Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: paulcomben on September 07, 2013, 12:58:15 PM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24000972
Great city. Not so sure about the footy team.
-
Nigel Reo-Coker, 'a big advocate of life'
-
Good luck to him.
-
My favourite Villa player ever, much under-rated by those on here who don't appreciate the art of passing...
-
He's at his level now though he hardly sets the league alight. There are many better players. He had a good thing at Villa and he'd be a good squad player if his agent didn't fill his head with delusions of grandeur. Still, he comes across as a decent bloke and I was happy when we signed him. Good luck to him.
-
Fair play to him, he seems really happy with his lot.
-
£15m we spent on him. He'd better be fucking happy with life!
-
£15m we spent on him. He'd better be fucking happy with life!
£8.5 wasn't it...which was still OTT but that was MON for you i'm afraid.
-
£15m we spent on him. He'd better be fucking happy with life!
£8.5 wasn't it...which was still OTT but that was MON for you i'm afraid.
I'm including wages.
-
Good luck to him. He largely did well for us, particularly when he got a run in the side. For all his limitations you always got 110% commitment and he was one of the few vocal players around his time here. He's obviously pretty influential for them already.
-
He was very good at organising the team huddles and pointing at people when things went wrong, but he was a piss poor footballer, and cost us a fortune.
-
I am happy that Nigel is happy.
-
Oh Deadly got a fishing buddy if he need one :)
-
I liked him:
(http://i4.birminghammail.co.uk/incoming/article111166.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/image-2-for-aston-villa-v-juventus-gallery-196322145-111166.jpg)
-
I liked him too. He was better than made out.
-
"We go again"!
-
Good luck to him, great place to live too.
-
I am happy that Nigel is happy.
I am happy nigel is happy and not here
-
Good luck to him.
-
Good luck to him. Always liked 'Nige'. Can't really see why people have an issue with him?
-
Good luck to him. Always liked 'Nige'. Can't really see why people have an issue with him?
MON-buy. He was one of the better buys by MON if you don't take the fee into account.
-
Would Paul Lambert use him in our team and keep him ?
-
We'll never know.
-
About the nicest thing I can say about him is that he tried hard. If he was half as good as he thought he was he'd have been a regularfor England.
-
Very good player now living in the worlds best city
Good luck NRC
-
To be fair to him we often looked better with him in the side because of his energy. MON didnt really give him a great run, and started him more as a stop gap on the right flank, and occasionally right back.
Particularly under Houllier I thought Nige was pretty good when given a run of games, and when he was out of the side we looked very flimsy. That said his footballing limitations meant he'd always be a stop gap sort of player someone like Houllier who want to get us playing football. Perhaps Makoun was initially sought to be Niges long term replacement.
I wouldn't have him back now though. Delph is doing his job but with more quality on the ball.
-
He fell out with O'Neill too, which you'd think would at least buy him some kudos these days.
-
Actually thinking back to Nige and one moment sticks in my mind as a perfect summation of him as a player. It's in part why I always liked him, but also why he was never top 6 standard player.
The Peace Cup before O Neills final season. We're playing Juve. It's the last minute of 120 and IIRC Nige has played every minute and covered every blade of grass. We're under the cosh a bit. Juve keep attacking but can't get through our defence or past the mighty Guzan having a Bossie-esque game.
We're just hanging on in there for pens. Nige intercepts a ball on the edge of our box and then despite the fact he's been running round like a maniac for 120 minutes, he takes the ball and runs all the from our box, through about 4-5 of their players to the edge of there box. Its awe inspiring, it's fantastic...
But then he doesnt know what to do with the ball. He tries to run past one player too many and then gives the ball away. However it's just about enough to take the pressure away and we hang on for pens, and ultimately the win.
-
When was the one on one with the keeper where he forget what his feet were for and fell on his arse?
-
I liked him too. He was better than made out.
But worse than he made out.
Good at best, workmanlike is a reasonable assessment...but nice bloke
-
He fell out with O'Neill too, which you'd think would at least buy him some kudos these days.
Ah yes.... Contretemps.
I always thought NRC was a bit average and summed up why we hit a glass ceiling at 6th.
-
He wasn't rubbish just not worth anywhere near the amount we paid for him.
