Now Beye in bust up....

[KevinGage]

I dunno.

But one could quite easily make the argument that with only two of his first choice signings currently 25 or under (even if one of them is now at Man Citeh) and nine in the 30 bracket  (or not far off) then at least part of Malcolm's claim vis a vis ageing squad has merit.

[Bosco81]

I always thought the problem was that MON wouldn't push the boat out for that one top signing that would bridge the gap from top 6 to top 4, it sounded like Randy was itching to give him more money rather than less money.

We've still got £18M from the Milner deal so it's not like the cupboard is bare.

[Dave]

You agree that Petrov didn't come good until his third season though?

I'd say he was certainly better when he moved to his current position. I certainly don't think he was a disaster beforehand though.

[Bosco81]

I dunno.

But one could quite easily make the argument that with only two of his first choice signings currently 25 or under (even if one of them is now at Man Citeh) and nine in the 30 bracket  (or not far off) then at least part of Malcolm's claim vis a vis ageing squad has merit.

I think 9 in the 30 bracket is a little misleading, it was always thought 27-30 was the peak for footballers which is what we have got, the only trouble with that is that once you get past 30 you're unlikely to recoup your transfer fee back, but then do we want them to play for us or do we want them as assets. A comparision to the league champions would be interesting.

[BannedUserIAT]

I always thought the problem was that MON wouldn't push the boat out for that one top signing that would bridge the gap from top 6 to top 4, it sounded like Randy was itching to give him more money rather than less money.

Yep. Randy never had any issues with him signing that grand player for a shitload of money and massive wages.
He did have a massive problem with him signing shit players for massive money and massive wages to never be heard of again.

[PaulTheVillan]

I always thought the problem was that MON wouldn't push the boat out for that one top signing that would bridge the gap from top 6 to top 4, it sounded like Randy was itching to give him more money rather than less money.

Yep. Randy never had any issues with him signing that grand player for a shitload of money and massive wages.
He did have a massive problem with him signing shit players for massive money and massive wages to never be heard of again.

Exactly my thoughts.

[Bosco81]

I always thought the problem was that MON wouldn't push the boat out for that one top signing that would bridge the gap from top 6 to top 4, it sounded like Randy was itching to give him more money rather than less money.

Yep. Randy never had any issues with him signing that grand player for a shitload of money and massive wages.
He did have a massive problem with him signing shit players for massive money and massive wages to never be heard of again.

I agree with you, and back on topic I think Habib Beye was probably the one that tipped the balance for Randy, an ordindary ageing full back on ridiculous wages playing the first few games in the season.

[Chris Smith]

I do

I always thought the problem was that MON wouldn't push the boat out for that one top signing that would bridge the gap from top 6 to top 4, it sounded like Randy was itching to give him more money rather than less money.

Yep. Randy never had any issues with him signing that grand player for a shitload of money and massive wages.
He did have a massive problem with him signing shit players for massive money and massive wages to never be heard of again.

I agree with you, and back on topic I think Habib Beye was probably the one that tipped the balance for Randy, an ordindary ageing full back on ridiculous wages playing the first few games in the season.

I think it was just pure economics rather than a judgement on the standards of players; i.e. we're at the limit of the wage bill so if you want any more players you have to sell so that we keep it at around the same level.

[BannedUserIAT]

Cynical Question: Do Beye and Dunne share the same agent?

[b23]

I no longer have any interest in O'Neill. I am 110% behind Houllier and firmly believe that he will do better, given tme.

Agreed.

[KevinGage]

I dunno.

But one could quite easily make the argument that with only two of his first choice signings currently 25 or under (even if one of them is now at Man Citeh) and nine in the 30 bracket  (or not far off) then at least part of Malcolm's claim vis a vis ageing squad has merit.

I think 9 in the 30 bracket is a little misleading, it was always thought 27-30 was the peak for footballers which is what we have got, the only trouble with that is that once you get past 30 you're unlikely to recoup your transfer fee back, but then do we want them to play for us or do we want them as assets. A comparision to the league champions would be interesting.

I don't think it's particularly misleading. We're half way through the current campaign. By the start of next season 8 of that 9 will be 30 or over and Warnock will be 30 in December 2011.

