Houllier says Ireland Must Up His Game

[KevinGage]

I think one of the problems facing Ireland is the fact that he was signed as part of the Milner deal, and a lot of fans will be expecting him to be a similar sort of player, when he clearly isn't.

As I've said before, his best time at Man City was as part of a quick front three with Robinho and Bellamy, so to recreate that we need to play him in a simlar position. Something like this -

---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------

Of course we'd then need to put three more disciplined midfielders behind them. So with our squad that would best being -

---Petrov------------------NRC---
---------------Delph---------------
---Ireland--------------Young---
------------Agbonlahor-----------

Of course, as it stands we don't have the personnel available to do that, so we are not playing him where suits him best. That formation is also pretty cruel on Downing and Albrighton who have been a couple of our better performers so far.

In think more than anything else we need two solid, genuine CM's behind him.
The rest is flexible.

[Chris Smith]

Both players are the same age, both careers have followed a similar trajectory to date

I don't think Houllier, Hughes, O'Neill or Mancini would agree with you.

When Ireland is at the top of his game he's the more aesthetically pleasing player but it's at least 12 months since anyone has seen that whereas I don't think you ever get less than a 7/10 performance from Milner.

[KevinGage]

The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about. 

I'm not going to try and second guess the ranking system any of them have vis a vis Ireland and Milner though. Apart from Mancini I don't see how you could possibly have a definitive answer either way.

[pauliewalnuts]

The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about. 

According to General Krulak yesterday, MON was deeply involved in the Ireland deal, and wanted it to happen.

[PaulTheVillan]

Both players are the same age, both careers have followed a similar trajectory to date

I don't think Houllier, Hughes, O'Neill or Mancini would agree with you.

When Ireland is at the top of his game he's the more aesthetically pleasing player but it's at least 12 months since anyone has seen that whereas I don't think you ever get less than a 7/10 performance from Milner.

Both have done very little this season for their new clubs.

[Chris Smith]

The others perhaps, but some of Ireland's best form was under Hughes so I wouldn't be so sure on that one. MON was also keen by all accounts to do a separate deal for Ireland long before the Milner interest came about. 

I'm not going to try and second guess the ranking system any of them have vis a vis Ireland and Milner though. Apart from Mancini I don't see how you could possibly have a definitive answer either way.

Hughes dropped Ireland, Mancini more or less ignored him and Houllier isn't picking him yet Milner is a regular at Man City who have a stronger squad than us and was valued at 4 times as much.

I don't see that as a similar trajectory.

[TimTheVillain]

He appears to be quite a flamboyant character,  and as such his football will differ from the non flamboyant Jimmy.

I hope GH gives him all the tools he needs to succeed and I include in that a decent striker to play alongside.

[KevinGage]

You seem determined to make Ireland out to be some kind of duffer yet:

Ireland was player of the year at Citeh under Hughes and national Young Player of the Year.

This during a time when Man Citeh had a whole host of world class players lets not forget.

In contrast, Milner played alongside the likes of Smith, Barton and Sibierski at Newcastle and Petrov, Sidwell and NRC at Villa.

So not identical backgrounds (Milner has also got a few years head start on Ireland as he broke through at 16)  but a similar trajectory in so far as they are both 24, both play midfield, both have  had one consistently good season and good periods in other campaigns and both have scooped the national Young Player of the Year gong.

It's not an unreasonable comparison on that basis, they're not exactly a million miles apart ability or experience wise. Even if they are different types of players.  Yet you won't see it as a similar trajectory for the same reason you didn't see us visibly tire as a side past the 60 minute mark last year and you didn't see the signings of Harewood and Heskey as questionable - because you flat out don't want to.

It suited your pro manager argument to turn the other way when it came to the above (I can only assume it was because you had your back turned to most of our matches that you couldn't see what was so blindingly obvious).  It suits your new position to be critical of any business dealings at the club - particularly a transfer that might have played a part in the departure of MON - so you can't/ won't see any merit in the signing of Ireland.  Or in any suggestion that he could -in time- be as effective as Milner was for us.

