Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: onje_villa on December 29, 2012, 05:28:49 PM
-
Hardly a day of boundless joy but
I thought Bowery looked very neat and tidy on the ball and (dare I say it) a better fit for playing the ball on the deck than Benteke.
I think we've seen the end of the 352 for now and we may just see this lad get a few more games.
-
Bowery and Weimann next game then?
Benteke needs to be dropped as he is either suddenly believing he is too good for us or is carrying an injury. That can be the only reason for some of his non running, especially in the first half.
-
don't understand the criticism of brnteke. won everything hoofed up to him and working on the wings and deep in midfield . he is not the problem
-
I thought Bowery and Weimann were going to come to blows at one point .
-
Considering the scraps Benteke had I think he did ok. I don't think any of them covered themselves in glory
-
don't understand the criticism of brnteke. won everything hoofed up to him and working on the wings and deep in midfield . he is not the problem
Well hoofing up isn't working anyway but he had a spell of three or four easy controlled layoffs on the trot that he cocked up and set Wigan attacking. There was also Weimann running to chase a ball into space on the wing to cross and Benteke just jogging towards the box when I expected him to bust a gut to get into a decent position as it was only the first 20 mins and not the last.
-
I thought he looked more then decent yesterday. He played pretty much the same role Gabby does these days. Out quite wide, drops deep, runs at people and pops up in the box once in a while. Unlucky not to score too, good finish but top save by Loach (who played well). No reason why he couldn't be at least an effective impact sub for the rest of the season.
-
Not sure he's ready for this level yet, would look to get him to a championship club for the rest of the season.
-
Encouraging and for the money spent seems a decent enough investment , nice to see Bennett settling in and regaining full fitness too, the new signings have been good, pity some of the established lads haven't been as promising .
-
He looks very over weight. I don't think wide left is his role. What's his normal position?
-
Bowery over weight, must get my glasses checked, he is a tall lad but he not big! I thought he did well reminded me of a lad we bought from Bradford back in 1989 and he did ok.
-
He looks very over weight. I don't think wide left is his role. What's his normal position?
Just looks well built to me. Don't think he would have the pace he has if he were overweight anyhow. Natural position is a centre forward.
-
Just so I'm getting this correct... is the criticism of Benteke on this thread piss taking or not?
-
This is a joke thread isn't it?
Bowery looked OK, against a shite Ipswich, but to put him in the same class as Benteke is surely a piss take.?
-
The original comments about Benteke look to have been made after the Christmas period debacle.
-
Would like to see Bowery in the centre, did pretty well on the left though and should have scored juust prior to their goal.
Looks promising so far, could be a steal at £500,000.
-
Looks promising so far, could be a steal at £500,000.
£500,000 is nothing really in today's game. As close to risk-free as it's possible to get really.
-
He's young and has got a chance to develop by playing with better players and getting more match experience.
But ... I must admit to being unimpressed yesterday. To me he looked slow, had a poor touch on several occasions and should have done better with the chances that came his way. TBH Gabby (just back from injury and loss of form lets remember) showed him up against what I suspect was a poor right back.
-
The original comments about Benteke look to have been made after the Christmas period debacle.
some unbelievable comments over benteke, shows how much alot of people know about football and for this bowery, he will never make the grade as a top flight footballer. yesterday he had a couple of chances and should have definitely scored. you dont get many gilt edged chances like that in the premiership. him and stevens, i shudder when i see their names on the team sheet.
-
You could be right rutski or you could be wrong but I will have a small bet with you that we sell him for more than we paid for him.
-
I'm not going to judge Bowery yet, he's had a couple of nice cameos. However anyone having a go at Benteke is nuts.
-
Bit harsh to be writing Bowery off. Players develop at different rates. 18 months ago Weimann didn't look like he would make it when he went out on loan (Watford?). He suddenly hit a rich vein of form around February last year, scoring a load of goals for the reserves and started making small cameos in the first team. We've obviously seen some raw potential in him and Lambert hasn't exactly had a bad track record of spotting players.
-
I had a chat with a Chesterfield fan not so long ago about Bowery and he was amazed we signed him as he wasn't really standing out for Chesterfield.
I hope/assume our scouts saw something else in him.
-
Amazed how fast people are written off. Benteke had 3 games and people were saying he was useless. Weimann was never going to make it after 4-5 games in the first team. Westwood was shit after 40 minutes at Southampton. Bennett has already been consigned as useless by some.
500k, and first start in Jan should say something about where he is in his development. I agree with Soccer, when we are up to full strength 3 months in the Championship getting games would be good for his development and then lets see how he looks.
-
Only saw a glimpse of Bowery in the Wigan match but I saw enough to think he has some promise.
-
More writing off players after a couple of games I see. Same thing happened with Westwood (after the Soton game) and I thought that might have taught some people to give players a bit of time before passing judgement on them but I guess some will never have the patience for this.
-
More writing off players after a couple of games I see. Same thing happened with Westwood (after the Soton game) and I thought that might have taught some people to give players a bit of time before passing judgement on them but I guess some will never have the patience for this.
It's because, frankly, some people are idiots.
-
I understand why people lost patience with Benteke, I mean he had that long goal drought at the beginning of his Villa career of about what ten mins
-
I thought Bowrey looked decent enough. Better than Gabby at the moment.
-
I thought Bowrey looked decent enough. Better than Gabby at the moment.
I'm not writing Bowery off, but he way short of Gabby on Saturday.
-
I thought Bowrey looked decent enough. Better than Gabby at the moment.
I'm not writing Bowery off, but he way short of Gabby on Saturday.
One's an England international, the other was making his debut.
-
I thought Bowrey looked decent enough. Better than Gabby at the moment.
I'm not writing Bowery off, but he way short of Gabby on Saturday.
One's an England international, the other was making his debut.
Agreed, but the person I quoted felt that Bowery is better than Gabby at the moment. I thought differently.
-
I think I am prepared to allow Bowery more than the 70/80 minutes in claret and blue before I make my mind up about him. However I feel this thread would have a very different tone if he'd stretched 6 inches further to convery Albi's 1st half cross on Saturday, some would be hailing the new Messiah.
-
Marc hit a cross only 6inches too high? Couldnt make the game, but at least it sounds like his crossing is improving
-
Marc hit a cross only 6inches too high? Couldnt make the game, but at least it sounds like his crossing is improving
Or maybe getting back to how it used to be.
-
I think the cross you're referring to was put in by Bent. After Albie played him in down the right.
-
Personally I think he looks like he'll be a useful addition. I doubt he'll be a regular starter for us but when he comes in he does a job, he's big, he's strong, he's quicker than he looks and he's willing to run his socks off closing people down and chasing lost causes. Half a million really is peanuts for a premier league side and he'll comfortably prove himself worth what we paid if he carries on as he's started.
-
I thought he did well reminded me of a lad we bought from Bradford back in 1989 and he did ok.
Just to be clear....are we actually using Ian Ormondroyd as a positive marker for Bowery...or am I missing something??
-
Gabby had a pretty poor loan spell at Sheffield Wednesday before he came back and did well for us.
Bowery deserves to be given a chance and not written off. ALL of our players deserve that. When they don't try, when they eventually don't deliver then they may deserve some of the language that is used on here but surely not after less than one full game in.
Jesus, how many players have an amazing début? I don't remember many at any club.
-
Who's actually written him off?
Gabby was better on Saturday, I don't think there's a case to argue. I thought he looked a bit raw - unrefined with a slightly dodgy touch, but in not judging him on one game out on the left wing. I don't think anyone else was either
-
Who's actually written him off?
Gabby was better on Saturday, I don't think there's a case to argue. I thought he looked a bit raw - unrefined with a slightly dodgy touch, but in not judging him on one game out on the left wing. I don't think anyone else was either
Rutski on the previous page, said he'd never make the grade.
-
I stand by my comments of Benteke after the Wigan game. He lost the ball a couple of times against Spurs which broke what little attack but he was very much stranded on his own with Holman in his place.
But against Wigan, especially in the first 30 or so minutes, he cost us more attacks then most by trying to be too fancy and there were a few times when he seemed to be jogging to get into the box instead of busting a gut to get in there for crosses. If you had told someone that one of the Villa forwards was carrying an injury and to find out on that display which one it was, most would have pointed to Christian.
-
Who's actually written him off?
Gabby was better on Saturday, I don't think there's a case to argue. I thought he looked a bit raw - unrefined with a slightly dodgy touch, but in not judging him on one game out on the left wing. I don't think anyone else was either
Rutski on the previous page, said he'd never make the grade.
i dont even think he is as good as the original poodle delfounso. when we play one up top with gabby, bent benteke, weimann in front of him, i dont think he will ever get the chance either!
hows his goal record been in the stiffs?
-
Who's actually written him off?
Gabby was better on Saturday, I don't think there's a case to argue. I thought he looked a bit raw - unrefined with a slightly dodgy touch, but in not judging him on one game out on the left wing. I don't think anyone else was either
Rutski on the previous page, said he'd never make the grade.
i dont even think he is as good as the original poodle delfounso. when we play one up top with gabby, bent benteke, weimann in front of him, i dont think he will ever get the chance either!
hows his goal record been in the stiffs?
Well fuck me, why don't you get a scouting job for the Villa and save everyone a lot of time and trouble?
-
I think I am prepared to allow Bowery more than the 70/80 minutes in claret and blue before I make my mind up about him. However I feel this thread would have a very different tone if he'd stretched 6 inches further to convery Albi's 1st half cross on Saturday, some would be hailing the new Messiah.
he had that effort and the easy strikers chance seconds before their goal. if he had put them away would we be hailing the new messiah, maybe, maybe not. the fact of the matter was that he fluffed his lines, he wont be getting too many easier chances in his villa career.
do i want him to be a success, god yes. i want every player who pulls on the shirt to be brilliant for every second of the time they represent aston villa. on the subs appearances i have seen him make and the reports from the stiffs and his first start against lower league opposition, i think we will be filing in the folder with carruthers, walker, byfield, s moore, l moore. boundless others in there!
-
Who's actually written him off?
Gabby was better on Saturday, I don't think there's a case to argue. I thought he looked a bit raw - unrefined with a slightly dodgy touch, but in not judging him on one game out on the left wing. I don't think anyone else was either
Rutski on the previous page, said he'd never make the grade.
i dont even think he is as good as the original poodle delfounso. when we play one up top with gabby, bent benteke, weimann in front of him, i dont think he will ever get the chance either!
hows his goal record been in the stiffs?
Well fuck me, why don't you get a scouting job for the Villa and save everyone a lot of time and trouble?
i would rather not fuck you!
-
This has to be the most bizarre writing off of a player ever.
-
This has to be the most bizarre writing off of a player ever.
i dont understand the problem. in my opinion i havent seen anything special at all, however like in my previous post would love to be proved wrong and he scores 15 goals for us this season and is a top england striker. i just dont know what you think we will get from this lad??
-
It's similar to what happened after the Spurs game with Benteke. Lots of posts along the lines of "If he misses sitters like that he'll never make it at this level." And Benteke had even played more than 90 mins by then! If you were a Villa scout just think of all the money we could have saved on some of the dross that's found it's way into VP over the years!! I'm sure if you presented your case to Randy he'd gladly pay you £250k a year because you'd be saving him millions!
Bowery is 21 years old and trying to find his feet at a club that's massive to that which he is used to. Give the lad a break.
-
It's similar to what happened after the Spurs game with Benteke. Lots of posts along the lines of "If he misses sitters like that he'll never make it at this level." And Benteke had even played more than 90 mins by then! If you were a Villa scout just think of all the money we could have saved on some of the dross that's found it's way into VP over the years!! I'm sure if you presented your case to Randy he'd gladly pay you £250k a year because you'd be saving him millions!
Bowery is 21 years old and trying to find his feet at a club that's massive to that which he is used to. Give the lad a break.
I can't understand you having a problem with me not rating him. Tell me what you expect from him during his villa career.
-
This has to be the most bizarre writing off of a player ever.
Bradley was after a game and a half by some. Shame he never stayed for us to find out.
-
It's similar to what happened after the Spurs game with Benteke. Lots of posts along the lines of "If he misses sitters like that he'll never make it at this level." And Benteke had even played more than 90 mins by then! If you were a Villa scout just think of all the money we could have saved on some of the dross that's found it's way into VP over the years!! I'm sure if you presented your case to Randy he'd gladly pay you £250k a year because you'd be saving him millions!
Bowery is 21 years old and trying to find his feet at a club that's massive to that which he is used to. Give the lad a break.
I can't understand you having a problem with me not rating him. Tell me what you expect from him during his villa career.
As I have said I'm prepared to give the lad a chance to show us what he can do. I'd like to think that in a seasons time he'd be a useful squad player as you might expect of a (then) 22 year old. If he doesn't get a chance against teams such as Ipswich, when will he? I'd also expect to see him come on against Bradford if all is going well.
-
Jpys of now now culture , a lad costin 50p based on 60 minutes performance in front 0f 25000 , if he dont look like messi is shit.
Of course we are all better than him, its frankly bizarre.
Richard.
-
Also, did I miss something? Which chance did Bowery fluff? He had that chance in the first half which he placed and the keeper made a good save. He didn't blaze it over or anything FFS!
-
Totally want to see something special in this kid. I just don't. I don't think I am better, I am 40 years old for gods sake and I don't believe in the now now thing either. If this kid scores 10 goals in his career at villa I will be astonished. Perfectly willing to see big picture in everything villa, but to be told off just for questioning this kids ability is short sighted in its self, as there is only a poor track record at Chesterfield to go upon. Let's hope he scores 100 goals in the next 5 years. No one will be happier than me if he does.
-
It's a bit early to write him off really but i suppose there's nothing wrong with having a gut feeling. I thought he was ok on Saturday. Nothing more nothing less.
-
I have changed my mind with the reasoning I have received. Saturday he was ace, he showed glimpses of brilliance that had me on the edge of my seat for all of the 60 minutes he was on. He ripped their right back a new one and gabby was utter shit in comparison for his 30 minute cameo. This lad surely has the potential to be a villa great.
-
Surely it's too early to tell if he's going to make the grade or not?
He's come on when we've been in receipt of a thrashing, and started one cup game.
-
Can't see him making much impression this season. But, he may play more next season. Especially if Bent and Delfouneso leave.
-
Surely it's too early to tell if he's going to make the grade or not?
He's come on when we've been in receipt of a thrashing, and started one cup game.
my gut feeling. With most of Lamberts signings there has been s glimpse of a special potential but I haven't seen it at all with bowery. Sorry all!
-
chuck him out on loan to a championship club maybe, see how he gets on.
-
I have to say I support my fellow Salopian (well I have lived here over 22 years!), DrGonzo, on this one. Bowery was attacking the Holte End in front of where I sit in the Lower Witton Lane Stand in the second-half on Saturday, before he was subbed, and I was extremely impressed - in fact he did not put a foot wrong. He is a powerful athlete and has a great turn of speed from a standing start. Despite being a big fan of Gabby I was actually disappointed when he went off as I wanted to see more of him.
-
I have to say I support my fellow Salopian (well I have lived here over 22 years!), DrGonzo, on this one. Bowery was attacking the Holte End in front of where I sit in the Lower Witton Lane Stand in the second-half on Saturday, before he was subbed, and I was extremely impressed - in fact he did not put a foot wrong. He is a powerful athlete and has a great turn of speed from a standing start. Despite being a big fan of Gabby I was actually disappointed when he went off as I wanted to see more of him.
He got a great ovation as he went off. I think his efforts were appreciated throughout the crowd.
-
I have more issue with gabby, as a senior player he being a feckin waste of space since mon left barring odd flash of brilliance
-
You have to think that it's pretty much curtains for Delfouneso at the Villa now.
-
I'm not writing him off but his record at Chesterfield over five seasons was worse than Heskey's record at every club bar the Villa.
If he struggled to score goals in the 4th division, it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that he can do it in the Premier League.
-
5 years ago he was 16.
-
5 years ago he was 16.
And by the time Heskey was Bowery's age he'd scored 33 goals, 26 of which were in the top flight. What's your point?
-
Yet, Heskey went on to be utter shite during what should've been his prime.
-
5 years ago he was 16.
And by the time Heskey was Bowery's age he'd scored 33 goals, 26 of which were in the top flight. What's your point?
I think his goals/starts ratio in the last two seasons is actually pretty good - almost 1 in 2 I think.
-
Yet, Heskey went on to be utter shite during what should've been his prime.
My point exactly.
-
Ok I checked and its more like 1 in 3, but still not as bad as some are making out.
-
He already looks much better value for money than the Australian based goal machine.
-
Ok I checked and its more like 1 in 3, but still not as bad as some are making out.
