The Gabby Appreciation Thread - Update: 4 year deal

[Ryu]

"We weren't so much outmuscled, as just plain and simple outplayed."

We were both. And I didn't see things improve when Heskey went off. But as Chris said this is a thread about Gabby.

[Chris Smith]

Gabby and N'Zogbia were out wide, Heskey was playing in a floating role behind Bent. Bannan, for all his ability, was just brushed aside by Side Show Bob. Heskey "might" have given them something different to worry about and would have helped greatly on defending corners where we struggled all day due to the height in their side.

[ktvillan]

Percy that's been put to me before, possibly by you, and I'll give you the same answer - it's nothing to do with his Brummie accent, which would be a bit hypocritical as I'm a Brummie myself.  Your point about questionable technique rather than not making intelligent runs or taking up intelligent positions is reasonable enough.

Ads - AM has payed the same team in all games so far, except for Hutton /Young.  Unless we've played against the same team at the same venue in the last four PL games, how does that equate to horses for courses?

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Glasses, some cliches become cliches because they happen to be rooted in truth, although I take your point about Petrov who barely seems able to keep his ticker ticking over after 60 minutes.

Anyway I sincerely hope we have this Gabby love-in every week because it will mean Gabby is scoring a hatload of goals.  If he does, I'll join in.

[Chris Smith]

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Bollocks it was nothing of the kind. That's just another of your boring cliches, you really do have quite a collection.

It was explaining to you in terms that I hoped you might be able to understand that you don't see as much of the game watching on TV or the Internet as you do if you see it live. It's just an unarguable fact as you're limited by what the producer decides to show or the pundit decides to analyse.

[Toronto Villa]

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Bollocks it was nothing of the kind. That's just another of your boring cliches, you really do have quite a collection.

It was explaining to you in terms that I hoped you might be able to understand that you don't see as much of the game watching on TV or the Internet as you do if you see it live. It's just an unarguable fact as you're limited by what the producer decides to show or the pundit decides to analyse.

that's how I read it too. There is no doubt whatsoever that being at a game, in the flesh, gives you an entirely different perspective than it does on TV. In the few times that I've been fortunate enought to get back to Villa Park I try and watch a lot more than the obvious on the ball action. Players like Gabby are a defenders nightmare for his off the ball running. The best players are very intelligent with those runs, something Gabby still needs to work on, but he doesn't half put in a shift. It's a very unappreciated part of his game.

[gerags]

I personally think Gabby was playing at his best as a lone striker under MON.
His movement and overall play were superb and he seemed to relish in the responsibility.
Something you wouldn't expet to see from a player without a footballing brain.

[ktvillan]

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Bollocks it was nothing of the kind. That's just another of your boring cliches, you really do have quite a collection.

It was explaining to you in terms that I hoped you might be able to understand that you don't see as much of the game watching on TV or the Internet as you do if you see it live. It's just an unarguable fact as you're limited by what the producer decides to show or the pundit decides to analyse.

Oh no you got me good Chris, with the "unarguable fact" (nice variation on the "you're just wrong so there" gambit, see page 3 of this thread for a prime example).  How can I possbly argue with an unarguable fact.  Curses, woe is me.

[Chris Smith]

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Bollocks it was nothing of the kind. That's just another of your boring cliches, you really do have quite a collection.

It was explaining to you in terms that I hoped you might be able to understand that you don't see as much of the game watching on TV or the Internet as you do if you see it live. It's just an unarguable fact as you're limited by what the producer decides to show or the pundit decides to analyse.

Oh no you got me good Chris, with the "unarguable fact" (nice variation on the "you're just wrong so there" gambit, see page 3 of this thread for a prime example).  How can I possbly argue with an unarguable fact.  Curses, woe is me.

Instead of trying, and failing, to be clever just try arguing with it so see if I'm right or not. Please enlighten us as to why you don't get a better overall view of the game at the ground compared to hunched over your PC screen?

This should be good.