We've seen this routine before. It's dull, change it.

[Merv]

Hmmm. The comment that Milner gives a regular 7 out of 10 performance is spot on - with Ireland you have to accept that you'll get some 6 out of 10s, even some 5 out of 10s but he'll also come up with 8 and 9s. Milner is steady and consistent but we have too many of that kind of player at the Villa already and we've been crying out for someone who can lift us, win us a match from nothing. Ireland can do that - if he's allowed to play and settle in. He's already shown us glimpses, against Rapid Vienna at home he was very sharp, he could and very nearly did win the game v Chelsea early on with a typical burst. He needs nurturing to get the best out of him, and I hope he's given the chance.

Just listing the managers Ireland has played under doesn't equate to them not rating him. He was absolutely outstanding under Hughes and, in fact, played pretty well under Eriksson. O'Neill was keen to sign him. Houllier is just getting to know him, so the jury's out on that at the moment. Only Mancini, as he was happy to make him available, you can say with any certainty didn't rate Ireland.... and Mancini is doing some fairly strange stuff tactically right now.

Milner... well, he was in and out of the side under several managers at Newcastle, made available for transfer (as we all know), loaned out, shunted around in terms of positioning, then had a reasonably average first season at Villa (where he took a few months to actually nail down a regular starting place) before having a very strong one last season.

So the comparison is a very valid one - both players have had their ups and downs; right now Milner's star is higher than Ireland's but I can see that changing. Milner already looks less of a player than he did six months ago, when he was a central midfield dynamo with a genuine chance of breaking the Lampard-Gerrard combo for England. Now he's back out on the wings, most often wide left, on the periphery. I wonder if City fans are really pleased with him, or a bit underwhelmed?

As much as I liked Milner last season, if you asked me to name his No.1 attribute, I'd have said: work rate or attitude. This Villa side needs more than that, which is why I hope we persevere with Ireland.

[PaulTheVillan]

Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.

[Dribbler]

I just don't see how any sensible case can be made for us having the better of it.

I would suggest then that this is down to your perception rather than the actual facts of the case.

Milner vs £18m + Stephen Ireland and you can't see a sensible case that we got the better of the deal?

£18m on its own would have been a very good deal considering what we signed Milner for, add Stephen Ireland in to that and we have an excellent deal. You seem to be just weighing up Ireland v Milner, and discounting the £18m because we have yet to spend it. We could get another two or three top quality players in for that money, for instance this summer Spurs picked up Van Der Vaart for £8m, Man Utd picked up Hernandez for £6m which would still leave £4m in small change. I'm amazed that you can't envisage the possibilities of what that £18m can buy, on top of the potential that Ireland could possibly realise, even if Ireland fails dismally we would still get £6m + for him. 

Whatever we do with the £18m, that money has come into the club and will help the club, and Ireland will turn out to be a valuable asset, either if in time he flourishes as a player or for his resale value, if that "us" you talk of is AVFC, then 'we' have certainly got the better of the deal. I'm pretty sure most managers in the land would bite your hand off if offered the above deal.

Sorry but your above statement really does make it clear how myopic your argument really is.

[LeeB]

We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.

We did not get the better of the deal.

[TimTheVillain]

[/quote]

We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.

We did not get the better of the deal.

We did if we spend the money in hand wisely.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Ireland just needs a game where he is actually given the ball. Then we can see what he does.

That would involve him having to look interested.

[LeeB]

We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.

We did not get the better of the deal.

We've lost our most consistent player, gained a talented but inconsitent player, who also happens to be our highest paid player, have some money in the bank (which we've failed to spend), and now appear to have one the the weakest central midfields in the country.

We did not get the better of the deal.

We did if we spend the money in hand wisely.

Well you could argue that we spent £8m of it on Ireland, and now we're all stratching our heads trying to think of formations that might fit him in, so that one's worked out well.