Where have you got those stats from because the fountain of truth that is Wikipedia says he's scored 9 league goals in 67 appearances in the past two seasons, or 1 in 7.5 games.
-
Ok I checked and its more like 1 in 3, but still not as bad as some are making out.
Where have you got those stats from because the fountain of truth that is Wikipedia says he's scored 9 league goals in 67 appearances in the past two seasons, or 1 in 7.5 games.
Well they only have appearances in total, not starts/subs divided. I looked at them on the old Chesterfield site originally, and they divided up the seasons. Here (http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=49760) you can find better stats but not divided into separate seasons - I think he scored virtually all of his goals last season.
-
For what it's worth, he seemed more of a pest on the left hand side against Ipswich than probably anybody we've attempted to play there this season.
-
I think we have to be realistic though, not every punt we make from the lower leagues will adapt and make the step up to premier league level, just the same as our academy products.
Lowton and Westwood have been stand outs for me this season and they were key starlets at their previous clubs, Bowery by common consent was not at Chesterfield but clearly PL saw some promise there.
He signed a lot of forwards at Norwich Morison, Holt, Simeon Jackson, James Vaughan. Amongst them was a lad called Oli Johnson who Lambert signed after he scored the grand total of 6 goals in 40 games for Stockport and he only played 20 times for Norwich in two years. He now plays for York City.
He could turn out to be amazing but Bowery will probably go the same way.
-
I'm open minded about Bowery. He doesn't seem like a natural winger and I very much doubt he's being groomed as a centre forward by Lambert. I don't think he'll star for us but I agree you have to take a punt sometimes - when they work out you're a genius. At least Lambert's giving him a chance rather than letting him rot, a la O'Neill with Salifou.
What surprised me most about Bowery is that he looks like quite a big lad; didn't think he would be based on his photos from the August Deadline Day.
-
Lambert didn't sign Holt.
-
Oh right, I thought they signed Holt in 2010 for some reason!
-
Nobody has said he's going to be the next Vieri. I just thought it was a bit too much to write the lad off before he's even played 90 mins for the club.
-
Nobody has said he's going to be the next Vieri. I just thought it was a bit too much to write the lad off before he's even played 90 mins for the club.
This.
-
I have to say that was possibly the worst performance for many a year.
Regretfully I am prepared to write him off after now playing 90+ mins for the club.
-
He was played out of position and asked to do a job he didnt look capable of doing - not his fault.
-
I have to say that was possibly the worst performance for many a year.
Regretfully I am prepared to write him off after now playing 90+ mins for the club.
As a right sided midfield role, it wasn't bad. Not good but not bad. There wasn't much attacking from us for most of the first half anyway after the early miss apart from offsides.
-
I have to say that was possibly the worst performance for many a year.
Regretfully I am prepared to write him off after now playing 90+ mins for the club.
Come off it.
He did what most of our lower league signings have done this season, worked hard, showed some nice touches at some moments but also his touch became heavier as the game went on.
Can't really ever see him amounting to much more than a player who plays in the cups and the odd league game before he moves on but it certainly wasn't the worst appearence by a player this season.
-
Bowery is not good enough to play at this level. What Lambert is trying to prove by putting him in ahead of Bent is completely beyond me. I honestly don't think he still knows his best lineup and seems to me to be endlessly rotating the plethera of mediocrity we have on our books in the hope that something positive might happen. We got away with it today, but we look a Championship side and players like Bowery confirm that.
-
Bowery is not good enough to play at this level. Just what point Lambert is trying to prove by putting him in the side ahead of Bent is completely beyond me. I honestly don't think he still knows his best lineup and is rotating the plethera of mediocrity we have on our books. We got away with it today, but we look a Championship side and players like Bowery confirm that.
He played Bowery because Bent would be completely useless stuck out wide to work hard.
-
Bowery is not good enough to play at this level. Just what point Lambert is trying to prove by putting him in the side ahead of Bent is completely beyond me. I honestly don't think he still knows his best lineup and is rotating the plethera of mediocrity we have on our books. We got away with it today, but we look a Championship side and players like Bowery confirm that.
So would you have wanted Bent to play right midfield then? Bowery was not playing up front but the RM position. He wasn't brilliant, he wasn't atrocious, he did ok.This allowed Charles and Weimann to play support for Benteke.
-
Right now we need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery. It's up to Lambert to find a system that accommodates the former.
-
Do you think Bent would have been any use on the right of midfield?
-
We need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery.
And for most of the season, it has been the experienced players letting us down more then the others, especially attacking. If that is the standard you have set, we should drop Weimann and Benteke and only play Bent and Gabby.
-
Bowery put a shift in for the team. Fact!
The boy did OK - nothing great. Just OK.
-
Interesting Joe Royle before the game said Bent played wide right a lot under him as a kid at Ipswich and knows the role well.
-
I don't know what people were expecting for £500k from Chesterfield. He's better than I thought he'd be, as is the case with most of the Lambert signings. Plus he's only 21 so can only get better. Hopefully he'll be a decent squad player for us in the future. Worked hits nuts off today and deserves praise for that imo.
-
I'm hoping that nerves got the better of Bowery today because his first touch was fairly awful. That being said he didn't get to see much of the ball, and when he did West Ham were playing very tight. On the whole disappointing but I've seen N'Zogbia and Ireland play as badly.
-
For what it's worth, I'd have played Weimann on the right of midfield and Zog in behind Bent and Benteke. As I said, we have a manager who is paid to get the most out of the players in his charge. He's not doing that with Bent.
-
I admit I've only seen Bowery start twice plus subsitute appearances.
Ok. Lambert see's something in him and he obviously played today to add height in the team. Ultimately it worked.
But
What are his qualities ?
Don't say hard work, determination etc. as i could do that.
-
For what it's worth, I'd have played Weimann on the right of midfield and Zog in behind Bent and Benteke. As I said, we have a manager who is paid to get the most out of the players in his charge. He's not doing that with Bent.
The thing about Bent is that he's great in a side creating lots of chances. We're a poor premier league side that very rarely dominate anyone possession wise so we can't afford any passengers. I think the way Bent is being used is correct. If we still had players like Young/Downing/Petrov in the side I'm sure he'd be starting a lot more games.
-
Bowery has started 2 games for Villa, we've won both. That will do for me considering how rarely we win over the last 18 months.
-
I'm hoping that nerves got the better of Bowery today because his first touch was fairly awful. That being said he didn't get to see much of the ball, and when he did West Ham were playing very tight. On the whole disappointing but I've seen N'Zogbia and Ireland play as badly.
I didn't see anything too wrong with the first touch, his main let down was his running with the ball. He seemed to slow down alot more with it when he could have just gone for it.
-
Defensively i thought he played well, has a bit of pace, nice touch, laid , and kept the ball well.
Going foward, he looked very nervous, but is young and will get better, left footed playing on the right won't help though.
-
I don't know what people were expecting for £500k from Chesterfield. He's better than I thought he'd be, as is the case with most of the Lambert signings. Plus he's only 21 so can only get better. Hopefully he'll be a decent squad player for us in the future. Worked hits nuts off today and deserves praise for that imo.
Well for a start I doubt people expected a £500k signing from Chesterfield to be starting for us in the Premier League.
Whilst yes, he's probably better than you'd expect for £500k and he's probably worth more now as a result of having the Villa on his CV, he's indicative of Lambert's strategy of buying players who are not good enough and treating them as first teamers. I'd have no problem with Lambert buying these players if they were alongside players who actually make the quality in the team better.
The reality is that Bowery shouldn't have been good enough to sign for us and has shown nothing to suggest he'll be good enough for us in the future. But then you could probably level the same accusation at Delph, Bennett, KEA & Stephens.
-
Which Stephens is that? And Delph is looking better and better.
-
"Defensively i thought he played well, has a bit of pace, nice touch, laid , and kept the ball well."
I watched a different player.
-
I don't know what people were expecting for £500k from Chesterfield. He's better than I thought he'd be, as is the case with most of the Lambert signings. Plus he's only 21 so can only get better. Hopefully he'll be a decent squad player for us in the future. Worked hits nuts off today and deserves praise for that imo.
Well for a start I doubt people expected a £500k signing from Chesterfield to be starting for us in the Premier League.
Whilst yes, he's probably better than you'd expect for £500k and he's probably worth more now as a result of having the Villa on his CV, he's indicative of Lambert's strategy of buying players who are not good enough and treating them as first teamers. I'd have no problem with Lambert buying these players if they were alongside players who actually make the quality in the team better.
The reality is that Bowery shouldn't have been good enough to sign for us and has shown nothing to suggest he'll be good enough for us in the future. But then you could probably level the same accusation at Delph, Bennett, KEA & Stephens.
I doubt many thought a signing from Crewe would command a record transfer fee or a 4th division player from Cardiff would still be the best fullback we've had for the last 10 years.
Or that the completely useless unknown donkey from Belgium would now be one of the hottest properties around.
Bowery will probably only ever be a squad player, but we'll sell him for a profit and he'll do a basic job for us when required. Anything else is a bonus.
-
For what it's worth, I'd have played Weimann on the right of midfield and Zog in behind Bent and Benteke. As I said, we have a manager who is paid to get the most out of the players in his charge. He's not doing that with Bent.
As some one mentioned above, if we had a team full of wingers, we could get the best out of Bent. We don't though although now Dawkins is here, you might see Bent start more again. But attack is not the main problem we have, even with Bent not playing as much. Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
-
Which Stephens is that? And Delph is looking better and better.
I hope you're not trying to be clever because I spelt Stevens wrong.
And yes, Delph did look better today compared to how he's been in the past, but that's like giving someone in your Sunday team the Most Improved Player award. A simple way to look at it is to ask how many other Premier League teams these players would get in to. Very few I'd suggest, if any.
-
I don't know what people were expecting for £500k from Chesterfield. He's better than I thought he'd be, as is the case with most of the Lambert signings. Plus he's only 21 so can only get better. Hopefully he'll be a decent squad player for us in the future. Worked hits nuts off today and deserves praise for that imo.
Well for a start I doubt people expected a £500k signing from Chesterfield to be starting for us in the Premier League.
Whilst yes, he's probably better than you'd expect for £500k and he's probably worth more now as a result of having the Villa on his CV, he's indicative of Lambert's strategy of buying players who are not good enough and treating them as first teamers. I'd have no problem with Lambert buying these players if they were alongside players who actually make the quality in the team better.
The reality is that Bowery shouldn't have been good enough to sign for us and has shown nothing to suggest he'll be good enough for us in the future. But then you could probably level the same accusation at Delph, Bennett, KEA & Stephens.
Maybe he assumed (wrongly) that with senior players acting professionally, being fit and showing a modicum of form and desire like Dunne, Given, CNZ, Ireland and Bent (none of whom anyone else wants to sign remember) for a chunk of the season that he could bring the youngsters in the manner you suggested.
As it stands he has had little option but to play the youth as a default position. I have no problem with who he signed (most of them have increased in value) only the 2 or 3 bods we could have done with signing in the recent window.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
Isn't he more of a defensive CM? To me Bowery makes more sense as the hard working but can also attack type right MF.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
A defensive central midfielder?
-
I don't know what people were expecting for £500k from Chesterfield. He's better than I thought he'd be, as is the case with most of the Lambert signings. Plus he's only 21 so can only get better. Hopefully he'll be a decent squad player for us in the future. Worked hits nuts off today and deserves praise for that imo.
Well for a start I doubt people expected a £500k signing from Chesterfield to be starting for us in the Premier League.
Whilst yes, he's probably better than you'd expect for £500k and he's probably worth more now as a result of having the Villa on his CV, he's indicative of Lambert's strategy of buying players who are not good enough and treating them as first teamers. I'd have no problem with Lambert buying these players if they were alongside players who actually make the quality in the team better.
The reality is that Bowery shouldn't have been good enough to sign for us and has shown nothing to suggest he'll be good enough for us in the future. But then you could probably level the same accusation at Delph, Bennett, KEA & Stephens.
Maybe he assumed (wrongly) that with senior players acting professionally, being fit and showing a modicum of form and desire like Dunne, Given, CNZ, Ireland and Bent (none of whom anyone else wants to sign remember) for a chunk of the season that he could bring the youngsters in the manner you suggested.
As it stands he has had little option but to play the youth as a default position. I have no problem with who he signed (most of them have increased in value) only the 2 or 3 bods we could have done with signing in the recent window.
I agree with Rob. The experienced players have let us down more and I will add Lambert's signing of KEA and Vlaar into that. If Gabby was fit, I don't think Bowery would start, but he did today and didn't do anything to let Villa down. No one seems to moan at Swansea, Everton and others playing lower league players, yet we shouldn't do it for some reason.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
Not a good comparison.
The player that I would have liked to have seen instead of Bowery would have been Carruthers, but since he has not featured in most of Lambert's squads I suppose it was unlikely to have happened.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
Not a good comparison.
The player that I would have liked to have seen instead of Bowery would have been Carruthers, but since he has not featured in most of Lambert's squads I suppose it was unlikely to have happened.
I agree that Carruthers not playing seems a let down, especially as other kids are, but I doubt the set pieces would have been as well defended.
-
Bowery's main job was to strengthen the midfield and help at set pieces. He wasn't playing striker. If he was, then I could understand the moan that he played instead of Bent.
Agreed. Given the choice today between Bowery and Holman to replace the ill Gabby, it would be Bowery every time.
Well yeah but I would have thought that was the purpose of signing Sylla.
A defensive central midfielder?
'Strenghten the midfield and help at set pieces'. I appreciate he was on the right, he did ok and it worked out in the end but I think Dawkins is a better option.
-
Clearly Lambert felt three defensive midfielders against a limited team like West Ham at home was unnecessary and wanted to keep four attackers like last week at Everton.
Sylla would've only started if Westwood hadn't recovered from the virus.
-
Carruthers and Johnson probably deserve a shot. The thing is, the player in their natural postion at the moment is N'Zogbia and he's playing well.
-
N'Zog is critical to our survival and we've got to get as much out of him as possible.
-
I have been disappointed not to see Carruthers feature for us this season. He looked bright the tail end of last season. Had also hoped as Mazrim says that Johnson would have also been in contention by now a bit.
-
N'Zog is critical to our survival and we've got to get as much out of him as possible.
Yep late, very late, is the hour but we need 8 huges games out of him. Let's hope he realises it.
-
I have been disappointed not to see Carruthers feature for us this season. He looked bright the tail end of last season. Had also hoped as Mazrim says that Johnson would have also been in contention by now a bit.
It would be nice for Johnson to get out on loan again at some point. Hopefully he can break into the first team in the next couple of years if he continues developing. Seems to have a good set piece on him as well.
-
N'Zog is critical to our survival and we've got to get as much out of him as possible.
Yep late, very late, is the hour but we need 8 huges games out of him. Let's hope he realises it.
He's done well in the attacking midfield role over the last few weeks, but I think he would be better used in the wide right position. He cuts in well from that side and won a penalty and very nearly scored from that position today. We have other options who can play that attacking midfield role.
-
N'Zog is critical to our survival and we've got to get as much out of him as possible.
Yep late, very late, is the hour but we need 8 huges games out of him. Let's hope he realises it.
He's done well in the attacking midfield role over the last few weeks, but I think he would be better used in the wide right position. He cuts in well from that side and won a penalty and very nearly scored from that position today. We have other options who can play that attacking midfield role.
Not sure - think he is better in the freer role as per Wigan. As for AMF please share and not include the words Bannan or Ireland
-
Hopefully going by today's performance Dawkins will give us more wide options when Gabby's not fit.
-
N'Zog is critical to our survival and we've got to get as much out of him as possible.
Yep late, very late, is the hour but we need 8 huges games out of him. Let's hope he realises it.
He's done well in the attacking midfield role over the last few weeks, but I think he would be better used in the wide right position. He cuts in well from that side and won a penalty and very nearly scored from that position today. We have other options who can play that attacking midfield role.
Not sure - think he is better in the freer role as per Wigan. As for AMF please share and not include the words Bannan or Ireland
Someone on here sat by Martinez during a game last season, and said he could not believe that we had bought Zog having scouted him and then thought he was a winger, he is a free role cause trouble player.
This was then backed up when I met a Wigwam season ticket holder, who thought Zog was way better than Moses, and if played totally free in front of the midfield will cause enough havoc to score or create 3-4 great chances per match.
-
N'Zog is never a winger and needs that free role.