[Ryu]

So you're saying you get a better perspective on a game watching it on the telly?

[ktvillan]

Remember the last time you were trying to have a little dig and dropped the "considerably better fan than you"  "can't see it properly on TV " line on me?  Then I pointed out I'd actually been at the game in question. At which point you STFU.   In the posts that followed quite a few posters, quite reasonably, agreed there were some things you pick up better live at the game, some things you pick up better with the benefit of TV with close ups, slo-mos, different angles, commentators etc. Not a peep from you.  And that is my view.  But in your world it's still  an unarguable fact, so why bother arguing?   

[Ryu]

I'm sorry you just don't get a better overall picture of a game and who is or isn't playing well on the tv as compared to watching it at the ground. You might get a clearer idea of what happened in a specific incident or if a ref's decision is correct. But this is often weighted with the bias of commentators and pundits.

[Concrete John]

On tele the camera follows the ball, so runs off the ball, positional play and general work ethic can easily be missed.  At the game you don't get to see the numerous angles and slow motion replays, so might think a foul/goal was or wasn't right and be wrong.  If you want to judge a player it's better at the game, but judging an incident is better on TV.

Horses for courses.   

[TheSandman]

To say Gabby lacks a footballing brain is a fallacy IMO. He may not be the brightest bulb on the tree in interviews but you need a different kind of intellect on the pitch and as far as I can see he has it. He makes the runs he needs to and his movement is excellent.

What he lacks is less down to footballing intelligence and rather other things. He sometimes is poor one on one and sometimes even finishing. Neither of these weaknesses are to do with a lack of a footballing brain as far as I'm concerned.

On tele the camera follows the ball, so runs off the ball, positional play and general work ethic can easily be missed.  At the game you don't get to see the numerous angles and slow motion replays, so might think a foul/goal was or wasn't right and be wrong.  If you want to judge a player it's better at the game, but judging an incident is better on TV.

Horses for courses.   

I'd agree with that. I've been to games where I've missed big incidents and have not had the replay that would enable me to determine my view on it but I definitely get an impression of individual players.

[Chris Smith]

Remember the last time you were trying to have a little dig and dropped the "considerably better fan than you"  "can't see it properly on TV " line on me?  Then I pointed out I'd actually been at the game in question. At which point you STFU.   In the posts that followed quite a few posters, quite reasonably, agreed there were some things you pick up better live at the game, some things you pick up better with the benefit of TV with close ups, slo-mos, different angles, commentators etc. Not a peep from you.  And that is my view.  But in your world it's still  an unarguable fact, so why bother arguing?   

Yet more obfuscation, you're not arguing because you're wrong but don't have the bottle to admit it. In this case, where we're talking about the intelligence of a player, the work off the ball is crucial and not something the TV viewer will normally be aware of unless the broadcaster decides to focus on it.

Back to the point in question. Can you give specifics to support your regurgitation of the "no footballing brain" cliche?

[glasses]

Percy that's been put to me before, possibly by you, and I'll give you the same answer - it's nothing to do with his Brummie accent, which would be a bit hypocritical as I'm a Brummie myself.  Your point about questionable technique rather than not making intelligent runs or taking up intelligent positions is reasonable enough.

Ads - AM has payed the same team in all games so far, except for Hutton /Young.  Unless we've played against the same team at the same venue in the last four PL games, how does that equate to horses for courses?

Chris,  your "considerably better fan than yow" card.  Again. Nice one.

Glasses, some cliches become cliches because they happen to be rooted in truth, although I take your point about Petrov who barely seems able to keep his ticker ticking over after 60 minutes.

Anyway I sincerely hope we have this Gabby love-in every week because it will mean Gabby is scoring a hatload of goals.  If he does, I'll join in.

I respectfully disagree. They don't happen to be rooted in truth at all, they are opinion. Often wheeled out by people who want to sound like they know what they are talking about.

I agree with Percy with the technique, rather than the intelligence deficiancy, but he has more than enough technique to get by.