-
Blimey, NRC. It all seems so long ago.
-
He fell out with O'Neill too, which you'd think would at least buy him some kudos these days.
Yeah, but often when we talk about players, we get confused and mix up two different points - what they're like as people, and what they're like as players.
I am sure NRC had his positive points as a person (scrapping with that turd O'Neill, for a start), but as a player, I found him fucking useless, and that's the thing that matters most in the context of Villa.
It's like when people say "yeah, Emile, he's a nice bloke, never moaned (at earning 65k a week, quelle surprise), always gave 100 percent" - yeah, maybe, but the main issue with him was that he, too, was fucking rubbish.
See also Marlon F Harewood.
-
He fell out with O'Neill too, which you'd think would at least buy him some kudos these days.
Yeah, but often when we talk about players, we get confused and mix up two different points - what they're like as people, and what they're like as players.
I am sure NRC had his positive points as a person (scrapping with that turd O'Neill, for a start), but as a player, I found him fucking useless, and that's the thing that matters most in the context of Villa.
It's like when people say "yeah, Emile, he's a nice bloke, never moaned (at earning 65k a week, quelle surprise), always gave 100 percent" - yeah, maybe, but the main issue with him was that he, too, was fucking rubbish.
See also Marlon F Harewood.
He was never useless though. Heskey was useless. Warnock became beyond useless. Reo Coker always did his job, worked like a dog and won the ball. He forgot he was shit at football from time to time, but generally to break up play and win the ball he was good. And generally, we were a better team right up to the moment he left with him in it than not. He was also a leader, and that shone through. He was shit at passing and shooting, but he could carry the ball and win it.
-
To put NRC in the same bracket as Heskey or Harewood is both unfair and incorrect. He was a good player with some redeeming qualities and a number of limitations. His failing was neither he or his agent saw those limitations and thus got a little too carried away what might be available to them on the open market.
-
Sounds exactly like he should be in the same bracket as Heskey who also had redeeming qualities and a number of limitations.
-
Very good player now living in the worlds best city
Good luck NRC
Third best. ;)
-
Limited player who was bought at a high cost.
-
When was the one on one with the keeper where he forget what his feet were for and fell on his arse?
The 0-0 against Chav$ki.
-
Limited player who was bought at a high cost.
That would sum it up for me. At his best I thought he gave us a bit of fight in midfield and he got stuck in impressively, but his passing was consistently woeful. At times it was hard to believe just how poor his passing was. He also suffered from that affliction visited upon quite a few modern footballers of thinking he was some sort of philosopher, when instead he was clearly just Nigel Reo-Coker.
-
Second touch always a tackle.
-
To put NRC in the same bracket as Heskey or Harewood is both unfair and incorrect. He was a good player with some redeeming qualities and a number of limitations. His failing was neither he or his agent saw those limitations and thus got a little too carried away what might be available to them on the open market.
Of course, it's subjective.
You think he had redeeming qualities, I didn't. I saw a very limited player indeed who could barely be relied on to pass the ball with success to someone standing five yard away.
What isn't subjective is the amount of money he cost us over his period here. What a gigantic waste, and a perfect poster boy for the kind of profligacy as a result of MON's short sighted, lazy approach to buying players.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
-
He played well under Houllier and actually in his preferred central midfield position rather than being sent to RB.
He should've played more games for us than say someone like Sidwell but obviously there was a personality clash with him and MON.
Really should've stayed with us as I'd have above many of the midfield options we've tried out since. Going to Bolton seemed strange to me, just makes you think what on earth he was earning here not to attract much interest from other premier league clubs and have to go to America before he hits 30.
-
Did he ever give his side of the MON Reo-Choker incident or did O'Neill have him gagged?
-
Have to agree with Paulie
NRC was a total crock of.....
Couldnt pass, couldnt shoot but could occasionally tackle. Very, very limited footballer.
In terms of value for money probably the worst signing of the MON era.