-
This player seemed really lacking and pretty ponderous. Felt sorrie for him from where i was sitting looked terrified to touch ball and movement lacking. I hope he will improve but defo not up to mark at this moment. He looked quick in a previous matches but looked slow and dawkins from start -if he was taller'- would have been better starting
-
This player seemed really lacking and pretty ponderous. Felt sorrie for him from where i was sitting looked terrified to touch ball and movement lacking. I hope he will improve but defo not up to mark at this moment. He looked quick in a previous matches but looked slow and dawkins from start -if he was taller'- would have been better starting
See this is the interesting thing to me. I don't mind that he wasnt particularly good yesterday (because he is a target man type striker being asked to play as a right midfielder) but in other matches he seemed to have a fair amount of pace on him, which was lacking on sunday. Dunno if it was a problem with his ball control, but he seemed to knock the ball on and then not have the pace to get to it.
Still think its waaaay to early to tell if the lad will be Good Enough. Even if he isnt, we'll still get more than we paid for him.
-
So far I've not seen anything from him to suggest he's a Premiership star in the making, but then I've not seen anything to get really pissed off at either.
I guess we can file him under 'wait and see' and let what happens happen.
-
So far I've not seen anything from him to suggest he's a Premiership star in the making, but then I've not seen anything to get really pissed off at either.
I guess we can file him under 'wait and see' and let what happens happen.
True, but I don't think he should be starting matches.
-
Bowery is basically a back up target man and playing him totally out of position yesterday did nobody any favours , dawkins can play the wide attacking midfield role and i cant see why bowery was played out of position.
-
Bowery is basically a back up target man and playing him totally out of position yesterday did nobody any favours , dawkins can play the wide attacking midfield role and i cant see why bowery was played out of position.
As some people have already said, he was probably a starter because he is quite tall and fairly strong and would be more useful than someone like Dawkins when it came to defending against a team who are strong at set-pieces. I'd be suprised if he starts in that position again outside of games against the Stokes/West Hams of the league.
In fact this is one of the few games of the season where I think Lambert got the tactics/squad selection bang on.
-
Right now we need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery. It's up to Lambert to find a system that accommodates the former.
No, we need results and players playing on merit.
-
Bowery is basically a back up target man and playing him totally out of position yesterday did nobody any favours , dawkins can play the wide attacking midfield role and i cant see why bowery was played out of position.
As some people have already said, he was probably a starter because he is quite tall and fairly strong and would be more useful than someone like Dawkins when it came to defending against a team who are strong at set-pieces. I'd be suprised if he starts in that position again outside of games against the Stokes/West Hams of the league.
In fact this is one of the few games of the season where I think Lambert got the tactics/squad selection bang on.
Maybe but i would rather we concentrate on playing to our strengths rather than worrying too much about the opposition - we looked far better balanced once dawkins came on .
-
I expect the plan was to bring on Dawkins when the opposition had tired a bit.
-
I expect the plan was to bring on Dawkins when the opposition had tired a bit.
I think this is what the less enlightened of our support struggle with.
The fact you can use subs to change the game in a premeditated fashion, instead of just reacting to a situation.
-
Bowery is basically a back up target man and playing him totally out of position yesterday did nobody any favours , dawkins can play the wide attacking midfield role and i cant see why bowery was played out of position.
As some people have already said, he was probably a starter because he is quite tall and fairly strong and would be more useful than someone like Dawkins when it came to defending against a team who are strong at set-pieces. I'd be suprised if he starts in that position again outside of games against the Stokes/West Hams of the league.
In fact this is one of the few games of the season where I think Lambert got the tactics/squad selection bang on.
Maybe but i would rather we concentrate on playing to our strengths rather than worrying too much about the opposition - we looked far better balanced once dawkins came on .
I agree about playing to your strengths (and that we looked a lot better when Dawkins came on) but given how much people were shitting themselves about the aerial threat Carrol etc presented I still think starting with another Big Lad was the most pragmatic choice.
Plus I love a good impact sub
-
Right now we need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery. It's up to Lambert to find a system that accommodates the former.
No, we need results and players playing on merit.
Precisely. For all we know, Bowery may have been amazing in training, works really hard and deserves his chance as a team player.
In the end, Bowery played, didn't cost us anything despite some loss of control and didn't create much though played some nice passes. And we won the match.
-
Right now we need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery. It's up to Lambert to find a system that accommodates the former.
No, we need results and players playing on merit.
Precisely. For all we know, Bowery may have been amazing in training, works really hard and deserves his chance as a team player.
In the end, Bowery played, didn't cost us anything despite some loss of control and didn't create much though played some nice passes. And we won the match.
How low our expectations have fallen. Very sad.
-
I expect the plan was to bring on Dawkins when the opposition had tired a bit.
I think this is what the less enlightened of our support struggle with.
The fact you can use subs to change the game in a premeditated fashion, instead of just reacting to a situation.
To be fair, when it comes to tactics, effective substitutions and changing games, Lambert has hardly proved himself to be a master this season.
-
Right now we need mature, proven quality. That's Bent. Not Bowery. It's up to Lambert to find a system that accommodates the former.
No, we need results and players playing on merit.
Precisely. For all we know, Bowery may have been amazing in training, works really hard and deserves his chance as a team player.
In the end, Bowery played, didn't cost us anything despite some loss of control and didn't create much though played some nice passes. And we won the match.
How low our expectations have fallen. Very sad.
That's more like it. We haven't had a good "How low have we fallen?" for ages.
-
Not how far we have fallen, but how far our expectations have fallen. Distinct difference.
-
Not how far we have fallen, but how far our expectations have fallen. Big distinction.
Really? I can't see any at all. We sign a player for peanuts from Chesterfield, he did okay on his full debut and most people accept that as reasonable. There's no change there between him and every other similar player we've signed for as long as I can remember.
-
Most people on here are looking for any positives they can in a season most of us would rather forget already. I don't blame them for that, but clearly Bowery is out of his depth at this level and looked every inch as much yesterday. He may be good enough for many on here, but I expect much better for my club.
-
The kid cost next to fuck all, he's barely been played in his proper position of centre forward.
Time will tell if he can hack it, but he needs to be played where he's grown up playing.
Was it £500,000?
We certainly won't lose anything on that.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
We played him for one game. As Gabby was unavailable and Bowery offered more against a physical side like west ham than the other options would. It makes perfect sense. That striker referred to doesn't do a great deal when you're not creating chances for him. I'm sure the reasons he's not playing have been explained to him and I'm glad he looks like he's accepted it and is getting on with it like a professional should. He didn't exactly look pissed off when we scored did he?
-
My expectations haven't fallen, I'm just being a realist in a season that isn't exactly going as well as we would hope.
We won a match in which a young player made his debut. Of course you probably expect is to try and win every game by 3 goals... I'll take the three points, I'd be more than happy if we played that badly and won every game 2-1.
What expectations do you have?
-
I have been disappointed not to see Carruthers feature for us this season. He looked bright the tail end of last season. Had also hoped as Mazrim says that Johnson would have also been in contention by now a bit.
It would be nice for Johnson to get out on loan again at some point. Hopefully he can break into the first team in the next couple of years if he continues developing. Seems to have a good set piece on him as well.
Didn't Yeovil send him back early, either not impressed or he got injured.
Amazed Carruthurs ain't been loaned out, not a clue what's happening there.
-
TBF Chesterfield are probably better than whatever Swiss amateur club we signed Salifou from.
All managers take punts on players from low levels.
-
I'm a Villa fan, so winning every game by 3 goals would be great, but I'm also a realist. However, I believe this isn't the time to be experimenting with below average players when there's no need to. We have proven experience on the books and it's the manager's job to find a system that accommodates that experience. Lambert's bloody mindedness against playing Bent will take us down. Mark my words!
-
We've won both games Bowery has started. Not exactly the worst experiment the world has ever known.
-
:o?????
-
Was that too complicated?
-
Bent was non-existant the last time he started a league game.
-
Most people on here are looking for any positives they can in a season most of us would rather forget already. I don't blame them for that, but clearly Bowery is out of his depth at this level and looked every inch as much yesterday. He may be good enough for many on here, but I expect much better for my club.
Yes, that's really going to win you friends on here.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
-
I don't remember anyone saying they want Bowery starting every game, can you quote the person who said that? I simply pointed out that he's started twice and we've won both so it's hard to argue that it was the right decision in those 2 games.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Spectacular missing of the point.
People are just suggesting that he's had a couple of run outs, one out of position, and that is hardly evidence of either his brilliance or his shitness, and says nothing about how low our expectations have fallen.
I really don't understand why, in a season with so many obviously shit things we can spend time moaning about, some people aren't satisfied and have to find yet more shitness.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Spectacular missing of the point.
People are just suggesting that he's had a couple of run outs, one out of position, and that is hardly evidence of either his brilliance or his shitness, and says nothing about how low our expectations have fallen.
I really don't understand why, in a season with so many obviously shit things we can spend time moaning about, some people aren't satisfied and have to find yet more shitness.
Spectacular missing of a little bit of irony.
-
I actuallu think Lambert has played a blinder this season regarding bent. We can't afford passengers who are only an asset when supplied. Unfortunately our current side isn't good enough to supply constant service to him. Unless we're playing qpr or reading, I see no reason why he should be considered to start with our current side.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you'd want to see Bent playing wide right? Really? Because that's the position that Lambert wanted filling. Plus, Bowery gave us height in the box at their set-pieces. Kind of worked too.
-
I actuallu think Lambert has played a blinder this season regarding bent. We can't afford passengers who are only an asset when supplied. Unfortunately our current side isn't good enough to supply constant service to him. Unless we're playing qpr or reading, I see no reason why he should be considered to start with our current side.
I'm not so sure.
Agreed Benteke is a real find and agreed that the rest of the team isn't set up to support Bent.
But the fly in the ointment in this strategy has been that he ended with c£18m worth of asset sitting on the bench in a squad that needed that kind of money invested in shoring up the defence and midfield.
For the whole thing to have made sense he should have offloaded Bent at some point (along with Ireland, Warnock and Hutton - but that's another story I suppose).
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Spectacular missing of the point.
People are just suggesting that he's had a couple of run outs, one out of position, and that is hardly evidence of either his brilliance or his shitness, and says nothing about how low our expectations have fallen.
I really don't understand why, in a season with so many obviously shit things we can spend time moaning about, some people aren't satisfied and have to find yet more shitness.
Spectacular missing of a little bit of irony.
No, I entirely get the point you were making with your ironic comment, I've read the previous comments on the thread.
I just don't see why a 500k player making his earliest appearances for the club is really deserving of a slating or writing off, or why the fact he's been played says anything about the way the club is going.
Give him a chance. We've seen how our other young players have had their confidence absolutely blown to pieces over the last few weeks, I imagine even those with plenty of appearances under their belts have been scared to death of late. Look at Guzan's reaction to the final whistle, for starters.
Then think about what it must have been like for Bowery when he found out he was starting yesterday.
-
I wonder if keeping Bent was more of a political move than anything else. After getting rid of so many big names so quickly, offloading the only real star we had (at the time anyway) wouldn't have gone down well with supporters and would have reinforced the 'selling club' accusation.
-
Good post. (paulie)
-
Good article Dave.
-
I thought he did OK. I'm mystified at the criticism to be honest.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you'd want to see Bent playing wide right? Really? Because that's the position that Lambert wanted filling. Plus, Bowery gave us height in the box at their set-pieces. Kind of worked too.
Seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion on this thread regarding Bowery and Bent.
I think most posters would agree that Bowery was asked to 'do a job' on the wide right. Opinions on how he did vary. Some say he worked hard and did as well as you could expect from a lower league player trying to make a massive step up. Others (me included) thought he looked like he'd never seen a football before. But eh, it's all about opinions and I try to respect what other say.
Then we come to Bent. The fact that he's getting splinters up his arse while we're in real danger of getting relegated makes you think something is not quite right.
We should either alter the formation to accommodate him or ask him to use his experience and adapt to the requirements of the team (eg like Gabby) or we should have moved him on and bought in adequate replacements.
Either way I think it is an indictment of Lambert's management that we have Bent on the bench and the likes of Bowery in the team.
-
I'm convinced had this forum existed 20 years ago that there would be some people writing on here that Fenton was poor and didn't get into enough forward positions and Bozzie shoudn't have let that one under his body during the League Cup win in 1994.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Spectacular missing of the point.
People are just suggesting that he's had a couple of run outs, one out of position, and that is hardly evidence of either his brilliance or his shitness, and says nothing about how low our expectations have fallen.
I really don't understand why, in a season with so many obviously shit things we can spend time moaning about, some people aren't satisfied and have to find yet more shitness.
Spectacular missing of a little bit of irony.
No, I entirely get the point you were making with your ironic comment, I've read the previous comments on the thread.
I just don't see why a 500k player making his earliest appearances for the club is really deserving of a slating or writing off, or why the fact he's been played says anything about the way the club is going.
Give him a chance. We've seen how our other young players have had their confidence absolutely blown to pieces over the last few weeks, I imagine even those with plenty of appearances under their belts have been scared to death of late. Look at Guzan's reaction to the final whistle, for starters.
Then think about what it must have been like for Bowery when he found out he was starting yesterday.
There's no question that you're right about our young players and this isn't a crusade against Bowery. Good luck to the lad. He's just the embodiment of the state the club has got itself into. He's clearly not of Premier League standard and you know he wouldn't get a look in at any other Premier League club. That's my opinion on a forum I hope is all about the diversity of opinions.
-
I remember Dwight Yorke's debut for Villa. He looked like Bambi on an ice rink.
How about giving the bloke a chance.
-
By that standard Ron Saunders wouldn't have signed players such as Terry Bullivant and Gary Shelton, Sir Graham wouldn't have bothered with most of his team and Mark Delaney would have stayed with Cardiff.
-
The Bowery / Bent issue is nonsense. Bent presumably can't / won't play wide.
I've not given up on Bowery. I just wouldn't play him (at the moment)
-
I thought he did OK. I'm mystified at the criticism to be honest.
I thought there were occasions when the ball came to him where he looked frightened to death. He seemed happier when his play was more instinctive and he did have time to think. This suggests he was (understandably) very nervous. Hard to know how where he's got the skill to step up once he become more familiar with the occasion.
-
I wonder if keeping Bent was more of a political move than anything else. After getting rid of so many big names so quickly, offloading the only real star we had (at the time anyway) wouldn't have gone down well with supporters and would have reinforced the 'selling club' accusation.
Do we not also need an buyer though?
For all the talk about QPR and Stoke, there didn't really seem to be many reports of solid interest from anyone, let alone an actual bid.
And although what you say makes sense I'm pretty sure that if Stoke had stuck say, £12m under our noses then no amount of public perception issues would have stopped us from accepting it.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Spectacular missing of the point.
People are just suggesting that he's had a couple of run outs, one out of position, and that is hardly evidence of either his brilliance or his shitness, and says nothing about how low our expectations have fallen.
I really don't understand why, in a season with so many obviously shit things we can spend time moaning about, some people aren't satisfied and have to find yet more shitness.
Spectacular missing of a little bit of irony.
No, I entirely get the point you were making with your ironic comment, I've read the previous comments on the thread.
I just don't see why a 500k player making his earliest appearances for the club is really deserving of a slating or writing off, or why the fact he's been played says anything about the way the club is going.
Give him a chance. We've seen how our other young players have had their confidence absolutely blown to pieces over the last few weeks, I imagine even those with plenty of appearances under their belts have been scared to death of late. Look at Guzan's reaction to the final whistle, for starters.
Then think about what it must have been like for Bowery when he found out he was starting yesterday.
Paulie - I understand the sentiments in your post and agree with supporting young players as they try to do their best for the team.
But it's about time Villa (as a whole - Lerner, Faulker, Lambert, the fans) woke up and smelled the coffee (as hinted at in Dave Woodhalls article) - this is the rough and tough end to the season and harsh realities have to be faced.
No one wants to ruin a young lad's career, but had a shocker. Maybe that was Lamberts fault for throwing him in at the deep end. Hopefully the lad will improve.
At this point in time, I don't give two hoots as to where our players come from. I'm more worried about where they're going.
It's time to face the harsh realities. Asking inexperienced and unproven players like Bowery to do a job against the some of the best teams in the world in simply asking to get relegated.
-
Most people on here are looking for any positives they can in a season most of us would rather forget already.
Really? A lot of people on here seem to be looking for every negative as far as I can see.
-
I wonder if keeping Bent was more of a political move than anything else. After getting rid of so many big names so quickly, offloading the only real star we had (at the time anyway) wouldn't have gone down well with supporters and would have reinforced the 'selling club' accusation.
Really?
Then the people making that kind of decision are even more stupid than I thought - and that's saying something.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him didn't appear to be on the agenda at that time.
-
Okay. You guys win. Play Bowery every game from now until the end of the season and we'll be fine. As I said, how low our expectations have fallen.
