What is it about Emile Heskey?

[TonyD]

I don't know a single fellow Villa fan that thinks he is a decent footballer.  Like me they find it hard to stomach him taking to the picth when we have other options and other decent players.  Yes sometimes he doesnt fall over, yes sometimes he completes a pass and a couple of times a season he might put the ball in the back of the net.  But for most of the time he is a liability that disrupts the team and has stopped real players coming through.   Playing him behind Bent is a total joke.   He would get better service from a barman with no arms.  A recent thread discussed where it started to go wrong under MON and Moscow/Stoke at home were touted about.  I reckon it was when we bought Emile - we at the point really started to hoof it.   How anybody can say he is "good" player is beyond me.  Maybe people's definition of "good" are poles apart.

[LeeB]

I don't know a single fellow Villa fan that thinks he is a decent footballer.  Like me they find it hard to stomach him taking to the picth when we have other options and other decent players.  Yes sometimes he doesnt fall over, yes sometimes he completes a pass and a couple of times a season he might put the ball in the back of the net.  But for most of the time he is a liability that disrupts the team and has stopped real players coming through.   Playing him behind Bent is a total joke.   He would get better service from a barman with no arms.  A recent thread discussed where it started to go wrong under MON and Moscow/Stoke at home were touted about.  I reckon it was when we bought Emile - we at the point really started to hoof it.   How anybody can say he is "good" player is beyond me.  Maybe people's definition of "good" are poles apart.

I know about 10 who think he's at least decent.

He is a good player, you don't get 62 caps for England if you're not at least 'good'. He's a national scapregoat though, and he played for 'them', so some of our less cerebral brethen have decided he's no good and nothing he does will ever change that.

[glasses]

Id forgotten he had played for them lot until you brought it up to be honest.

[TonyD]

I don't know a single fellow Villa fan that thinks he is a decent footballer.  Like me they find it hard to stomach him taking to the picth when we have other options and other decent players.  Yes sometimes he doesnt fall over, yes sometimes he completes a pass and a couple of times a season he might put the ball in the back of the net.  But for most of the time he is a liability that disrupts the team and has stopped real players coming through.   Playing him behind Bent is a total joke.   He would get better service from a barman with no arms.  A recent thread discussed where it started to go wrong under MON and Moscow/Stoke at home were touted about.  I reckon it was when we bought Emile - we at the point really started to hoof it.   How anybody can say he is "good" player is beyond me.  Maybe people's definition of "good" are poles apart.

I know about 10 who think he's at least decent.

He is a good player, you don't get 62 caps for England if you're not at least 'good'. He's a national scapregoat though, and he played for 'them', so some of our less cerebral brethen have decided he's no good and nothing he does will ever change that.

I judge him on what he contributes to our team.   Apart from a little here and there - he really doesnt warrant a position on the pitch when we could play more talented, competent and productive individuals.   Nice guy though by all accounts.

[Quiet Lion]

A succession of England manager have picked him, he has what 70 caps ? he is consistently mentioned as the 'best' stike partners to play with by all sorts of players.  It is pretty obvious what his strengths are, as well as his weaknesses.

Lsitening to people on here, you would assume he is no better than Michael Rickets

[Villanation]

Yes but hang on, Heskey, Leicester City, peaked at Liverpool, and down hill thereafter, B'ham, Wigan and Villa, there have been many players who have loaded up dozens of caps for England  , you can't draw any conclusions from that because most England managers have been crap, correction, they pretty much all have with the exception of Sir Alf.

The fact that Heskey got selected for England has more to do with the state of our International game that it does his ability, he has been reasonable, we should have sold him by now, if someone said to me point your finger at the real negatives of Martin O'Neill tenure at Villa I would say when you spend good money on players like Harewood and then back that up with Heskey your going nowhere fast.

[German James]

I bear him no ill-will at all, and I agree that he seems an utterly decent chap, but I cannot understand the arguments for him at all.

Whether it's because he doesn't fit into the current formation; he's past it; his reputation for being useful was because of the better/different players and setups surrounding him or his boots don't fit properly, for whatever reason, he's very rarely able to contribute anything useful and his constant place in the starting line-up is totally baffling to me. His visible frustration at times makes me wonder if he doesn't think that way too.

I can see Lou'zie0's point about his work rate and ethic, but then he should be coaching and mentoring, not holding down a place in the first team where effort without the necessary skill isn't enough.

[Merv]

What is it about Heskey? Good feet for a big man, holds the ball up well, and other cliches...

Seriously, I find it hard to dislike Emile. I'm not a big fan, but one thing you can't really level at him is that he's been a waste of money: he's been picked regularly by all three Villa managers he's played for, and generally he puts a shift in. I thought he was good last season, up until the point he got sent off v Sunderland, then Bent came in and he was on the periphery. GH used him slightly differently - rather than doing a lot of the donkey work, he was pushed further forward and actually tasked with getting in the box a lot more. And it worked quite well. Don't forget, until Christmas he was our top scorer, or just about.

Having said that, I don't think you could get a more unsuitable role for Heskey now then playing in that 'No. 10' position behind a striker. It's a very strange decision by AM. Particularly when we have two or three players absolutely tailor-made for that role.

