Now Luke Young has his say…

[tsvet]

I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.

[Rip Van We Go Again]

He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.

Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?

I was a right footed left back for years.

Crumbs, were you any good ? ;-)

Shit hot, one of the finest ever seen in the Redditch & South Warwickshire Combination League.

Chris was excellent going forward in a rigid straight line, no amount of tackling or fouls could deviate him from his path, he was a managers dream and always accepted orders and instructions without question. Strangely towards the end of his career, he would track back for no apparent reason and eventually got thrown out of his club for unjustified criticism of the way it was run.

[Chris Smith]

I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.

Doubt it; it was apparently a massive surprise to everyone in the world. The repercussions of which rocked the club to its foundations, unable to cope with the once in a lifetime happening of a manager leaving. Those poor millionaire players had no other choice than to lose 6-0 to Newcastle and the owner was left with no option but to keep quiet for 3 weeks and wait for the transfer window to close before making an appointment.

[Villa'Zawg]

[/quote]

He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.

Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?

He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.

Sorry but that's bollo... nonsense,  to try and back your once again all too obviously dubious stats.
I doubt Ashley Cole would be as effective playing on the right, nor would he be happy about it.  Luke wasn't selected in his natural or preferred position for a lot more games than you quote and he wasnt given any good reason for that.  In fact he was only put in at LB because O'Neill decided he liked Shorey even less, and had failed to secure adequate cover in that position prior to signing Warnock.

I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem. 

When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.

I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?

[Pongos hat2]

I wonder what the truth about the failed Liverpool move is. It surely isn't that he knew O'Neil is off.

Liverpool wouldnt match his Villa wages.

[ktvillan]

He's a right back who can use his left foot on occasions.

Have you ever attacked a left back who's right footed ?

He's a full back. He can play either side. His best performances for us have been at left back.

Sorry but that's bollo... nonsense,  to try and back your once again all too obviously dubious stats.
I doubt Ashley Cole would be as effective playing on the right, nor would he be happy about it.  Luke wasn't selected in his natural or preferred position for a lot more games than you quote and he wasnt given any good reason for that.  In fact he was only put in at LB because O'Neill decided he liked Shorey even less, and had failed to secure adequate cover in that position prior to signing Warnock.

I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem. 

When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.

I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?

I'm not sure what you could find dubious about the number of appearance stats. The facts about Luke Young's appearances don't fit the oft repeated argument that he wasn't given a fair chance, that isn't my problem. 

When Cuellar played for Villa last season we had the best defence in the league. In the two games he missed, we shipped more than 20% of our total goals conceded for the entire season and lost both matches. It's ridiculous to insist that it was an obviously bad decision to play Cuellar, Collins, Dunne and one of Warnock/Young at left back, it doesn't make any sense.

I struggle to see why Luke Young's preference for playing position matters one way or the other, it's a team game. In what way has he ever done anything to justify having a problem with wearing a Villa shirt in any position?

[/quote]

Being played out of position does not count as being given a fair chance in my view,  especially when he was only selected because the manager had failed to secure a better option - i.e. as a last resort.  Your stats do not take this fact into account and they are therefore, in my view,  dubious as evidence that he was given a fair chance.  Another example would be Craig Gardner, who when he did make appearances,  they hardly ever seemed to be in his preferred and probably most effective position of central midfield.

The assertion that playing on the right or left make no difference for a full back is unconvincing to say the least.  If Cuellar is such a convincing right back, as you seem to think, I wonder why he couldn't have played at left back and Luke could have been selected in his preferred and natural position?   

[eamonn]

The point about Gardner is good - from his initial run-out in the first team it was clear that he had a penchant for getting goals from the centre of midfield. Yet MON played him largely as a utility player, Eamon Deacy for the jilted generation (similarly (not great) looking). Filling in at right-back or right-midfield more often than not. His goals at Blose show that given a run of games he gets his fair share of goals from the centre.

And why didn't Cuellar play in the 7-1 at Chelsea? I don't recall him being injured and seeing as he was being picked for his defensive strength it seems the oddest of games to drop him for.

[SoccerHQ]

In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.

Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?

Half of those games were probably at left back though which to his credit he usually performed very well there.

[jembob]

The point about Gardner is good - from his initial run-out in the first team it was clear that he had a penchant for getting goals from the centre of midfield. Yet MON played him largely as a utility player, Eamon Deacy for the jilted generation (similarly (not great) looking). Filling in at right-back or right-midfield more often than not. His goals at Blose show that given a run of games he gets his fair share of goals from the centre.

And why didn't Cuellar play in the 7-1 at Chelsea? I don't recall him being injured and seeing as he was being picked for his defensive strength it seems the oddest of games to drop him for.

Cuellar is a very good defender and obviously contributed to our excellent defensive record. However, his lack of ability going forward cost us dearly particularly in many of our home games last season. My own view is that the choice to play Cuellar at right back in games where we didn't need that level of defence cost us the opportunity to be serious contenders for 4th place.

The Chelsea game was pretty even until half time when MON decided to panic into a change of formation. In the second half Luke had no cover from midfield and had to handle an in form Malouda and the Russian left back on his own. He was stitched up a treat.

[SoccerHQ]

Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.

[Lee]

In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.

Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?

You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness. 

Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you  see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
 

I'm saying that he isn't talented enough to be demanding he plays every game and he hasn't had to sit out many at all. He is better going forward than Carlos but not better defensively.

But he has enough in the locker going forward and defending. O'Neill was lauding him as an England regular only 18 months ago playing at LB.

That's what I never got with MON. I could somewhat understand if he played the 3 CB's away from home, but got a bit tiresome when we were at home and we struggled to get across the half way line from RB position, unless it was lumped up front.

[adrenachrome]

In two seasons Luke Young missed starting less than a dozen PL games when availabe for selection.

Is he saying that he should have never be left out, even though we had the best derfensive record in the league until he played against Chelsea?

You mean the game where pretty much everyone had a bad day and as for Luke, was thrown in after months in the wilderness. 

Yes the defence did have a ggod record, but the balance of the Team was wrong, especially when we played at home. Could you  see Carlos score a goal like that on Sunday?
 

I'm saying that he isn't talented enough to be demanding he plays every game and he hasn't had to sit out many at all. He is better going forward than Carlos but not better defensively.

But he has enough in the lock going forward and defending. O'Neill was lauding him as an England regular only 18 months ago playing at LB.

That's what I never got with MON. I could somewhat understand if he played the 3 CB's away from home, but got a bit tiresome when we were at home and we struggled tyo get across the half way line from RB position, unless it was lumped up front.

My theory is that he bought Luke and Shorey with this in mind, i.e. to give us the option of attacking full backs, but then he became cautious at some point and effectively jettisoned the plan.

When you think about it, he is not the only manager that became cautious after an auspicious start. I used to blame Doug.

[Somniloquism]

Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.

In theory I agree with you but how could we stop Gardner leaving when his boyhood team came in f0r him that he has supported since he was a nipper.

[Olneythelonely]

Gardner should've been retained ahead of Sidwell especially with NRC having less than a year of his contract remaining and Delph broken for a while longer.

In theory I agree with you but how could we stop Gardner leaving when his boyhood team came in f0r him that he has supported since he was a nipper.

I know, he went all the way to wembley to watch their play-off final. He told us so. So what if that particular play-off was at The Millenium Stadium? So what?