Yes, because that's exactly what the people who thought Bowery did okay are saying!
I only need 'sleepwalking into oblivion' for a full house in Club In Crisis Bingo.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
Either that, or you find a system that will accommodate him in the side.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
Or you find a system that will accommodate him in the side.
Agreed as I said about 20 posts ago.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you'd want to see Bent playing wide right? Really? Because that's the position that Lambert wanted filling. Plus, Bowery gave us height in the box at their set-pieces. Kind of worked too.
Seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion on this thread regarding Bowery and Bent.
I think most posters would agree that Bowery was asked to 'do a job' on the wide right. Opinions on how he did vary. Some say he worked hard and did as well as you could expect from a lower league player trying to make a massive step up. Others (me included) thought he looked like he'd never seen a football before. But eh, it's all about opinions and I try to respect what other say.
Then we come to Bent. The fact that he's getting splinters up his arse while we're in real danger of getting relegated makes you think something is not quite right.
We should either alter the formation to accommodate him or ask him to use his experience and adapt to the requirements of the team (eg like Gabby) or we should have moved him on and bought in adequate replacements.
Either way I think it is an indictment of Lambert's management that we have Bent on the bench and the likes of Bowery in the team.
when Bent has played he's rarely been threatening, we don't have to a team with wingers to give him the service he needs, he's not a work your knackers off forward, he doesn't fit the system.
Take your pick. Lambert did.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you'd want to see Bent playing wide right? Really? Because that's the position that Lambert wanted filling. Plus, Bowery gave us height in the box at their set-pieces. Kind of worked too.
Seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion on this thread regarding Bowery and Bent.
I think most posters would agree that Bowery was asked to 'do a job' on the wide right. Opinions on how he did vary. Some say he worked hard and did as well as you could expect from a lower league player trying to make a massive step up. Others (me included) thought he looked like he'd never seen a football before. But eh, it's all about opinions and I try to respect what other say.
Then we come to Bent. The fact that he's getting splinters up his arse while we're in real danger of getting relegated makes you think something is not quite right.
We should either alter the formation to accommodate him or ask him to use his experience and adapt to the requirements of the team (eg like Gabby) or we should have moved him on and bought in adequate replacements.
Either way I think it is an indictment of Lambert's management that we have Bent on the bench and the likes of Bowery in the team.
when Bent has played he's rarely been threatening, we don't have to a team with wingers to give him the service he needs, he's not a work your knackers off forward, he doesn't fit the system.
Take your pick. Lambert did.
So that leaves 'option 3' - move him on use the cash to bring in replacements. Lambert didn't do this and therefore it's an indictment on his management to have £18m of unused asset on the bench.
-
Sometimes as a manager you have to think outside the box to get the most out of the resources you have. Bent played plenty of football in a wide position in his time at Charlton, so knows the role. Yes, Lambert has made his choice, but in this case I for one think he's got it woefully wrong.
-
Bowery started, Bent came off the bench. We won. That sounds like good management to me.
-
Surely though the fact we won both matches Bowery has started shows that he didn't get it woefully wrong?
-
Surely though the fact we won both matches Bowery has started shows that he didn't get it woefully wrong?
We were drawing both games while Bowery was on the pitch.
We won once he'd been taken off.
-
Surely though the fact we won both matches Bowery has started shows that he didn't get it woefully wrong?
We were drawing both games while Bowery was on the pitch.
We won once he'd been taken off.
So the tactics worked then.
-
Surely though the fact we won both matches Bowery has started shows that he didn't get it woefully wrong?
We were drawing both games while Bowery was on the pitch.
We won once he'd been taken off.
So the tactics worked then.
Eh?
-
Surely though the fact we won both matches Bowery has started shows that he didn't get it woefully wrong?
This debate seems to have come full circle, so I'm going to leave it there gents. I'm off to bed. We see things very differently, but vive la difference. UTV.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
To whom?
You can't just magically create a buying club.
-
That's not the point. We have a multi-million pound proven international goal scorer sat on the bench, while we play a £500,000 recruit out of position ahead of him. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, you'd want to see Bent playing wide right? Really? Because that's the position that Lambert wanted filling. Plus, Bowery gave us height in the box at their set-pieces. Kind of worked too.
Seems to be some (deliberate?) confusion on this thread regarding Bowery and Bent.
I think most posters would agree that Bowery was asked to 'do a job' on the wide right. Opinions on how he did vary. Some say he worked hard and did as well as you could expect from a lower league player trying to make a massive step up. Others (me included) thought he looked like he'd never seen a football before. But eh, it's all about opinions and I try to respect what other say.
Then we come to Bent. The fact that he's getting splinters up his arse while we're in real danger of getting relegated makes you think something is not quite right.
We should either alter the formation to accommodate him or ask him to use his experience and adapt to the requirements of the team (eg like Gabby) or we should have moved him on and bought in adequate replacements.
Either way I think it is an indictment of Lambert's management that we have Bent on the bench and the likes of Bowery in the team.
when Bent has played he's rarely been threatening, we don't have to a team with wingers to give him the service he needs, he's not a work your knackers off forward, he doesn't fit the system.
Take your pick. Lambert did.
So that leaves 'option 3' - move him on use the cash to bring in replacements. Lambert didn't do this and therefore it's an indictment on his management to have £18m of unused asset on the bench.
The original post was about the West Ham game, nothing else.
-
You know tactics, where you set out to do one thing for say 45-60 minutes, then make a change or two at that point and win the match.
-
Sometimes as a manager you have to think outside the box to get the most out of the resources you have. Bent played plenty of football in a wide position in his time at Charlton, so knows the role. Yes, Lambert has made his choice, but in this case I for one think he's got it woefully wrong.
You are aware that we won yesterday? With Bowery on the right and Bent on the bench? Yes? No?
-
Lambert gets it spot on and he still gets a kick in by some on here. That's football fans I suppose.
-
Imagine if we'd lost both games Bowery had started. He'd be hanging from the North Stand by now.
-
Sometimes as a manager you have to think outside the box to get the most out of the resources you have. Bent played plenty of football in a wide position in his time at Charlton, so knows the role. Yes, Lambert has made his choice, but in this case I for one think he's got it woefully wrong.
You are aware that we won yesterday? With Bowery on the right and Bent on the bench? Yes? No?
Oh dear.
-
Sometimes as a manager you have to think outside the box to get the most out of the resources you have. Bent played plenty of football in a wide position in his time at Charlton, so knows the role. Yes, Lambert has made his choice, but in this case I for one think he's got it woefully wrong.
You are aware that we won yesterday? With Bowery on the right and Bent on the bench? Yes? No?
Oh dear.
Oh dear what?
-
can the matter be?
-
Two old ladies stuck in the lavatory.
-
You know tactics, where you set out to do one thing for say 45-60 minutes, then make a change or two at that point and win the match.
Yeah - but the common tactic was withdrawing the player you thought was somehow responsible for the wins.
Anyway - changing the subject completely before we all fall out - maybe we should have a thread on tactical masterstrokes. I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
The award for tactics across a season goes to SGT for 3-4-2-1 (or whatever) when we finished runners up finding a formula for melding 3 world class players into an otherwise average team.
-
Imagine if we'd lost both games Bowery had started. He'd be hanging from the North Stand by now.
we can but hope.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
To whom?
You can't just magically create a buying club.
Are you seriously saying there wasn't a club - anywhere in the world - who wasn't interested in buying a forward with a proven record of scoring 15+ goals a season?
-
So you'd like one of our players hung to death? What a lovely person you are. No wonder you don't understand the concept of tactics.
-
Let's not forget that Bent was also Lambert's captain at the beginning of the season, so selling him wasn't on the agenda at that time.
Yes, but he should have gone in January and players bought in with the proceeds.
To whom?
You can't just magically create a buying club.
Are you seriously saying there wasn't a club - anywhere in the world - who wasn't interested in buying a forward with a proven record of scoring 15+ goals a season?
I'm saying that there wasn't any club that put a bid in for one.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
-
So you'd like one of our players hung to death? What a lovely person you are. No wonder you don't understand the concept of tactics.
I have more understanding of tactics than you have of sarcastic black humour.
-
So you'd like one of our players hung to death? What a lovely person you are. No wonder you don't understand the concept of tactics.
I have more understanding of tactics than you have of sarcastic black humour.
No you don't. And it has to be funny to be considered humour.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
-
So you'd like one of our players hung to death? What a lovely person you are. No wonder you don't understand the concept of tactics.
I have more understanding of tactics than you have of sarcastic black humour.
No you don't.
I'm still waiting to hear of why withdrawing Bowery somehow supported his initial selection and won the two games you mentioned.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Actually - have this for free on me - Paul Birch man marking Lothar Matthaus vs. Inter Milan at home in 91(?)
-
Imagine if we'd lost both games Bowery had started. He'd be hanging from the North Stand by now.
we can but hope.
A wonderful touch of gentle ironic humour to lighten up my evening. I hope you come up with a joke about someone getting shot next.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
-
I watched him yesterday, and thought he looked young and nervous, touch let him down a few times, normally at pace. He worked and tracked back hard, I think if a touch or two had gone better, he would have settled. Tough team to play against for a start, Wet Spam were poor yesterday, but in the first half, smotheringly tight on most balls. (oo-er). I hope he steps up, as I liked the attitude
-
I watched him yesterday, and thought he looked young and nervous, touch let him down a few times, normally at pace. He worked and tracked back hard, I think if a touch or two had gone better, he would have settled. Tough team to play against for a start, Wet Spam were poor yesterday, but in the first half, smotheringly tight on most balls. (oo-er). I hope he steps up, as I liked the attitude
That's exactly how I saw it. I remember one occasion where there was acres of space opened where he could have dribbled into the box but he paused and the moment was gone. Had he got a lucky break there it could have really boosted his confidence.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
-
Spot on.
-
How about, we started with a player to help deal with West Ham's physical threat and when we saw that off we put one on to help us win the game?
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
Google is your friend. That will help you pick up the basics then we can go for intermediate level on here.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
Try again. Spot on.
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
Google is your friend. That will help you pick up the basics then we can go for intermediate level on here.
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
Try again. Spot on.
confused
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
Google is your friend. That will help you pick up the basics then we can go for intermediate level on here.
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
Try again. Spot on.
confused
No confusion P. I'm in agreement with you.
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
Google is your friend. That will help you pick up the basics then we can go for intermediate level on here.
Why do you avoid answering my question? Namely why was playing Bowery and then having to withdraw him in two games in order for us to go on and win an example of good tactics?
I'm asking a genuine question. You are being patronising and condescending. Not good for a moderator.
-
I'm not avoiding it. I've said that it's pointless IMO to try and explain tactics when you can think of only 2 examples in 45 years where tactics have played a major part in Villa results. I'm not going to write a War and Peace length post about tactics only for you to decide it's wrong anyway as you've already made up your mind.
-
LOL
-
Sorry, I laughed out loud at Chrisupnorth and Pestria confusing each other. Sorry again lads but it was funny.
-
I'm not avoiding it. I've said that it's pointless IMO to try and explain tactics when you can think of only 2 examples in 45 years where tactics have played a major part in Villa results. I'm not going to write a War and Peace length post about tactics only for you to decide it's wrong anyway as you've already made up your mind.
Well just give me a couple of quick examples then.
-
To be honest it's pretty pointless trying explain it when you seem to struggle with the basic concept of tactics and how they are implemented in different ways. And sorry if that sounds condescending but I can't think of any other way of putting it.
Go on please try Sir, I'm so eager to learn from a master.
Google is your friend. That will help you pick up the basics then we can go for intermediate level on here.
Why do you avoid answering my question? Namely why was playing Bowery and then having to withdraw him in two games in order for us to go on and win an example of good tactics?
I'm asking a genuine question. You are being patronising and condescending. Not good for a moderator.
Yesterday, the tactic was to play him to help out the defence at set pieces, strengthen up the right side and to help attack as well. The first two he did admirably, the third he didn't do well enough, although, as with all the team he started the first 10-15 mins brightly. When Weimann was subbed, we needed to change the tactics again to put proper wingers on for Bent. Hence Bowery off for Dawkins and Charles to the right. We sacrificed some of the defence aspect for the attacking ability as we needed to win that game. This was shown as West Ham actually only started to get good chances from the set pieces after that change (Bent off the line for one).
-
Bowery against West Ham. Fenton in midfield against ManUre. There's two quick ones.
-
Sorry, I laughed out loud at Chrisupnorth and Pestria confusing each other. Sorry again lads but it was funny.
We have to keep each other amused while waiting for you and PeterWithesShin to substantiate your arguments.
-
Pestria. Taking out the bias, did you watch Albion against Liverpool tonight. Good for insomnia, but also backs up PWS point. Dorrans played for about 70mins, dulling every Liverpool attack by being part of a deep defensive unit. WBA had not had a shot, never mind on target. Lukaku came on, WBA went forward, and had their first shot on target, went out for a corner, scored from it, then scored from the next break.
Namely why was playing Bowery and then having to withdraw him in two games in order for us to go on and win an example of good tactics?
Substitute Bowery for Dorrans, and hey presto, manager makes good decision (ditto yesterday)
-
Bowery against West Ham. Fenton in midfield against ManUre. There's two quick ones.
]
Fenton was the same game I mentioned - so that doesn't count.
Bowery - please explain some more as he wasn't on the pitch when we scored our goals and won the game.
-
Pestria. Taking out the bias, did you watch Albion against Liverpool tonight. Good for insomnia, but also backs up PWS point. Dorrans played for about 70mins, dulling every Liverpool attack by being part of a deep defensive unit. WBA had not had a shot, never mind on target. Lukaku came on, WBA went forward, and had their first shot on target, went out for a corner, scored from it, then scored from the next break.
Namely why was playing Bowery and then having to withdraw him in two games in order for us to go on and win an example of good tactics?
Substitute Bowery for Dorrans, and hey presto, manager makes good decision (ditto yesterday)
That's a fair argument - not one I can comment on not having seen the game - but is way more helpful than PWS.
-
Bowery against West Ham. Fenton in midfield against ManUre. There's two quick ones.
Fenton was the same game I mentioned - so that doesn't count.
Bowery - please explain some more as he wasn't on the pitch when we scored our goals and won the game.
Yes it does count as you claimed Dalian on the wing was the only tactic in 45 years of following Villa that you could remember.
And two people have just explained Bowery to you, as have others previously on this thread.
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
You've got me wrong. I'm not saying Lambert's a tactical genius. Far from it. The second half at VP vs Bradford was the most pathetic tactical display I've ever seen at this level. I'm just saying that tactics are very often the deciding factor in a closely matched game.
If you've not seen tactics affect a game for nigh on twenty years then you're watching it funny.
-
Tactics play a part in every game. I've just watched Liverpool-Albion. Albion kept it tight with a 4-5-1 line-up for 75 minutes and then went to 2 up top in the last 15 minutes. It was 0-0 when they made the change with Lukaku joining Long up top and they came away with a 2-0 win.
-
Ok fair enough OCD but that's still only two times in twenty years innit
-
I've been watching Villa since I was 4 (45 years) and can only remember one game in isolation where tactics were a clear deciding factor in a match and that was BFR using Dalian out wide in the League Cup Final.
Ahh. OK. This thread makes more sense with this bit of information.
Enlighten me then - I'm genuinely interested.
Just that, you know, tactics quite often affect the outcome of a match? Like ... er ... yesterday?
You can never prove it but most people think it's probably the case.
Tactics yesterday? We took off an ineffective player and replaced him with someone we *hoped* would be better. I don't call that tactics - that's common sense. if I was playing someone £3m a year then that's the least I would expect.
Are you going to actually come up with any examples of tactical nous or just tell me about subs?
You've got me wrong. I'm not saying Lambert's a tactical genius. Far from it. The second half at VP vs Bradford was the most pathetic tactical display I've ever seen at this level. I'm just saying that tactics are very often the deciding factor in a closely matched game.
If you've not seen tactics affect a game for nigh on twenty years then you're watching it funny.
I said where tactics in isolation (whatever that means) affected the outcome of a key game. Of course there are loads of minor changes here and there that make a massive difference. But generally most managers start off with their preferred system and pick the best 11 to implement it. If it isn't working they tinker with subs, try to nullify opposition layers having a good game. Maybe I underestimate managers but I often sense they think 'this isn't working' lets try to shake things up, let's throw on an extra striker etc.
I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play. The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).
Somewhat interestingly ManU maybe bucking this trend in not having the standout best squad but are currently leading the league by 12(?) points. But then again having Van Persie and Rooney makes for a lot of deficiencies elsewhere at Premiership level at least.
-
Bowery against West Ham. Fenton in midfield against ManUre. There's two quick ones.