Bizarrely enough, as proven in this discussion, some thought him quite good. Not being able to secure a contract in this country says it all
-
I rated NRC despite his limitations. He kept shape, got stuck in and always did the simple things well. He let the Barry's, Youngs and Milners play while NRC was the grafter, and every midfield needs one player to break up play and keep it simple. Was disappointed to see him leave, and wish him all the best. Shame his agent shafted him. Would I have him back? Not now, we've moved on and out style of play has changed. But I'd have certainly have him in the same above Herd - who for me is a poor mans NRC.
-
We've tried a lot of midfield players since he left in 2011.
Makoun (probably his replacement at the time)
Michael Bradley
Jenas
Delph 2011-2013 (before the new improved version kicked in from February onwards)
Bannan
Herd
Ireland
Obviously not all the same sort of midfielder like NRC but my word we've had some very mediocre and poor performers in there.
It's still a bit underwhelming now to me but at least we have some decent passers and defensive able players in there.
-
I am happy that Nigel is happy.
I am happy nigel is happy and not here
And if young Nigel says he's happy, he must be happy in his world.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
That's exactly what I was thinking but failing to communicate.
20 million pounds to have had a player as limited as NRC playing for you for four years. 20 million pounds. Christ.
I don't mind when huge money gets spent on really, really good players. It is when it goes on utterly average ones that it annoys me.
-
He should've played more games for us than say someone like Sidwell but obviously there was a personality clash with him and MON.
I don't know about that, wasn't our best run of form in the last decade when we had Petrov, Barry and Sidwell in midfield, Young and Milner on the wings and Gabby up front?
That's not to say that Sidwell was the integral cog in that formation (as he clearly wasn't), when Reo-Coker had those six around him we didn't do anything like as well.
-
He should've played more games for us than say someone like Sidwell but obviously there was a personality clash with him and MON.
I don't know about that, wasn't our best run of form in the last decade when we had Petrov, Barry and Sidwell in midfield, Young and Milner on the wings and Gabby up front?
That's not to say that Sidwell was the integral cog in that formation (as he clearly wasn't), when Reo-Coker had those six around him we didn't do anything like as well.
The weird thing about that run was that Sidwell wasnt exactly brilliant during it. He never stood out, he looked pretty mediocre with and without the ball. But at the same time we seemed to look better having him in there. Whether that was merely just having the extra bod in midfield I don't know, or maybe our expectation of Sidwell was different to the type of player he actually was. I expected him to be a pretty decent footballer when he signed for us, on the basis or a couple of impressive games when we played Reading a year previously. He came here but on the ball he was desperately mediocre. Just another player who can run solidly for 90 minutes and disrupt the opposition.
That said I still think Coker proved better value than Sidwell. Just.
-
Though NRC was very effective at what he did best - play deep in midfield breaking up attacks and putting himself about. When Stan Petrov played alongside him as his 'minder' he had an outlet to play the simple ball to. NRC also could go on some very impressive runs with the ball at his feet, but as has been pointed out there was rarely if ever any end product to these runs.
But I saw the feature of him at Vancouver and he seemed very happy and settled so fair play.
-
I am happy that Nigel is happy.
I am happy nigel is happy and not here
And if young Nigel says he's happy, he must be happy in his world.
Good thing about him is that he likes to speak and he loves to be spoken to.
-
Have to agree with Paulie
NRC was a total crock of.....
Couldnt pass, couldnt shoot but could occasionally tackle. Very, very limited footballer.
In terms of value for money probably the worst signing of the MON era.
Bizarrely enough, as proven in this discussion, some thought him quite good. Not being able to secure a contract in this country says it all
There are worse players who have. Is he, for instance, any worse than Cattermole?
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
There are lot worse players to have played for Villa in the last few years than him. I always thought as a team we looked better with him in it despite his limitations. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
Because players who cost £8.5m tend to have significantly higher wages than those who cost 500k?
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
Because players who cost £8.5m tend to have significantly higher wages than those who cost 500k?
So players don't ever sign new contracts with higher wages? I think you know what point I was making, don't pretend you don't.
-
I'm not pretending anything. I don't really know the point you're making, to be honest.
If a transfer is a success, people don't complain about the cost - because it has gone well. If a transfer is iffy, people are more likely to complain about the full costs, especially when it is an expensive player on big money.
What's controversial about that?
-
I'm not pretending anything. I don't really know the point you're making, to be honest.