I accept that 30 isn't viewed a quite the cut off point it was many moons ago and that players in decent condition can easily play until their mid 30's and beyond now.

Nevertheless, it's still far from ideal to have the bulk of your first choice XI all growing old together, and that's part of the situation GH inherited. You could possibly get away with that if they were as talented and as Chelsea's lot and took care of themselves, but our lot aren't in that bracket.

[Villa'Zawg]

I dunno.

But one could quite easily make the argument that with only two of his first choice signings currently 25 or under (even if one of them is now at Man Citeh) and nine in the 30 bracket  (or not far off) then at least part of Malcolm's claim vis a vis ageing squad has merit.

I think 9 in the 30 bracket is a little misleading, it was always thought 27-30 was the peak for footballers which is what we have got, the only trouble with that is that once you get past 30 you're unlikely to recoup your transfer fee back, but then do we want them to play for us or do we want them as assets. A comparision to the league champions would be interesting.

I don't think it's particularly misleading. We're half way through the current campaign. By the start of next season 8 of that 9 will be 30 or over and Warnock will be 30 in December 2011.

I accept that 30 isn't viewed a quite the cut off point it was many moons ago and that players in decent condition can easily play until their mid 30's and beyond now.

Nevertheless, it's still far from ideal to have the bulk of your first choice XI all growing old together, and that's part of the situation GH inherited. You could possibly get away with that if they were as talented and as Chelsea's lot and took care of themselves, but our lot aren't in that bracket.

Of course it's misleading. You categorised every villa player over the age of 24 as "in the 30 bracket (or not far off)". Now you're added another year or more to their ages "by the start of next season...will be 30 in December.."  in order to make your "over 30" point. You then go on to say it doesn't matter if Chelsea do it because their players "took care of themselves".

There may be a point somewhere in all of this regarding age but it isn't the average age of the squad and it isn't the number of players over the "peak age".

Number of Players 28 and over at start of 2010/2011 (taken from transfermarkt.co.uk)

Man utd 15
Chelsea 13
Arsenal 4
Spurs 10
Man City 9
Villa 11
Liverpool 13
Everton 12

Etc...

[KevinGage]

Well if I'm going to be lectured on misleading stats I'm so glad that it's the Stats Dawg who pulled me up on it.

In very simple terms: GH took over in Sep 2010.
By Sep 2011, eight of the personnel he inherited who were (a) either first team regulars or (b) were in and around the first team will be 30 or over, and one will be 30 three months later. Use all the statistical gymnastics you like (and God knows you usually do) but you won't be able to alter that fact. There's your nine. With most teams only able to field 11 players at any one time, that's a touch on the high side, wouldn't you say?

That's not saying they'll all still be with us by 2011, of course. I'd wager at least half will be gone by then.  But that's the situation GH inherited. A point I'd have thought fairly easy to comprehend. Unless you were deliberately trying to ignore the obvious to -in some way-   validate the previous manager. And you wouldn't be attempting that, would you?

[Villa'Zawg]

 

Well if I'm going to be lectured on misleading stats I'm so glad that it's the Stats Dawg who pulled me up on it.

In very simple terms: GH took over in Sep 2010.
By Sep 2011, eight of the personnel he inherited who were (a) either first team regulars or (b) were in and around the first team will be 30 or over, and one will be 30 three months later. Use all the statistical gymnastics you like (and God knows you usually do) but you won't be able to alter that fact. There's your nine. With most teams only able to field 11 players at any one time, that's a touch on the high side, wouldn't you say?

That's not saying they'll all still be with us by 2011, of course. I'd wager at least half will be gone by then.  But that's the situation GH inherited. A point I'd have thought fairly easy to comprehend. Unless you were deliberately trying to ignore the obvious to -in some way-   validate the previous manager. And you wouldn't be attempting that, would you?

You're missing the point.

The situation regarding player age that you describe Gerard inheriting at Villa, doesn't appear to be significantly different from the situation that he would have inherited at any other top 8 team except Arsenal. It isn't high, it isn't low, it is normal.

[Greg N'Ash]

heh! good old villadawg. why did you decide to choose 28 as your comparison point? is 28 the new 30?