Fenton was the same game I mentioned - so that doesn't count.
Bowery - please explain some more as he wasn't on the pitch when we scored our goals and won the game.
Yes it does count as you claimed Dalian on the wing was the only tactic in 45 years of following Villa that you could remember.
And two people have just explained Bowery to you, as have others previously on this thread.
A couple of people have mentioned the Baggies. Sorry to be a pedant - please explain Bowery vs. WHU to me.
-
It's been explained a few times already by different posters. Me saying pretty much the same thing again isn't going to change your view if you don't understand or agree with them.
-
It's been explained a few times already by different posters. Me saying pretty much the same thing again isn't going to change your view if you don't understand or agree with them.
No - I think it would. Please try - or at least quote the bits others have posted that you think adequately explain your point.
-
Or you could just read the last few pages again.
-
Or you could just read the last few pages again.
I'll take that as you can't answer my question.
Others have made reasonable points which I have acknowledged and debated. You have patronised and condescended.
I feel disappointed you couldn't engage in a more constructive way.
-
I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play. The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).
No. It's not vanishingly rare. It's pretty common really.
Ask yourself this: How did lowly Southampton beat Man city on Saturday?
Clearly Man City had the better players.
How can that happen?
Some of Southampton's side were probably from the Championship or below. Definitely not EPL standard.
Tactics? Act of God?
-
Surely every result from last season was down to tactics? Despite them not powering you into an 8-0 lead by half-time, they're still tactics
-
It does seem odd that by playing 3 forwards, we're actually more defensive than when playing Bent and Benteke up top.
But yesterday Bowery and Weimann essentially dropped back to make it a 4-5-1.
Bowery (I'm assuming) was asked to cover his fullback, provide an out ball and run the channel. Which he did.
I think he was played to make us more solid, and not as some potent attacking force.
If that was indeed his job, then as he left the field before West Ham scored, perhaps his inclusion was tactically sound?
When West Ham made changes we made ours, switched to a 4-4-2 (which also made us more open) and we won.
Bowery did a similar job against Ipswich on the opposite flank, after sixty minutes Gabby came on and we won.
That was either Bowery being ineffective, or Lambert believing a recently returning to fitness Gabby would be more effective coming on against tired legs for thirty minutes, rather than running against fresh legs for sixty minutes.
Both are tactics and judgement calls on Paul Lambert's part.
Personally as we won both games, I'm finding it difficult to criticise Bowery's inclusion.
-
I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play. The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).
No. It's not vanishingly rare. It's pretty common really.
Ask yourself this: How did lowly Southampton beat Man city on Saturday?
Clearly Man City had the better players.
How can that happen?
Some of Southampton's side were probably from the Championship or below. Definitely not EPL standard.
Tactics? Act of God?
TBF, a strange one to pick when all three goals were gifted to some degree, although they certianly did play better.
-
I've answered most that you asked. The only ones I haven't answered are about Bowery as it has already been explained more than once, which you acknowledge. So I can only assume you are trolling to keep wanting it repeated yet again.
And the wider concept of tactics which when you said you can only think of one in 45 years that determined a result indicates it would have to be an indepth explanation which I can't be arsed to spend time writing.
And I probably have been. Sorry if I have but it's hard to be honest and not be blunt.
-
I might be in the minority here but I thought Bowery did well yesterday...faded in the 2nd half as most would on debut...felt like the first time this season that either full back had any active cover in front of them...I think Lowton benefitted from this and is something that I hope continues. Would be nice if Gabby could be trusted to a) defend as well as sttack and b) stay wide.
I genuinely have a bit of hope following that performance, there was shape and organisation from the start, they actually strove to earn a foothold in the game rather than some of the gung ho nonsense we have seen recently, that allowed us to bring on the likes of Dawkins and Bent to try and open up later on.
-
Hutton & Heskey on the wing was a tactic I still have nightmares about.
-
TBF, a strange one to pick when all three goals were gifted to some degree, although they certianly did play better.
You're right. I didn't watch that game and have no idea whether tactics affected the outcome (don't tell pestria) but I'd be pretty sure they did.
-
I've answered most that you asked. The only ones I haven't answered are about Bowery as it has already been explained more than once, which you acknowledge. So I can only assume you are trolling to keep wanting it repeated yet again.
And the wider concept of tactics which when you said you can only think of one in 45 years that determined a result indicates it would have to be an indepth explanation which I can't be arsed to spend time writing.
And I probably have been. Sorry if I have but it's hard to be honest and not be blunt.
You haven't answered a single question I've asked of you. You have suggested that i should read what others have said and that it's a waste of your time having to explain to simpletons like me YOUR views on the tactical rational re. Bowery.
To me that makes you look a fuckwit. Sorry if that's uncalled for 'but it's hard to be honest and not be blunt.'
-
TBF, a strange one to pick when all three goals were gifted to some degree, although they certianly did play better.
You're right. I didn't watch that game and have no idea whether tactics affected the outcome (don't tell pestria) but I'd be pretty sure they did.
Lol
Good one to end on.
Goodnight.
Good health.
UTV
-
I've answered most that you asked. The only ones I haven't answered are about Bowery as it has already been explained more than once, which you acknowledge. So I can only assume you are trolling to keep wanting it repeated yet again.
And the wider concept of tactics which when you said you can only think of one in 45 years that determined a result indicates it would have to be an indepth explanation which I can't be arsed to spend time writing.
And I probably have been. Sorry if I have but it's hard to be honest and not be blunt.
You haven't answered a single question I've asked of you. You have suggested that i should read what others have said and that it's a waste of your time having to explain to simpletons like me YOUR views on the tactical rational re. Bowery.
To me that makes you look a fuckwit. Sorry if that's uncalled for 'but it's hard to be honest and not be blunt.'
“As regards the specific comments made by Mr Pestria, I have tried but can’t seem to come up with a response that reflects terribly well on me.”
-
You have to admit, it's been entertaining.
-
I might be in the minority here but I thought Bowery did well yesterday...faded in the 2nd half as most would on debut...felt like the first time this season that either full back had any active cover in front of them...I think Lowton benefitted from this and is something that I hope continues. Would be nice if Gabby could be trusted to a) defend as well as sttack and b) stay wide.
I genuinely have a bit of hope following that performance, there was shape and organisation from the start, they actually strove to earn a foothold in the game rather than some of the gung ho nonsense we have seen recently, that allowed us to bring on the likes of Dawkins and Bent to try and open up later on.
He got a generous round of applause from those sitting around me in P6.
Good point about shape and organization also. Let's hope this change has not come too late.
-
I think I get it:
When we lose it's because of Lambert's team choice and tactics and when we win it's despite Lambert's team choice and tactics.
Is that it?
-
Another tactic from Saturday was playing Baker at left back instead of Bennett because of his height i presume.
I'm not so sure playing Bowery was that tactical if i'm honest. Would he have played had Gabby been fit?
-
Hutton & Heskey on the wing was a tactic I still have nightmares about.
Shudder!
-
Bowery was totally tactical. Height at setpieces and someone to work hard on the wing. He tracked back well and won the ball a few times to set us up on attacks. He probably saw too much of the ball out wide, and had little option with what to do with it - also looked nervous and cautious in possession. Didn't do badly by any means, though.
-
I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play. The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).
Some cracking debate on this thread. Although I disagree with you on the Bowery situation, I think you've touched upon a great point here.
In my opinion, tactics are overrated by fans. The amount of information and statistics available to each managment staff makes it increasingly hard for any chinks in tactics and formations to be found out. I would say that over the course of a season roughly 80% of the season is determined by who has the best players, while the rest can be attributed to the managers tactics/formations/not picking the strongest XI when available and of course some teams may always be slightly more lucky to gain those few extras points that might see them a couple of places higher than their true ability should see them. I'd point to Newcastle last season as a good example here - their overall goal difference highlights this.
So basically, I believe it all boils down to the fact that the better the players you have, the higher the likelihood that you'll be higher up the league. The reason we've struggled this season can be put slightly down to the fact we've missed first team players such as Dunne all season and Vlaar in a very hectic Xmas period but mainly to the fact we have a lot of young players, who fast forward 5 years down the line will most probably be an 8th-12th standard side. At the moment as they are virtually all still learning the game, which has consequently led us to being a bottom 5 side.
-
I think the kid was alright , did ok at times , gave the ball away at other times . Would I play against Arsenal away , not in a million years .
-
Hutton & Heskey on the wing was a tactic I still have nightmares about.
Shudder!
Remember that noise Sideshow Bob made in the Simpsons episode where he kept getting hit on the head by a garden rake? I just made that noise.
-
Hutton & Heskey on the wing was a tactic I still have nightmares about.
Thanks for reminding me mate!
Jesus wept.
-
Bowery was totally tactical. Height at setpieces and someone to work hard on the wing. He tracked back well and won the ball a few times to set us up on attacks. He probably saw too much of the ball out wide, and had little option with what to do with it - also looked nervous and cautious in possession. Didn't do badly by any means, though.
That was my take on it as well, he didn't do brilliantly as an individual but him and Baker gave us more solidity on the flanks against the diagonal and at set peices. I could have sworn I posted that on here somewhere the other day but cant find it now.
-
I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play. The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).
Some cracking debate on this thread. Although I disagree with you on the Bowery situation, I think you've touched upon a great point here.
In my opinion, tactics are overrated by fans. The amount of information and statistics available to each managment staff makes it increasingly hard for any chinks in tactics and formations to be found out. I would say that over the course of a season roughly 80% of the season is determined by who has the best players, while the rest can be attributed to the managers tactics/formations/not picking the strongest XI when available and of course some teams may always be slightly more lucky to gain those few extras points that might see them a couple of places higher than their true ability should see them. I'd point to Newcastle last season as a good example here - their overall goal difference highlights this.
So basically, I believe it all boils down to the fact that the better the players you have, the higher the likelihood that you'll be higher up the league. The reason we've struggled this season can be put slightly down to the fact we've missed first team players such as Dunne all season and Vlaar in a very hectic Xmas period but mainly to the fact we have a lot of young players, who fast forward 5 years down the line will most probably be an 8th-12th standard side. At the moment as they are virtually all still learning the game, which has consequently led us to being a bottom 5 side.
So why is it that the likes of Norwich and Swansea as two examples have done so well? They are punching above their weight when you look at the players they have and have had on their books. It's down to tactics (which incorporates style of football and approach to the game) rather than individuals.
Clearly, if you've a team full of the very best players, you're likely to do better but Southampton stuffing Man City at the weekend is an example of your point being questionable....... :-)
-
Isn't playing Gabby wide a tactic? Isn't changing from 3 to a back 4 as tactic? isn't playing Benteke up top on his own a tactic? Isn't everything that is done on a professional football pitch the result of a tactic that's been employed, whether successfully or not? Therefore, starting with Bowery was a tactical decision. There, tactics.
-
With regard to those who are pointing out we only went ahead after Bowery was taken off, and that this suggests we're better without him, why ignore the fact that the 65 minutes he was on the pitch were a contribution, too?
We didn't concede in those 65 minutes - the game didn't randomly start on the 65th minute.
I am not saying we're better without him or with him, just that you can't really divorce his presence on the pitch for most of the game from the fact we looked pretty solid.
-
So why is it that the likes of Norwich and Swansea as two examples have done so well? They are punching above their weight when you look at the players they have and have had on their books. It's down to tactics (which incorporates style of football and approach to the game) rather than individuals.
Clearly, if you've a team full of the very best players, you're likely to do better but Southampton stuffing Man City at the weekend is an example of your point being questionable....... :-)
Good point. Regarding Norwich I think it's because Lambert and his predecessors at Norwich bought very well and bought in players that were/are capable of playing to an average to poor standard in the Premier League. All done on peanuts. Obviously tactics also played a part as well but the main thing about Lambert's success in the game is because he knows the right players to sign. Since Hughton has come in and tinkered with the playing staff gradually their overall form appears to be in decline - they haven't won a game since mid December. (I think they're bankers for relegation next year if it doesn't happen this year unless they get some serious investment).
Swansea have done a similar thing, but instead made a better choice when it came to the next manager to carry the process on. He then bought in several first XI players to supplement what they already had (Chico, Michu, Ki, Hernandez and De Guzman) Who have all had a tremendous season I'm sure you'd agree? Why? Because they are talented players.
Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.
-
With regard to those who are pointing out we only went ahead after Bowery was taken off, and that this suggests we're better without him, why ignore the fact that the 65 minutes he was on the pitch were a contribution, too?
We didn't concede in those 65 minutes - the game didn't randomly start on the 65th minute.
I am not saying we're better without him or with him, just that you can't really divorce his presence on the pitch for most of the game from the fact we looked pretty solid.
Exactly, it was a pragmatic selection where he was asked to a do a specific job and performed it pretty well. It contributed to us going into the last 20 minutes in a position where if we did score it should mean something.
-
for the benefit of pestria and chrisupnorth let me sum it up for you.
Our weakness for large parts of this season has been that our fullbacks have been isolated against an opposition winger and fullback. Giving them lots of time and space to work chances to cross. In turn this has led to our central players being drawn out of position, leaving big gaps in dangerous areas.
By starting with Weimann and Bowery out wide we had 2 players who Lambert trusted to put a shift in and stop this from happening. That proved to be effective as West Ham had no idea how to 'get at' us.
Like any tactic made for defensive reasons though we had to have a point where we decided to be more adventurous and go for the win, we did that and we got the win so the tactic and the timing of the change to it were successful. PL hasn't got either of those elements right as often as I'd have liked this season so praise where it's due and all that.
-
But, JR, doesn't that point re Swansea effectively amount to a negation of your point re the correleation between quality of players and standing in the league?
As Drummond mentioned, they've done exceptionally well with a bunch of players most of us had never heard of, and not only that, but they've done it while playing some of the best football in the league rather than resorting to the tactics, say, Stoke did to stay up and establish themselves.
Surely that suggests that actually tactics are very important?
Also, although it pains me to say it, look at Albion and how well they are doing. Under Hodgson they did well because they were so solidly organised. At Anfield last night, and at various points this season, they've won games you wouldn't have backed them to win precisely because of their shape and organisation - and surely that is all about tactics, too?
I entirely agree with your point re us this year and too many youngsters thrown in at the same time, and I think that a lot of our recent woes have been directly attributable to the total loss of confidence coming out of that thrashing at Chelsea.
Having said that, though, I don't think there is anythig wrong with buying and using younger, untried players per se - only when you are too reliant on them, and that has been our problem for a lot of this season.
-
players and tactics aren't mutually exclusive, if you have the right players to play your tactics then you play well.
Barcelona are the best example, they have a squad full of player who fit their style, can you see Xavi being successful playing for Stoke for example?
-
My view is that he looks like a guy who will put in a shift for his manager, and try his damned hardest to do the job asked of him. A real tryer.
He doesn't look a good footballer though. Yet.
-
players and tactics aren't mutually exclusive, if you have the right players to play your tactics then you play well.
Barcelona are the best example, they have a squad full of player who fit their style, can you see Xavi being successful playing for Stoke for example?
I great point that can also be applied to Darren Bent in our side.
As I see it, tactics are all about getting the most from your players, but it can't make them better than they are.
-
My view is that he looks like a guy who will put in a shift for his manager, and try his damned hardest to do the job asked of him. A real tryer.
He doesn't look a good footballer though. Yet.
Yep, "yet" being the operative word which a few people don't get.
He might not look brilliant now, but it also isn't anything like enough of a run-out to judge him not good enough, either.
Nobody is claiming he was amazing, just that the writing off of a young player making his home debut in a side full of young players, and young players playing with extremely fragile confidence at that, in a team which hasn't won for ages, and has a dreadful home record, is somewhat harsh.
-
Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.
So tactics do come into play in a one off game but don't over the longer term?
Of course the players at City are better, and better than every other squad in the league, yet they fine themselves 12 points off top spot.
Man Utd have some great players but player against player they aren't as good as City and sometimes you'd argue Chelsea as well, however, their tactics work and have done for years.
-
I'd have thought that Benteke would be the perfect example of not writing someone off based on a few appearances. Look how many said he was shit after 4 or 5 games.
Now i'm also not suggesting Bowery will be anywhere near the player Benteke is (there is a reason one of them cost £6.5mill more than the other) but give the kid a break, and a chance. He's a young lad making his first league start for us.
-
Simple answer to the tactics question. If you gave Ferguson and TSM the same set of players for a season who do you think would finish higher up? If you think tactics aren't important then I guess you'll answer that they'd be about level, does that sound right?
-
Surely that suggests that actually tactics are very important?