If a transfer is a success, people don't complain about the cost - because it has gone well. If a transfer is iffy, people are more likely to complain about the full costs, especially when it is an expensive player on big money.
What's controversial about that?
Or when it suits your arguement. Like I said, people like to make out that players that are a success* cost pennies, and forego the whole wages thing altogether. But when they want to have a dig at a player/signing, the wages thing is raked up to make a signing look like an abomination. It's not like 'succesful'* signings play for free.
*succesful being very subjective
-
I'm not pretending anything. I don't really know the point you're making, to be honest.
If a transfer is a success, people don't complain about the cost - because it has gone well. If a transfer is iffy, people are more likely to complain about the full costs, especially when it is an expensive player on big money.
What's controversial about that?
Or when it suits your arguement. Like I said, people like to make out that players that are a success* cost pennies, and forego the whole wages thing altogether. But when they want to have a dig at a player/signing, the wages thing is raked up to make a signing look like an abomination. It's not like 'succesful'* signings play for free.
*succesful being very subjective
Once again, it's because people don't really care too much about the global cost when things have gone well. It's when they don't go particularly well that they look at them.
It's one reason why people will say "Alan Hutton 4m, then 40k a week for 5 years = £14m" but not "Ashley Young = £11m, then 60k a week for 4 years = £23m".
Then there's the fact that good players, we sell on, and recoup a lot of money anyway. Like Young, Milner and others. I've never heard anyone suggest they cost pennies.
NRC is one of a number of players we signed, kept for four years, then let walk away for nothing. It's not like nobody ever mentions Heskey or Beye in those circumstances, either, it is far from just NRC, and another reason people mention it is because the club has bled money by players doing precisely that over the last few years. And we still are (Given, Hutton, Ireland to a certain extent).
-
I'm not going after you on this Paulie, It's just something that fascinates me.
To me wages are a moot point because nothing represents value for money where premier league wages are concerned. I don't see how the mentality around a signing that goes well only seems to cost the transfer fee, and one that goes badly costs the fee, wages, agents fees, bus fare, steak dinner etc!
-
I agree with glasses. The use of wages in cost is selective. The wage bill is what the wage bill is, if we weren't paying it to NRC we'd have been paying it someone else. Of course the key is to pay it to someone who at least goes some way to deserving it but this is never going to be the case 100% of the time.
For what it's worth I think NRC did well for a year and was then perhaps a bit unlucky to be out of the team for a year or two after that.
-
The value of players is so screwed up now, such as the Ozil/Bale comparison, that I've gotten to the point where I almost no longer care what they cost, be it fee or wages. If you factor in cost, then should Delph not be 4 times (or something like that) the player Westwood is? Or is it better to just enjoy them playing for us and not worry about it?
NRC was, in my opinion, a useful although limited player. Good at what he did and not able to improve what he couldn't. He was worse value than Ashley Young, who cost more, but played better and more often, and better value than Habib Beye, who cost less, but played less and worse.
-
In my opinion, of course wages should be included when talking what a player cost the club. Or was Jenas a bargain because he was only on loan?
I get your point in a way though, player x is bought for £10m, does well and leaves 4 years later for £20m and a lot of people say we made £10m profit. We didn't, unless he played for free while he was with us.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
There are lot worse players to have played for Villa in the last few years than him. I always thought as a team we looked better with him in it despite his limitations. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
What Paulie said mostly. If you think Nigel Reo Coker was worth the money he cost us, great. I happen to think we'd have got better value elsewhere.
-
I remember when we played West Ham in MON's first season and NRC ran the show that day for West Ham, although we won with a Carew goal. I came away from the match thinking that is the sort of player we needed. He had been England U21 captain, was captaining West Ham and looked an excellent buy when we got him.
Sometimes players look better when they are playing against us than when they play for us, as was the case with NRC. It can be that different team styles of play does not suit them and they cannot adapt their game or it can simply be that the more you see them play, the more you see the week points in their game.
I always had time for him and I do believe he gave everything when he played. He probably gave too much at times and is possibly the reason for the bust up with MON. In our counter attacking 442 he did not have the room that he needed to make up for his ball control that was not the best to say the least and he always seemed to pick the ball up in positions on the pitch he was not comfortable in.