[Monty]

Like I've said previously, the fact that Rooney, Owen etc liked to play with him means nothing to us at this stage because he doesn't play in the same role for us as he did with them. He played as a genuine striker in those two types of partnerships, either making space for the second striker Rooney or for the finisher Owen. Which raises the question: if Heskey has a role to play in our team, how best to do it?

Now, we have an excellent finisher in Bent, but it's very much open for debate whether a strike partnership like his with Owen's a decade ago in a 4-4-2 could survive and be as effective in today's Premier League. We saw under MON the problems with 4-4-2, how isolated the two front players get from the midfield, the reliance on early crosses which a packed defence will always be favourites to clear, the lack of movement and options in the midfield. To his credit Eck, unlike MON, has realised that, to break teams down at home, it is probably unwise to play that sort of system.

So, with no 4-4-2 option, what about to make space for a second striker in a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1, like with Rooney? At the beginning of last season he did this pretty well for Ashley Young, but it was notable that he was dumped to the bench when Bent came in. Heskey makes space with bludgeoning occupation, whereas Bent creates space with really intelligent movement, dummy runs off the ball and so on, which is much more effective. Needless to say, Bent is a much better finisher as well, and even Gabby can occupy the defence with his pace and surprising strength, making some of Heskey's qualities seem less advantageous. Besides, this argument is all academic as we've sold Ashley Young and don't have a second striker option in the side anyway.

Heskey in the number 10 role makes no sense. It is not a position which anyone playing with him has ever said he's excelled in. He just doesn't have the touch, the vision, the passing ability, the movement off the ball or any really of the requirements for that position, and the idea of starting him ahead of Bannan or Ireland for the sake of defensive solidity when we're already playing two holding midfielders - at home - is frankly depressing.

[KevinGage]

He's not completely toilet, like a Kevin Francis or John Gayle.

The thing that surprised me more than anything else on seeing him in a Villa shirt is his distribution can be decent at times.  He isn't a big lump that you just pump the ball up to and hope it sticks. When in the mood, he's an asset- even with the lack of goals.

But getting him in the mood is the thing.

[taylorsworkrate]

He was great in the first few games last seaon, up until he got himself sent off against Sunderland. He's still got something to offer us, especially away from home in certain games, but at home, we need to start using him more as a sub in the last 20 minutes if we're winning. That's where i think he's at, at the moment.

Edit - totally misread your post!

Heskey works very hard, thats a given.  I can see the virtues of a Heskey when we are up against a superior side, but at home to the likes of Wolves, when we are crying out for a little bit of creativity?

[taylorsworkrate]

What is it about Heskey? Good feet for a big man, holds the ball up well, and other cliches...

Seriously, I find it hard to dislike Emile. I'm not a big fan, but one thing you can't really level at him is that he's been a waste of money: he's been picked regularly by all three Villa managers he's played for, and generally he puts a shift in. I thought he was good last season, up until the point he got sent off v Sunderland, then Bent came in and he was on the periphery. GH used him slightly differently - rather than doing a lot of the donkey work, he was pushed further forward and actually tasked with getting in the box a lot more. And it worked quite well. Don't forget, until Christmas he was our top scorer, or just about.

Having said that, I don't think you could get a more unsuitable role for Heskey now then playing in that 'No. 10' position behind a striker. It's a very strange decision by AM. Particularly when we have two or three players absolutely tailor-made for that role.

Judging by our recent wage bill quandary, 65K a week for a player of very limited ability is something you could definitely make a case for being a waste of money.

[TonyD]

What is it about Heskey? Good feet for a big man, holds the ball up well, and other cliches...

Seriously, I find it hard to dislike Emile. I'm not a big fan, but one thing you can't really level at him is that he's been a waste of money: he's been picked regularly by all three Villa managers he's played for, and generally he puts a shift in. I thought he was good last season, up until the point he got sent off v Sunderland, then Bent came in and he was on the periphery. GH used him slightly differently - rather than doing a lot of the donkey work, he was pushed further forward and actually tasked with getting in the box a lot more. And it worked quite well. Don't forget, until Christmas he was our top scorer, or just about.

Having said that, I don't think you could get a more unsuitable role for Heskey now then playing in that 'No. 10' position behind a striker. It's a very strange decision by AM. Particularly when we have two or three players absolutely tailor-made for that role.

Judging by our recent wage bill quandary, 65K a week for a player of very limited ability is something you could definitely make a case for being a waste of money.

You just cannot see what he brings to the team - priceless that.

[Rigadon]

As others have said, he's a team player and club man.  Dependable, honest and a handful on his day.  If he could find the net he'd be worth as much as Drogba to a team at the very top level but he is absolutely awful in front of a goal with the ball at his feet.  Truly awful.

He's been one our better performers in the games so far and so it's unfair that he should be dropped, however I'd really like to see AM be brave and play Bannan in the next few home games.

[pedro25]

He was good at Leicester, he isn't now, the likes of Joachim, Vassell and Hendrie were good players in their early 20's but they were pretty useless lower division players by their late 20s/early 30s.  Owen hasn't been a top player for years now, so I don't really care he rates Heskey, I'm sure Peter Withe rated Gary Shaw, but I doubt Shaw would be much use to us now either.