Also, although it pains me to say it, look at Albion and how well they are doing. Under Hodgson they did well because they were so solidly organised. At Anfield last night, and at various points this season, they've won games you wouldn't have backed them to win precisely because of their shape and organisation - and surely that is all about tactics, too?
West Brom can be explained also. Look at their figures last season regarding goals for/against and points:
45 gf
52 ga
47 points
This season barring injuries they are on course for totals around:
53 gf
51ga
54 points
So what changed from last season playing staff wise?
Their most started XI last season was:
1 GK Ben Foster 39
12 RB Steven Reid 21
23 CB Gareth McAuley 35
3 CB Jonas Olsson 34
20 LB Nicky Shorey 23
11 RM Chris Brunt 26
21 CM Youssouf Mulumbu 35
7 CM James Morrison 25
14 LM Jerome Thomas 28
24 CF Peter Odemwingie 27
9 CF Shane Long 24
This season out of that team they've replaced Shorey with Ridgewell for a large part of the season, and Billy Jones has replaced Reid for a good chunk. In midfield they bought in Yacob in the summer who has for a large part replaced Jerome Thomas, although they've had a mixture of starters outisde of the defence consisting of various selections from Morrison/Yacob/Brunt/Mulumbu/Godamnwingie/Long/Lukaku/Gera and Dorrans (incidently I don't know if anyone saw the stat regarding West Brom when Yacob and Mulumbu have played together last night but let's just say it was very telling).
Apart from Yacob the other significant first XI signing they made was Lukaku who has contributed 9 goals in the league so far.
So it's clear that despite the changes, defensively they're not improved at all but they are capable of scoring more goals as the two players they've added to the squad have ensured that.
I'm not saying tactics are not important. Far from it. I just think in the current game where the level of management is so high, especially in the Premier league, it becomes nigh on impossible to have a massive impact on your end of season outcome through tactical decisions. The fact that Martinez has managed to keep Wigan up for several years despite consistently having a bottom 5 squad reflects very well on his tactical decisions imo.
-
Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.
So tactics do come into play in a one off game but don't over the longer term?
Of course the players at City are better, and better than every other squad in the league, yet they fine themselves 12 points off top spot.
Man Utd have some great players but player against player they aren't as good as City and sometimes you'd argue Chelsea as well, however, their tactics work and have done for years.
The tactics are good, but more than that is they've grown a wining mentality as a club, so they're playing with the main thing we lack - confidence. They also have a real togetherness as a squad, which both Chelsea and Man City lack.
-
You said that it was about players not tactics. Now you're saying it's about tactics (citing Wigan's performances), make your mind up ;-)
-
Simple answer to the tactics question. If you gave Ferguson and TSM the same set of players for a season who do you think would finish higher up? If you think tactics aren't important then I guess you'll answer that they'd be about level, does that sound right?
They'd be trained better, motivated better and have better tactics. So the answer is Ferguson for a combination of reasons and not just tactics.
-
Yes, Bowery did well on Sunday. To be fair, he already looks a better version of how Heskey was in the last couple of seasons for us. And for so much less money. If we go down he'll do a decent job for us next season.
-
Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.
So tactics do come into play in a one off game but don't over the longer term?
Of course the players at City are better, and better than every other squad in the league, yet they fine themselves 12 points off top spot.
Man Utd have some great players but player against player they aren't as good as City and sometimes you'd argue Chelsea as well, however, their tactics work and have done for years.
No that's not the point I was making regarding that game. I'm saying anything can happen in a one off game, that doesn't mean I'm saying tactics influenced the outcome of that game (although I don't think Mancini is that blessed in that department, as you say their playing squad is probably the best in the league). Look at what happened in that game, Joe Hart made an absolute howler and Barry produced a beauty of an OG. Now that won't always happen will it? Therefore backing the point that anything can happen in a one off game. Just like Bradford could beat Swansea at Wembley, Swansea could give away a penalty and have a man sent off in the first 5 mins, but it's obviously very unlikely.
Look at the game last night. Liverpool battered Albion but ending up losing. Why? Not because they were outclassed, but because of a random outcome of a game. They had 23 shots to Albions 4 and 57% possession. If they score the penalty it would probably have been a different outcome. Let's say you play that game 100 times. Liverpool would probably win about 70 of them yes? It just so happens that 1 of the 9 times Albion would probably win came in last night.
The same applies to our game on Sunday. Chances are we would probably have won about 35/100 if the game was played that many times, we just happened to get that result in our favour on Sunday.
-
You said that it was about players not tactics. Now you're saying it's about tactics (citing Wigan's performances), make your mind up ;-)
I'm saying the part that Martinez can influence along with the purchase of players, he has done exceptionally well. My original point was that players are by far the most important component. I'm not saying they are the be all and end all.
-
I've recounted this story before. A bloke I know, who is a qualified coach, did some work with Tamworth youngsters and some scouting for the Villa, once spent a while talking to me about tactics and the influence they had on games then finished it off with something like "in the end though it comes down to players; ability, performance and attitude".
So, a manager has to get the right players in the right positions but after that it's down to how they perform as individuals and as a team. On Sunday, having the additional height in the team helped on set pieces and the long diagonal balls West Ham were likely to employ. So on that point a tactical decision contributed to the victory.
-
Simple answer to the tactics question. If you gave Ferguson and TSM the same set of players for a season who do you think would finish higher up? If you think tactics aren't important then I guess you'll answer that they'd be about level, does that sound right?
They'd be trained better, motivated better and have better tactics. So the answer is Ferguson for a combination of reasons and not just tactics.
So effectively there are 4 elements to a successful side.
Good Coaching
Confidence/Motivation
Good Players
Good Tactics and tactical use of resources
Man Utd have got all 4 right and are strolling to the title because of it.
In isolation any of those elements can make a side over-perform, MON has made a career of getting by on his ability to get a team motivated and playing with confidence in themselves. Man City have won the league last year despite having a fairly fractured squad and the manager not being the greatest tactician, because they have one of the best squads ever put together.
When teams get it right in all 4 cases is when you see things like the performances of Barcelona in the last few years.
-
As I said on Sunday I think Bowery put in a good shift and did what was asked of him, but he looks some way short of Premier League quality especially on the right. It worked ok on Sunday, which is great but I don't see him as a long term option in that role and I'm sure Lambert doesn't either.
-
I've recounted this story before. A bloke I know, who is a qualified coach, did some work with Tamworth youngsters and some scouting for the Villa, once spent a while talking to me about tactics and the influence they had on games then finished it off with something like "in the end though it comes down to players; ability, performance and attitude".
So, a manager has to get the right players in the right positions but after that it's down to how they perform as individuals and as a team. On Sunday, having the additional height in the team helped on set pieces and the long diagonal balls West Ham were likely to employ. So on that point a tactical decision contributed to the victory.
Interesting story. Pretty much how I see the game currently as well.
-
I've recounted this story before. A bloke I know, who is a qualified coach, did some work with Tamworth youngsters and some scouting for the Villa, once spent a while talking to me about tactics and the influence they had on games then finished it off with something like "in the end though it comes down to players; ability, performance and attitude".
So, a manager has to get the right players in the right positions but after that it's down to how they perform as individuals and as a team. On Sunday, having the additional height in the team helped on set pieces and the long diagonal balls West Ham were likely to employ. So on that point a tactical decision contributed to the victory.
so that'll be tactics then...
Don't over complicate things, a tactical decision can be as simple as telling your big striker to drift left because their right back is tiny, and those minor considerations can make a big difference.
Our game at home to tottenham is a great example of it. We started with a back 3 and had Herd, pretty much, man mark Bale, whilst Clark and Baker player more traditional central defensive roles. We looked nervous (understandable after Chelsea) but ok and certainly didn't look likely to be on the end of a battering. Then Baker got injured and we changed our shape. After that Bale was given loads of space and he punished us for it. It wasn't due to errors by players or particularly poor performance by anyone, it was that the new shape didn't account for him continuing to play as an inside left (mainly, in my opinion, because he'd been fairly quiet in the first half and Lambert thought we'd be ok). If you get a chance watch the goals form that game again, the players just didn't know who was supposed to be with him.
Sticking with the same example. If we'd had a world class defence they'd probably have sorted it out for themselves by adjusting how they played to take up his space. Even though this isn't a managers decision it's still a tactical realisation that stopping Bale is the key to stopping Tottenham.
-
Starting today and I can understand why. Needs to be better then he was against West Ham where he looked sluggish. Hopefully a little more sharp today.
-
I can understand why but I think it's a risk and a mistake.
Very happy to be completely wrong!
-
As I said on Sunday I think Bowery put in a good shift and did what was asked of him, but he looks some way short of Premier League quality especially on the right. It worked ok on Sunday, which is great but I don't see him as a long term option in that role and I'm sure Lambert doesn't either.
He shouldn`t look out of place today then :(
-
Fair play to the lad. he played very well. Should have scored tho in the second half.
-
I thought he did a good job in the first half. Looked a bit leggy early in the 2nd half and probably should've come off 10-15 minutes sooner but he worked his socks off defensively, dragged his man around and did well in the build up to the first. He's definitely worth keeping around the squad, the kind of dependable player you can bring in to do a job and trust him to do pretty well. Had 3 decent chances, unlucky with the one into the side netting and there was one that I don't think he knew much about where he headed down from a cross but the one begovic pushed away at the near post I think he could've done better, was at a nice height for the keeper, if you're going near post smack it at the top corner.
-
Cant complain for the money he cost - he is a useful squad option and did well today.
-
He looks a very useful player to have about. Not spectacular, but will work hard hard, and is intelligent enough to drop into space for the ball. Physically strong, he will end up having a decent career in the Championship probably. A bit like Harewood with more skill and less goal instinct, at significantly less cost. Would sell at a profit I would bet.
-
Only downside today is he seemed quite slow and sluggish. Almost like he was carrying a knock. He did one pulldown though that was world class.
-
The one from Guzan on the touchline? Was incredible, and the camera followed the flow like it was out and had to cut back into the play lol.
-
Can't knock him today really. Yes didn't take his chance but then neither did Andi. Showed some good feet too. Not too dissimilar to Walters really...hopefully more talented though :)
-
He's 19 is'nt he?
Good feet, good pace, unlucky in the 1st half, goalie made a good save in the 2nd.Looks a good prospect to me.
-
He's 19 is'nt he?
Good feet, good pace, unlucky in the 1st half, goalie made a good save in the 2nd.Looks a good prospect to me.
22 in a few months.
-
He's 19 is'nt he?
Good feet, good pace, unlucky in the 1st half, goalie made a good save in the 2nd.Looks a good prospect to me.
22 in a few months.
Still no age.
There's many a forward who didn't put it all together till mid-to-late twenties.
He looks good to me.
-
Looked good today to me. Surprised he started. Could have scored a couple. Expecting more of him for next season. Maybe should have been loaned out at some time earlier in the season.
-
Looked good today to me. Surprised he started. Could have scored a couple. Expecting more of him for next season. Maybe should have been loaned out at some time earlier in the season.
We couldn't really as there have been a number of times when he's the only striker we have on the bench due to Bent being injured.
-
His attitude is spot on. I think he knows he's very lucky to be playing PL football so he works very hard. A solid squad player.
-
He looked a little nervy at first but improved as the game went on.
-
Good work in the lead up to the first goal.
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked - I guess that Bowery and Weimann were supposed to support Benteke and leave Lowton to cover the right flank in attack, and take it in turns to help him out in defence. A few times we seemed a bit lopsided, and Lowton often had to go long (and lose possession) because there was noone offering a short pass in front of him.
That though isn't really Bowery's fault - he doesn't look completely sure in possession sometimes, but overall he did a decent job today. In fact having played a part in the first goal and threatened on a few other occasions I'm sure he did a lot better than most of us thought beforehand.
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked
Reflecting on the score I'm sure it did.
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked
Reflecting on the score I'm sure it did.
Fine point taken, but there were a few times when Lowton was left exposed. Against a better, or even competent, side I don't think we'll see the same team line up.
-
I make that 3 starts for Bowery and 3 wins. I'll take that.
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked - I guess that Bowery and Weimann were supposed to support Benteke and leave Lowton to cover the right flank in attack, and take it in turns to help him out in defence. A few times we seemed a bit lopsided, and Lowton often had to go long (and lose possession) because there was noone offering a short pass in front of him.
That though isn't really Bowery's fault - he doesn't look completely sure in possession sometimes, but overall he did a decent job today. In fact having played a part in the first goal and threatened on a few other occasions I'm sure he did a lot better than most of us thought beforehand.
From my post on the Lambert in or out thread...
what was interesting is that for a lot of the time we were playing a 4222 with Gabby and Weimann central behind Bowery and Benteke who were playing wider, which was pulling Huth and Shawcross out of the middle, Weimann shot on the post is a great example of it
I think the long passes down the side were part of the tactic. They were clearly going to try to double up on Benteke so we predicted it and played him wider than normal, with Bowery offering a similar out ball on the other side. I've not seen Benteke spend as much time out on the left before so I'm fairly sure it was a tactical decision.
-
Looks decent enough, still raw but could be a steal at 500k
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked - I guess that Bowery and Weimann were supposed to support Benteke and leave Lowton to cover the right flank in attack, and take it in turns to help him out in defence. A few times we seemed a bit lopsided, and Lowton often had to go long (and lose possession) because there was noone offering a short pass in front of him.
That though isn't really Bowery's fault - he doesn't look completely sure in possession sometimes, but overall he did a decent job today. In fact having played a part in the first goal and threatened on a few other occasions I'm sure he did a lot better than most of us thought beforehand.
From my post on the Lambert in or out thread...
what was interesting is that for a lot of the time we were playing a 4222 with Gabby and Weimann central behind Bowery and Benteke who were playing wider, which was pulling Huth and Shawcross out of the middle, Weimann shot on the post is a great example of it
I think the long passes down the side were part of the tactic. They were clearly going to try to double up on Benteke so we predicted it and played him wider than normal, with Bowery offering a similar out ball on the other side. I've not seen Benteke spend as much time out on the left before so I'm fairly sure it was a tactical decision.
Good and interesting point, though most of the long balls were fairly speculative. Good spot with Benteke going out wide, but though Weimann, Gabby and Bowery all found dangerous positions centrally it meant that we often had Weimann in the whole with his back to goal (not something he's good at), and Bowery attacking pretty aimlessly down the right (how many times did a promising attack turn go down the right, then back to the defence/Guzan?).
-
I thought he did fine today. Granted, he should probably have scored but he worked hard for the team and did a job in a position which probably isn't his favoured. As you would expect from someone who has played only a couple of PL games and was at Chesterfield not that long ago, he looks a bit raw, a bit in awe of it still but worth persisting with him for sure.
-
I thought he did fine today. Granted, he should probably have scored but he worked hard for the team and did a job in a position which probably isn't his favoured. As you would expect from someone who has played only a couple of PL games and was at Chesterfield not that long ago, he looks a bit raw, a bit in awe of it still but worth persisting with him for sure.
Well put Matt, I totally agree with your comments. He did the job asked of him.
-
Sorry but seems to me to be a million miles away from being a PL player! Not good enough I'm afraid! And that's me being polite!
-
Sorry but seems to me to be a million miles away from being a PL player! Not good enough I'm afraid! And that's me being polite!
he#s played 8 games and is 21 years old, on top of that he's generally done what's been asked to do, why write him off as not good enough at this point? He's go enough about him to be a useful backup player as stands and may develop into more than that, let's give him a bit more of a chance.
-
Sorry but seems to me to be a million miles away from being a PL player! Not good enough I'm afraid! And that's me being polite!
People said the same about Westwood after the Soton game earlier in the season. Nothing is set in stone for him yet. Had he been woeful, it wouldn't mean he wouldn't make it. Had he been sensational and scored a hattrick, it wouldn't mean he will make it. Just give him a chance until he has played enough games to make a reasonable judgement on him. At least when people write of Bannan or Albrighton, they have played enough games to form an opinion on. This was Bowery's SECOND league start FFS!
-
Whatever happened to stuart445?
-
People being far too quick to write off some of our players is a feature of this season. Give the kid a break, FFS. He did well today, and almost scored. Twice, in fact.
Big ups, by the way, to those who told us Benteke and Westwood weren't good enough so early this season.
-
Whatever happened to stuart445?
Fled the Benteke thread in shame never to return?
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked
Reflecting on the score I'm sure it did.
Fine point taken, but there were a few times when Lowton was left exposed. Against a better, or even competent, side I don't think we'll see the same team line up.
But we weren't playing a better or competent side, we were playing Stoke, and it's entirely possible the manager chose the team and formation to reflect that, surely?
For some people there always has to be an element of "yeah, but ...." even when we win.