All in all, the fee we paid for him and the wages could have been money well spent but as it turned out, the wages were too high for what MON got out of him. Was that down to the player or the manager. GH seemed to get more out of him playing a different style of football and perhaps putting more confidence in him.
-
In my opinion, of course wages should be included when talking what a player cost the club. Or was Jenas a bargain because he was only on loan?
I get your point in a way though, player x is bought for £10m, does well and leaves 4 years later for £20m and a lot of people say we made £10m profit. We didn't, unless he played for free while he was with us.
Thank you for at least partly understanding what I was getting at!
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
There are lot worse players to have played for Villa in the last few years than him. I always thought as a team we looked better with him in it despite his limitations. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
What Paulie said mostly. If you think Nigel Reo Coker was worth the money he cost us, great. I happen to think we'd have got better value elsewhere.
I don't think anybody is worth the money they cost us in wages, whether they are good, bad or ugly. It's all too much. Like Paulie, you missed my point too.
-
He was okay, nothing more, nothing less.
He wasn't worth anywhere near what we paid but I feel we could've developed him into a better player had we had a more progressive manager. Roughly the same way I feel about Curtis Davies. See how Delph is now blossoming under Lambert by comparison.
My main memories of Reo-Coker are his brilliant debut against Inter where I thought we'd signed the next Vieira, and his running onto a pass in the dying seconds against Chelsea when, with just the keeper to beat, every Villa fan in the ground knew there was no chance in Hell of him scoring.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
There are lot worse players to have played for Villa in the last few years than him. I always thought as a team we looked better with him in it despite his limitations. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
What Paulie said mostly. If you think Nigel Reo Coker was worth the money he cost us, great. I happen to think we'd have got better value elsewhere.
I don't think anybody is worth the money they cost us in wages, whether they are good, bad or ugly. It's all too much. Like Paulie, you missed my point too.
Of course it is, but that's an argument that just leads into a dead end, though. All footballers earn too much money, they cost too much and earn too much, but they get what they get.
It's nice when they contribute something, it's not nice when they don't. Our problem has been the number of players we have walk away for nothing having run down their contract.
I doubt any club has come near us for it in recent years. NRC, Heskey, Beye, Cuellar, Dunne, Ireland, and Hutton, Given, Bent in the process of doing the same.
It's a gigantic spunking away of money.
-
He was alright. Not shit, not spectacular. He did okay, earned a fortune in four years then walked away to earn another fortune. It says everything about the insanity of both the Premier League and our transfer policy under O'Neill that 'okay' can cost the best part of £20 million.
Why is it that whenever fans are analysing a players value, if you think he's rubbish, you include the wages in the total cost, but when the transfer is considered a success, it's always, 'he only cost £500k, fantastic business!'
There are lot worse players to have played for Villa in the last few years than him. I always thought as a team we looked better with him in it despite his limitations. Sometimes a team is greater than the sum of its parts.
What Paulie said mostly. If you think Nigel Reo Coker was worth the money he cost us, great. I happen to think we'd have got better value elsewhere.
I don't think anybody is worth the money they cost us in wages, whether they are good, bad or ugly. It's all too much. Like Paulie, you missed my point too.
I get your point, and so did Doug Ellis.
-
I liked him because he twatted O'Neill.
-
In terms of his ability, he was excellent when we didn’t have the ball, but about as good as a pub-player when we did. His technical ability in terms of passing, dribbling was bad as you’ll see in a top-flight player.
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
The real shame is that if he’d even been half-decent in possession he would have been a top-drawer player in the same vein of Makalele. Unfortunately his limitations but him somewhere just below George boating on that chart.
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
Dion Dublin on Robbie Savage.
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
Dion Dublin on Robbie Savage.
Stan Collymore on Stan Collymore?
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
Dion Dublin on Robbie Savage.
:o
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
Paul Birch on Paul Gascoigne.
-
Having said that, I defy anyone to watch the man-to-man job he did on Christian Ronaldo at VP whilst playing right-back, and find a more comprehensive job of stifling a world-class player anywhere.
Paul Birch on Mattheus
Dion Dublin on Robbie Savage.
:o
You don't think Savage was world class?
;D