on the pitch.
-
Every pass he made today in his cameo was a through-ball weighted to perfection. Bit more of that and I think there'll be much less of the angst there is earlier in this thread.
-
Every pass he made today in his cameo was a through-ball weighted to perfection. Bit more of that and I think there'll be much less of the angst there is earlier in this thread.
Agree.
-
In his cameo he was excellent today, and he showed just what he can offer us. He has natural ability that many players do not have.
-
One of the positives today for me was the impact Ireland had when he came on. A few really great balls to set up Downing, ones that (barring Bannan, from what I've seen from him) none of our other midfielders would have been able to produce.
Yep, perhaps for the time being that's how we should be using him. Having a player who can do that to bring on is a useful weapon and it allows him to build up his confidence.
-
Stephen Ireland is considering his future at Aston Villa less than four months after his arrival from Manchester City, having failed to earn a regular first-team place under new manager Gerard Houllier.
(News of the World)
If that's true (big if considering the source) then he is a total disgrace and I hope we sell in January.
-
Struggling with flu and is likely to be out today.
-
I know he had a good season 2 years ago but I have not been impressed so far, I think he was forced on us as part of the deal. Too much baggage and ego i think.
-
He was part of the deal that was completed by the board after MON left, GED does not see him fitting in his 4 5 1 formation and as he didnt buy him I think he will try and sell him on in Jan and use the funds to hopefully buy a striker. I cant see us getting the £8m that he was valued in the Milner deal
-
I know he had a good season 2 years ago but I have not been impressed so far, I think he was forced on us as part of the deal. Too much baggage and ego i think.
It's worth reading the OP on this thread again. I think Houlier's comments were spot on.
-
He's hardly been given a fair crack of the whip has he? Restricted to substitute appearances of late and playing kids ahead of him isn't exactly a confidence boost. In the 5 minute cameo against Fulham last weekend we saw a glimpse of what sort of player i think he really is. I don't believe the story in the NOTW, easy story to come up with because he hasn't had a fairytale start. Give him time and ffs give him a chance. When he came on at Blackpool, the first time he made a mistake people around where i was sat where giving him stick. How is that going to help?
-
I think it's a 'no flame without fire' article.
He is clearly struggling to adapt at VP and GH isn't showing signs of fancying him.
If he goes, he could well come back to haunt us like many who leave Villa at that age.
-
Well we will need to give him a full season or more to really give him a proper chance. It's more than understandable that it's going to take any new player time to settle into the team, but that's not really the worrying thing with him, it's his application, or lack of. It was mentioned at Man City by Mancini and it's already been mentioned here by Houllier, and it's been fairly plain to see when he has played. The guy needs to grow some balls and develop a bit of mental strength, the quote seems to ring true about him being in the top 5% for talent, but the bottom 5% for mental strength, unfortunately you need the latter more than the former to be a top class player week in week out.
I'm not surprised he is 'sick' yet again either, just before a big match.
-
I think it's a 'no flame without fire' article.
Interesting idiom
-
I think it's a 'no flame without fire' article.
Interesting idiom
What are you having for lunch tomorrow lamb what ?