We've won 3-1 at a place we never win, against a team we've dragged into the relegation battle, we've scored the best goal scored by a Villa player in several years, the press are united in insisting we were the better team by so much, it was embarrassing, and we've even managed to throw in coming back from an undeserved setback.
What more do people want?
-
Reflecting on the game I'm not sure Lambert's formation really worked
Reflecting on the score I'm sure it did.
Fine point taken, but there were a few times when Lowton was left exposed. Against a better, or even competent, side I don't think we'll see the same team line up.
But we weren't playing a better or competent side, we were playing Stoke, and it's entirely possible the manager chose the team and formation to reflect that, surely?
For some people there always has to be an element of "yeah, but ...." even when we win.
We've won 3-1 at a place we never win, against a team we've dragged into the relegation battle, we've scored the best goal scored by a Villa player in several years, the press are united in insisting we were the better team by so much, it was embarrassing, and we've even managed to throw in coming back from an undeserved setback.
What more do people want?
Nothing, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the game/selection/formation etc. in retrospect.
-
Discussing it is one thing. Complaining about team selection and tactics after we won 3-1 away seems a bit daft.
-
Nothing, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the game/selection/formation etc. in retrospect.
But moaning about what would have happened had we played a better team with that formation?
Even if you get over the sapping negativity of it, like i said, there's no guarantee we'd have lined up like that against a better team in any case.
Relax and enjoy a marvellous result.
-
Nothing, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the game/selection/formation etc. in retrospect.
But moaning about what would have happened had we played a better team with that formation?
Even if you get over the sapping negativity of it, like i said, there's no guarantee we'd have lined up like that against a better team in any case.
Relax and enjoy a marvellous result.
Bit of an overreaction I think - I didn't moan or really complain, just question the formation, and sapping negativity? There might be plenty of that around on here but its not normally from me. Change the first sentence of my original post to 'didn't work perfectly' and I think its pretty reasonable.
And I bet there's not one of us who isn't enjoying the result (relaxing might take a few weeks)!
-
FWIW, teams win in spite of all sort of mistakes all the time, including team selection errors. I think it illustrates just how vastly superior we are to Stoke today that - at least in my view - we hampered ourselves with the choice of starting eleven.
-
People being far too quick to write off some of our players is a feature of this season. Give the kid a break, FFS. He did well today, and almost scored. Twice, in fact.
Big ups, by the way, to those who told us Benteke and Westwood weren't good enough so early this season.
I'll add those that said Delph would never be good enough. Respect *taps chest*
-
FWIW, teams win in spite of all sort of mistakes all the time, including team selection errors. I think it illustrates just how vastly superior we are to Stoke today that - at least in my view - we hampered ourselves with the choice of starting eleven.
Very few of them limit their opponents to 2 shots on target and score three and create another 5 or 6 great chances. Away from home.
-
FWIW, teams win in spite of all sort of mistakes all the time, including team selection errors. I think it illustrates just how vastly superior we are to Stoke today that - at least in my view - we hampered ourselves with the choice of starting eleven.
No, sorry, can't accept this. We sent a massive message to Stoke with our selection - "We are going to attack and we are going to score".
In what way do you reckon we could have selected a better team to start the game?
-
I'll add those that said Delph would never be good enough. Respect *taps chest*
Delph put in a performance against Bradford of almost willful gashness. Since then, however, he's been getting better and better (the yellow cards notwithstanding, and he really needs to work on that). Today he looked assured, like he really believed he deserves to be there.
No, sorry, can't accept this. We sent a massive message to Stoke with our selection - "We are going to attack and we are going to score".
In what way do you reckon we could have selected a better team to start the game?
Very few of them limit their opponents to 2 shots on target and score three and create another 5 or 6 great chances. Away from home.
Oh agreed. We were miles, miles better than them, it was like watching something extremely stupid getting beaten to death with a book of crosswords. And Bowery did contribute, especially off the ball, he works both bollocks off. However, if we'd played, say, N'Zogbia from the start instead, I believe we'd have sent a much more attacking message to Stoke, rather than showing up a defensive insecurity, and given ourselves a better chance of not letting them back into the game, not least because our counter-attack threat would have been so potent as to neuter them completely.
It's just a view, and the issue is an academic one. But it would be complacent to assume there can never be improvements even after such a comprehensive win, particularly when we consider how poor Stoke were.
-
Starting with 4 strikers is a pretty decent sign we planned to attack. Sure Bowery is useful at defending set pieces, but ultimately he is a striker. And did Stoke play so bad, in part at least, due to our formation, tactics and how we played? We'll never know for certain but could well have contributed.
As for Delph, i've maintained for a long time there was a player there. Maybe we are finally seeing it as he is injury free and getting a run with a manager who believes in him. Whatever the reason, long may it last!
-
Delph has the legs to drive the game on from the midfield and appears to be learning to tackle from somebody other than Paul Scholes.
-
Oh of course we can't know for sure, and it's not like Bowery went out there and did a Heskey. However, there were a few occasions where he ran down blind alleys or dwelled on the ball too long and it seemed to take the sting out of our attacks. Having said that, those are two criticisms which absolutely apply to Zog at his worst, so there's no cut-and-dried argument here.
Also, the formation and overall tactics were absolutely spot on. We didn't long-ball them, like they're set up to defend against, and they looked lost. I was worried Lambert was falling into that weird fallacy that some managers do when playing Stoke, or Allardyce: trying to fight fire with fire even if you have water available. Lambert was smarter than that and it paid off in a big way.
-
Every player does that sometimes though, I bet even Messi does it sometimes ;D
We have to remember Bowery was making only his second start at this level so is going to be even more prone to the occasional error or bad decision. I'll admit to being perplexed when I heard the team news inside the ground. Neither me or Mr Sox could work out the formation. But can't argue with it as it worked. I doubt many sides have been to the Brit the last few years and dominated like we did.
-
I really think the selection of Bowery was a 'fuck you, we're going to outscore you' gesture from Lambert.
Fuck it, I like the bloke, many a manager would have shut up shop by now and hoped successive 0-0 draws would see us over the line but not Plumbutt, it's nerve wracking but it's fun!
-
I really think the selection of Bowery was a 'fuck you, we're going to outscore you' gesture from Lambert.
I was saying the same thing to Old Father Sandman when I saw the lineup. Stoke are a team who score few and concede few so picking four strikers is a move that has some logic to it. It's not like Bowery stunk the place out (something that N'Zog has managed more than once) with his performance and I think it is good that Lambert is giving him starts to pick up experience. For someone we signed for a few hundred grand from Chesterfield he's actually a very decent player, not brilliant, but decent.
-
I thought that he looked very nervous, so not sure if he is capable for the big league yet. It was a brave move by Lambert but it made total sense to me. Benteke needed a partner to combat their physical defensive strength, he couldn't do it on his own. So throw he the young big lad to cause a few ripples and take some pressure off.
-
I really think the selection of Bowery was a 'fuck you, we're going to outscore you' gesture from Lambert.
Fuck it, I like the bloke, many a manager would have shut up shop by now and hoped successive 0-0 draws would see us over the line but not Plumbutt, it's nerve wracking but it's fun!
It was about his physical presence, both defensively but also offensively.
-
I cannot believe after he held off their guy to slip in Lowton for our first goal, and then went close to scoring 3 times himself, held it up well and cleared out of our box a number of times people are still moaning about Bowery! He did exactly what we needed from him, and I have seen worse players at this level!
Overall I think Dave is right the selection said we will be big and physical AND out play you, and we did. Anyone can see the bloke has been very brave with his buying and selection and most can see it has long term benefits.
-
Nothing, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss the game/selection/formation etc. in retrospect.
But moaning about what would have happened had we played a better team with that formation?
Even if you get over the sapping negativity of it, like i said, there's no guarantee we'd have lined up like that against a better team in any case.
Relax and enjoy a marvellous result.
People want to go back 12 months, buy 4-5 5 million run of the mill prem plodders on big wages, finish safe and have a tactically boring but safe manager. Lambert got battered before kick off for Bowery yesterday. Then people said Sylla was poor when on, but I saw him win the ball 4-5 times including for the 3rd goal.
-
He definitely did alright, especially for th ee first hour. His hold up play was good.
Having said that, in that first half there's a good chance nzogbia would have ripped them to pieces. Or done nothing.
-
Some people just have to be able to criticise and currently Jordan Bowery is a target.
He's done as well as anyone could have expected considering his background and could well turn out to be a great buy, a solid one or just average. He won't cost us anything though and is a typical example of the sort of player Lambert wants, young, hungry and a team player.
-
I bet we would double the 500k we paid for him now.
In fact, I think very few of the players bought last summer we would lose anything on, and some we would double or triple our money on.
-
I bet we would double the 500k we paid for him now.
In fact, I think very few of the players bought last summer we would lose anything on, and some we would double or triple our money on.
Only really kea who has been a flop , Lowton, benteke , Bennett , Westwood all look quality young players - sylla has impressed me too what I've seen so far - Vlaar and dawkins the jury is still out on for me .
-
I thought he did ok yesterday. Unlucky not to score and helped out in the build up to the first goal. I thought he should have gone off earlier a bit earlier than he did though.
-
I cannot believe after he held off their guy to slip in Lowton for our first goal, and then went close to scoring 3 times himself, held it up well and cleared out of our box a number of times people are still moaning about Bowery! He did exactly what we needed from him, and I have seen worse players at this level!
Overall I think Dave is right the selection said we will be big and physical AND out play you, and we did. Anyone can see the bloke has been very brave with his buying and selection and most can see it has long term benefits.
This.
PL has selected Bowery against WHU and Stoke - both games he obviously felt required more bulk and a more offensive approach. It worked, both times.
Can't ask more than that.
-
2 starts. 2 wins. Correct? Can't complain.
-
I also think it worked really well. While most of Strokes (well they played like they were suffering) big defenders were busy taking care of Benteke, Bowery added a lot of movement, hustle and bustle that freed up Gabby a lot more. Nzog is very much a lightweight in that role and Bowery looked to me much more likely to score than Zog usually does.
-
Stuck a big lad against a team of hulks and it worked. The lad got a bit of skill and if he makes it great, if not the kid will earn a living in the game.
-
I like him, he obviously does exactly as the manager asks and we win because of it.
-
The lad is a trier and will probably get better and as we are and likely to be for a couple of years middle table / bottom half team (IMHO) then he will be ok for us as impact player and occasional starter.
Agree we would double money paid for him.
And for those being negative about him well please save your ire for the long list of ne'er do wells , lazy twunts and shit stirring snakes who have not graced our team over the last 30 years - Hodge, Collymore, Warnock to name but 3.
-
I thought he played really well yesterday.
Was a bit dubious when I saw his name on the big screen starting as I thought he was just in for his height but I thought he gave an energetic display and could easily have scored, either the rebound from Weimann's shot when he slipped or early in the second half.
I didn't think he'd amount to much but who knows in time he might be a useful squad player for us.
-
Lambert obviously sees something in the lad that even Chesterfield couldn't see. Given he's only played out of position so far, I think he's not done too shabbily at all. He works hard, does what he's told. Actually I never expected to see much of him this season at all.
I do think we missed a bit of the flair and dribbling ability Zog could have given us down the right yesterday. Particularly as Stoke were very flimsy there. Bowery didn't really have it in his locker to run at people with the ball so had to double back a few times and a few attacks broke down. But again, he's a striker, not a winger (yet anyway...Lambert may see JB as a wide player long term maybe).
-
I like him, he obviously does exactly as the manager asks and we win because of it.
Yes. PL seems to give him a specific job, and he gets it done. I have to admit that each time he has been picked to start I have raised an eyebrow, Roger Moore stylee.
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
-
He doesn't look a naturally gifted footballer to me, but he gives it everything he has got.
-
I was surprised he made the starting line up Saturday. He looked okay to good overall. If his inclusion was at the expense of Bannan then he will keep his place for Saturday as he offered more and looked like he had a goal in him something Bannan doesn't have yet.
-
limited footballer or not, we've got another 6 battles ahead and we need to yield at least 6 points to ensure safety. bowery will give it his all for the team, i couldn't say the same about stephen ireland.
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
Not really. I wouldn't start considering win ratios for so few games. And lets face it N'Zogbia could have had an absolute field day against Stokes shite back line. They were all over the shop.
Bowery did okay but nothing more.
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
Not really. I wouldn't start considering win ratios for so few games. And lets face it N'Zogbia could have had an absolute field day against Stokes shite back line. They were all over the shop.
Bowery did okay but nothing more.
I don 't really get this argument, Bowery did his job and we won, nzogbia could've been better but also could've been a lot worse.
-
Credit where credit's due. I said Lambert had made a mistake playing this kid before the game started but I was talking bollocks. He does not look like a 2nd Division player and some of his touches Saturday were very good. He could easily play in the Championship and in time we will make a profit on him.
-
limited footballer or not, we've got another 6 battles ahead and we need to yield at least 6 points to ensure safety. bowery will give it his all for the team, i couldn't say the same about stephen ireland.
This. I have always said I will sacrifice some talent for guarenteed commitment and professionalism.
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio show we have not beat them since 1984 at there place so i do not see your logic. Bowery looked tired well before he came off as he is obviously not match fit. When Nzogbia came on he livened our play up. I think he should of of come on 15 mins earlier and his introduction resulted in a victory ........
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio show we have not beat them since 1984 at there place so i do not see your logic. Bowery looked tired well before he came off as he is obviously not match fit. When Nzogbia came on he livened our play up. I think he should of of come on 15 mins earlier and his introduction resulted in a victory ........
It's a pretty huge leap to give nzogbia credit for the victory to be honest. When he came on he did exactly what was expected of him, after replacing another player who did exactly what was asked of him. 15minutes earlier and things may have been totally different. We dominated Stoke at the britannia for most of the match, won 3-1 and didn't have anyone play badly for 90minutes but still people want to slag players off as not good enough, you're all insane.
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio show we have not beat them since 1984 at there place so i do not see your logic. Bowery looked tired well before he came off as he is obviously not match fit. When Nzogbia came on he livened our play up. I think he should of of come on 15 mins earlier and his introduction resulted in a victory ........
It's a pretty huge leap to give nzogbia credit for the victory to be honest. When he came on he did exactly what was expected of him, after replacing another player who did exactly what was asked of him. 15minutes earlier and things may have been totally different. We dominated Stoke at the britannia for most of the match, won 3-1 and didn't have anyone play badly for 90minutes but still people want to slag players off as not good enough, you're all insane.
Paul i am not slagging Bowery. I just said he is very average. He did what he was told to do and done ok. I am merely saying i thought Zoggy should of come on earlier as i thought Bowery was tiring. I thought the whole team put in a great shift and every one of them deserves massive praise including Bowery .......
-
Very average but might improve after a full pre-season. Nzogbia should of been brought on much earlier with a tired defence ......
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio with him in the team show you're talking rubbish.
The scoreline, statistics and our win ratio show we have not beat them since 1984 at there place so i do not see your logic. Bowery looked tired well before he came off as he is obviously not match fit. When Nzogbia came on he livened our play up. I think he should of of come on 15 mins earlier and his introduction resulted in a victory ........
It's a pretty huge leap to give nzogbia credit for the victory to be honest. When he came on he did exactly what was expected of him, after replacing another player who did exactly what was asked of him. 15minutes earlier and things may have been totally different. We dominated Stoke at the britannia for most of the match, won 3-1 and didn't have anyone play badly for 90minutes but still people want to slag players off as not good enough, you're all insane.
Paul i am not slagging Bowery. I just said he is very average. He did what he was told to do and done ok. I am merely saying i thought Zoggy should of come on earlier as i thought Bowery was tiring. I thought the whole team put in a great shift and every one of them deserves massive praise including Bowery .......
To me calling a player very average after 2 starts (both games we've won) is a very tame form of slagging him off. It's all about how it reads. For example:
Nothing spectacular so far but has done the job asked of him whenever he's been involved. He did tire a lot though (probably because he hasn't played much) and was sruggling with the pace by the time he came off.
Is virtually the same as you wrote without the negative 'vibe'. That's what I'm getting at, far too many people on here are scared to have anything positive to say so even when we should be happy there's people saying Lambert got the tactics wrong and that we were lucky that Lowton scored a wonder strike to save the game. That's why I said you're all insane, it was a general comment to my thoughts on the majority of people on here at the moment, although opinions do seem to be turning a bit now.
-
N'zog has been much improved since the new year, I thought he should've came on for Gabby tbh.
That said he was messing around with the ball and was disposesed which lead to the Stoke free kick that Jerome comcially smashed into Fenton at 1-1.
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
-
Paul Lambert has urged Jordan Bowery to build on his encouraging display against Stoke after hailing the forward's potential.
Bowery was handed a surprise start - only his third since joining from Chesterfield in August - in last Saturday's 3-1 win at the Britannia Stadium.
And the 21-year-old repaid Lambert's faith by producing a lively performance.
As well as playing a big part in the build-up to Gabby Agbonlahor's opening goal, he went close with two opportunities of his own.
In the first half Bowery brushed the side-netting with a 25-yard shot and after the break he forced Stoke goalkeeper Asmir Begovic into a fine near-post save.
Lambert was impressed with Bowery's efforts on the right hand side of Villa's four-pronged attack.
"I get great satisfaction seeing footballers doing well, it's never about myself," said the Villa boss.
"Jordan was excellent at Stoke. He hasn't played for a long time. He's a young lad, but he's another one who has got a lot of potential.
"I thought he was outstanding on the right side for us. He did brilliantly for the first goal with Matty Lowton. His general performance was excellent.
"He was a threat during the time he was on and one bit of skill was outstanding."
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
Whilst that would be the general consensus, since the team in general has picked up he's put in as much effort when he's been on the pitch as any other player. He's put more effort into his playing time of late than he had in the whole of the previous season and a bit.
I like him. He's probably the only sort of player like that we have. He wants to beat players, ok, it doesn't always come off, but he's probably the only player at the club who can do it.
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
Whilst that would be the general consensus, since the team in general has picked up he's put in as much effort when he's been on the pitch as any other player. He's put more effort into his playing time of late than he had in the whole of the previous season and a bit.
Bearing in mind how much he's earning, effort is what he should be putting in.
He'd be a much better player if he looked up and passed the ball rather than try and take on two players and fail. Thinking about it, i can't remember the last time he set up a goal. There's definatley a quality player there but he's taking his time showing it.
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
Whilst that would be the general consensus, since the team in general has picked up he's put in as much effort when he's been on the pitch as any other player. He's put more effort into his playing time of late than he had in the whole of the previous season and a bit.
I like him. He's probably the only sort of player like that we have. He wants to beat players, ok, it doesn't always come off, but he's probably the only player at the club who can do it.
Worth noting that, despite him playing well, since he was dropped we've won 3 in 4. That's the crux for me, I don't think nzogbia makes us a better team, even when he's playing well.
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
Whilst that would be the general consensus, since the team in general has picked up he's put in as much effort when he's been on the pitch as any other player. He's put more effort into his playing time of late than he had in the whole of the previous season and a bit.
I like him. He's probably the only sort of player like that we have. He wants to beat players, ok, it doesn't always come off, but he's probably the only player at the club who can do it.
Well, I'm not a fan of Charles. He's only ever been consistent for one half-season at Wigan.
He was very in-and-out at Barcodes and has not perormed as a senior / expensive player for us.
Maybe he will next season ...
... but then, maybe he won't.
I'd be looking to offload.
-
I'd keep N'Zogbia. Watch how great he is in the final year of his contract.
-
N'Zogbia is (and will continue to be) the sort of inconsistant player who will play well if he feels like it. Will never be the type to give 100% week in, week out.
Whilst that would be the general consensus, since the team in general has picked up he's put in as much effort when he's been on the pitch as any other player. He's put more effort into his playing time of late than he had in the whole of the previous season and a bit.
I like him. He's probably the only sort of player like that we have. He wants to beat players, ok, it doesn't always come off, but he's probably the only player at the club who can do it.
Worth noting that, despite him playing well, since he was dropped we've won 3 in 4. That's the crux for me, I don't think nzogbia makes us a better team, even when he's playing well.
You could also argue that Delph missed two of those games, and he's, arguably, been our best player of late.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's a world beater, and I probably wouldn't start him at the moment, but there's a good player in there I think and would keep him.
-
I'd keep N'Zogbia. Watch how great he is in the final year of his contract.
A useful option from the bench but really he should and could be so much more than that.
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
Rotherham? He wasn't great but I thought there'd be bigger clubs than that in for him. Did we get a fee??
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
Not sure it was bizarre. Rather we gave an opportunity to a lower league player and it didn't come off. In an alternate universe David Platt left us after a year for Stockport.
-
Good luck to him. Just way, way out of his depth. I'm all for taking punts, but taking a punt on a L2 also-ran? No...was never going to amount to anything.
One good display against a half-arsed Hull aside, he looked well out of his depth at this level. A club like Rotherham will be good for him. Championship next season, a good chance for him to try and have an impact at that level.
-
He was occasionally childishly amusing.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bpwr8RKIcAArM1Y.jpg)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2conc5c.jpg)
-
Love that wheelchair clip.
-
He can show that pic to his kids how he was once lucky to be on a plane with some professional football players who played in a purple kit.
-
He can show that pic to his kids how he was once lucky to be on a plane with some professional football players who played in a purple kit.
My guess is that Roy Keane saw those clips and had it written into his contract that Bowery would leave the club before his arrival.
-
Best of luck to him. Hope he does well.
-
He's just about at his level. Hope he does well for Rotherham, I think he will.
-
He was occasionally childishly amusing.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bpwr8RKIcAArM1Y.jpg)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2conc5c.jpg)
Ha. Kind of wish we'd have kept him now.
-
Apparently Rotherham have smashed their transfer record to sign him ....
So was over £140k
-
you missed a decimal point; I think it was £1.40
-
He can show that pic to his kids how he was once lucky to be on a plane with some professional football players
.. and Yacouba Sylla
-
Yeah, was always a punt, not sure he was better than any of our kids we already had but at least we've contributed to his pension plan.
-
Villa will regret letting him go. It's Martin Carruthers all over again.
-
Villa will regret letting him go. It's Martin Carruthers all over again.
I'll never forget my older mate telling me he'd seen him in Busy Lizzy's on John Bright St dancing really badly in MC Hammer style trousers.
-
He was occasionally childishly amusing.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bpwr8RKIcAArM1Y.jpg)
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2conc5c.jpg)
Any ideas where these players are travelling to? We haven't been near Europe for years.
-
Liked the song we had for him.
Sigh.... We'll never get the chance now to see what would have happened if he actually scored.
-
People knock Bowery but, fair play, if you disregarded the goals he scored last season we would have finished 15th.
-
quite true, he's the footballer's footballer.
-
Pleased he's gone, he always looked out of his depth. We've got Robinson as our new bright young thing so JB wont be missed. It amazed me on numerous occasions last season why JB got in over CR!
-
Unusual signing in that we actually got a transfer fee for him when he left.
-
People knock Bowery but, fair play, if you disregarded the goals he scored last season we would have finished 15th.
True, I'll never forget his finish against Hull. Just to divert that cross that was going harmlessly wide took a special talent.
-
He never done it for us it never worked out he should do better at Rotherham good luck to him.
-
Good luck JB. Can't believe he has left. Jordan Bowery, the man, the myth, the legend.
I'm off to hold a candlelit vigil at VP in his honour.
-
Good luck JB. Can't believe he has left. Jordan Bowery, the man, the myth, the legend.
I'm off to hold a candlelit vigil at VP in his honour.
You should expect gridlock around Villa Park. Try not to get overcome with the huge crowd.
-
Is he the first ever striker who's Villa career has finished on a tally of -1?
-
Good luck JB. Can't believe he has left. Jordan Bowery, the man, the myth, the legend.
I'm off to hold a candlelit vigil at VP in his honour.
You should expect gridlock around Villa Park. Try not to get overcome with the huge crowd.
Now I know how teenage girls felt when Take That split up and hormonal women felt when the Queen of Hearts died.
/heartbroken
-
He never done it for us it never worked out he should do better at Rotherham good luck to him.
About sums it up.
-
I've got no feeling of ill will, antipathy or apathy regarding him. It didn't come off good luck to him.
-
He never done it for us it never worked out he should do better at Rotherham good luck to him.
About sums it up.
Darren always nails it.
-
The horny b'stard.
-
Good luck JB. Can't believe he has left. Jordan Bowery, the man, the myth, the legend.
I'm off to hold a candlelit vigil at VP in his honour.
Wearing your signed Bowery poppy shirt ?
When we go to away games next season it compulsory for you to wear said shirt.
-
I give it two weeks before Bowery's name appears in the "Villa players you forgot played for us" thread.
-
Good luck JB. Can't believe he has left. Jordan Bowery, the man, the myth, the legend.
I'm off to hold a candlelit vigil at VP in his honour.
Wearing your signed Bowery poppy shirt ?
When we go to away games next season it compulsory for you to wear said shirt.
Are you mad? I'm not wearing something that rare and collectible. It's currently under armed guard and on its way to a vault in Fort Knox.
-
I give it two weeks before Bowery's name appears in the "Villa players you forgot played for us" thread.
who's Bowery?
-
I give it two weeks before Bowery's name appears in the "Villa players you forgot played for us" thread.
who's Bowery?
The lad that used to play for Palace?
-
I hear Elton John is releasing a commemorative single, called 'Wanking in the Wind'.
-
I give it two weeks before Bowery's name appears in the "Villa players you forgot played for us" thread.
who's Bowery?
The lad that used to play for Palace?
He's Rotherham's record signing!
-
I knew this summer would bring some good news eventually
-
I give it two weeks before Bowery's name appears in the "Villa players you forgot played for us" thread.
who's Bowery?
The lad that used to play for Palace?
He's Rotherham's record signing!
That's unless you count the Chuckle Brothers.
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
Yep . One of the weirdest signings in the history of football.
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
Yep . One of the weirdest signings in the history of football.
a PL club buying a lower league player that didn't work out hardly consititues "One of the weirdest signings in the history of football"
For that review the file for Berson, M
-
Point being he'd played 80 odd games at league 2 level and had a 1 in 10 goal ratio.
-
Or Salifou, M.
-
Point being he'd played 80 odd games at league 2 level and had a 1 in 10 goal ratio.
and then spent two seasons with us * including a loan spell * and still didn't manage a single goal
-
Is he the first ever striker who's Villa career has finished on a tally of -1?
Yes. He's beaten Balaban record of 0
-
Or Salifou, M.
Or Stevens, E.
-
Point being he'd played 80 odd games at league 2 level and had a 1 in 10 goal ratio.
Some players don't have their breakthrough season until later, it didn't work out but he was very cheap and someone clearly saw some potential. This really isn't that bizarre.
For example, Rickie Lambert was a 1 in 7 striker as a 22 year old, with 160ish appearances, and he is going to represent England at a world cup in a few days time and had a 1 in 2 record for Southampton.
I'm not comparing Bowery's potential to that of Lambert, just pointing out that failing to score loads of goals as an 18-21 year old doesn't mean you'll never make anything of a career. The chances are it won't happen for Bowery but clearly someone at Villa, be it Lambert, Karsa or someone else, saw enough to think he worth a gamble for the cost. It sounds like we've made a fair chunk his fee back anyway.
-
Or Salifou, M.
Or Stevens, E.
That could be the enda those comparisons.
-
Or Salifou, M.
Or Stevens, E.
That could be the enda those comparisons.
You Mustapha few more up your sleeve.
-
Or Salifou, M.
Or Stevens, E.
That could be the enda those comparisons.
You Mustapha few more up your sleeve.
I can re-djemba us making shit signings longer ago than those two.
-
So what do we think Bowery cost us in transfer fee and wages over a couple of seasons?
-
I heard from a Forest fan that they were offered him for £250,000 but turned him down. What did we pay for him? £500,000?
-
So what do we think Bowery cost us in transfer fee and wages over a couple of seasons?
As far as premier league type costs go in fees and wages not a lot.
-
Joined Rotherham.
Tried his best but what a bizarre signing.
Yep . One of the weirdest signings in the history of football.
a PL club buying a lower league player that didn't work out hardly consititues "One of the weirdest signings in the history of football"
For that review the file for Berson, M
I always thought Berson looked a half decent player. Bowery on the other hand really was a strange one. I've nothing against taking a punt on lower league players if they show some promise but even Chesterfield fans were flummoxed over that one.
-
We gave him enough limelight to get his way with Tulisa, so fair play to the lad. Scored well off the pitch at least.
-
Bowery has gone and there is not one reason to care. Except that, when the pressure is mounting on him to score for Rotherham, you can guarantee Villa will ensure that his goal(s) knock us out of a domestic cup.
-
We gave him enough limelight to get his way with Tulisa, so fair play to the lad. Scored well off the pitch at least.
Et Tu Lisa?
-
Good luck to him. He always gave us 100%. I hope he enjoyed his shot at the Premier League.
-
Good luck to the lad. I have known far worse Villa players get a lot less piss taken out of them than Jordan has had during his spell with us.
-
Good luck to him. He always gave us 100%. I hope he enjoyed his shot at the Premier League.
Just one shot?
And one goal.
Good average that!
-
Last straw for me. If they'd sent me my season ticket yet I'd be tearing it up. He could've been our Messi.
Sack the Board.
-
Good luck mate
-
I guess compared to heskey he's been decent value...
-
Never had more than a few minutes in his proper position. Created a couple of goals which probably matches up favourably with super-marc and N'Zogbia over the same period. Best of luck to him.
-
Jordan good luck. I hope you have a very long career in football.
-
April 11th 2014. Paul Lambert on being impressed with Jordan Bowerys improvement. 'Jordan was excellent at stoke he hasn't played for a long time. I thought he was outstanding on the right side for us. He has a lot of potential.' June 10th 2014. Aston Villa striker Jordan Bowery joins Rotherham United for an undisclosed fee.
-
April 11th 2014. Paul Lambert on being impressed with Jordan Bowerys improvement. 'Jordan was excellent at stoke he hasn't played for a long time. I thought he was outstanding on the right side for us. He has a lot of potential.' June 10th 2014. Aston Villa striker Jordan Bowery joins Rotherham United for an undisclosed fee.
You gotta learn the LamboLimboLingo to abstract he essence from the formal appearance of the text. Then you would discern that what he was really saying was "I'll be fucking the useless oaf off early doors. This gig is FUBAR. The franchise is fucked also".
-
I wish him all the best, he always tried his hardest. Plenty of Villa players with more talent would've been far better had they tried as much as our Jordan. I'm looking at you Stephen Ireland.
-
I wish him all the best, he always tried his hardest. Plenty of Villa players with more talent would've been far better had they tried as much as our Jordan. I'm looking at you Stephen Ireland.
Don't stare too long. He's still got the same soulless eyes, like piss-holes in the snow.
-
He banged Tulisa?
-
that's the only real point of interest in this thread. The lucky, lucky boy
-
Who is Tulisa? From the drooling I deduce that she is female and highly prized but in what way? An heiress? Pop star? Glamour model? Athlete? I need to know this stuff to be able to converse with my grandsons.
-
In case you think I am taking the piss I am the man who, in the green room after one of my son's shows asked Britney Spears what she did for a living.
-
Blimey, Damon must be more famous than I thought. He has a room named after him during his shows and has groupies like Britney sitting in it.
-
Brian, Tulisa used to have the X Factor. Personally, judging from all those sex tapes you can find on the web, I'd say she's still got it.
-
Never found her remotely interesting on any levels - Tulisa - Britney was all right.
As for Jordan again, blame the game not the player. Not his fault he was taken from a mediocre time at Chesterfield to have a go at playing in the Prem. He was out of his depth buit played okay in a couple of games. Stoke away last season he did very well. He filled in when needed, never made any horrible howlers and didn't look out of his depth in the way lazy-arsed players do. He ried just didn't add much more than a trier could.
That he's gone to the Championship - where we think quite a few of our players should be - shows that his level wasn't as far below our team as some are making out.
-
good luck to him. hope he does well.
-
Peter w. That's til he bombs at Rotherham . It may take him another year or two to find his level.
-
Peter w. That's til he bombs at Rotherham . It may take him another year or two to find his level.
At least he'll get the chance at Rotherham.
It was asking a huge amount for him to step up and perform at this level, certainly without a prolonged run at it, which he never got. There's sufficient difference between the top flight and the Championship for it to work out for him.
I hope he does. It's not his fault that he couldn't make the big jump required to come here, under the prevailing circumstances. It's not as if he failed here because he sat around moping and complaining all the time.
Best of luck to him.
-
The thing about Bowery is we took a chance for a relatively small outlay. If it takes 6 or 7 such punts to find that hidden gem, then it'll be well worth it, so you nee to view it as part of an overall process and not as a one off signing.
-
He's gone? I missed that one.
Does that mean Helenius might get a chance now? I'd like to see what he can do
-
The Gladiator is supposed to be leaving, according to his agent.
-
To Rome? Or LA?
-
Looking forward to Bowery scoring the winner against Blues next season.
-
Or, of course, scoring the WINNER for them next season ='unkind emoticon'.
-
Looking forward to Bowery scoring the winner against Blues next season.
Now that prospect has cheered me up!