Summer Transfer Thread: Speculation, Lies, Absolute Cr*p and Bosman Rumours

[ozzjim]

I don't really see what Weimann offers that's in any way standout. He's got promise and more than Fonz for sure. But he's not really that strong, he's not that quick. Technically he's okay. I certainly wouldn't have him ahead of Gabby in the pecking order just yet.
Ideally we sign another established forward to battle with Bent and Gabby and loan out Weimann.

Nor would I actually - but he looks more threatening. Mainly due to actually having movement. Something Gabby desperately needs. He stands still, behind a defender all the time, and it is so frustrating. Neither he nor Bent are good footballers, but the latter gets into scoring positions that the former realises are there 10 minutes after the chance has gone.

[Percy McCarthy]

Ozz continues to try and make a case for Bent, just because he cost big money. If he'd have come through the ranks he'd be slagging him.

Denial is not just a river in Africa Ozz.

[VILLA MOLE]

If Weimann was at one of the Manchester clubs he'd be nowhere near the first team.

no I know but hypothetically speaking 

[rutski]

If Weimann was at one of the Manchester clubs he'd be nowhere near the first team.

gabby wouldnt be in either teams set up either, bent would get in both as he sticks it in the onion bag.

[ktvillan]

Gabby is a useful squad player. I wouldn't be looking to start him next season though. He needs to do more. Weimann is ahead of Gabby in the pecking order now... if I was in charge that is...

Don't get me wrong I like Weimann but he only scored 2 goals in 20 appearances (in all competitions) for us last season which is a 1 in 10 goal ratio and had 1 assist, Gabby last season, even when having a terrible season, had a goal ratio of 1 in 6 with 5 assists.

We need to let Weimann develop without putting to much pressure on him, he's only 20 and don't think he is ready yet to be relied on as second choice striker and putting that much weight on his shoulders so soon could do more harm than good.

I thinks It is hard to gage (kevin) goal ratio in such a poor team that we were last year

Can you clarify for me please - are you suggesting that Weimann would of got a better goal ratio if the team had been playing better?

yes i think so , i think all our strikers would  - play better = more chances = more goals

do you think weimann would have a better goal ratio if  at Man Ure / Citeh?

Ok, I weren't sure if you were just saying that Weimann would of been better in a better playing side but Gabby wouldn't of been.

I actually made a mistake with Weimanns goal ratio, it was 2 goals in 15 games not 20 games so that does improve his ratio to 1 in 7.5 appearances.

Maybe he would of scored more in a Utd/City team but then again he may not even made it onto their bench, it is very early days for him and he has shown promise but hard to tell just yet how he will develop, he may just turn out to be a player that only scores a goal from a small percentage of his shots. This season will be a better season to judge his ability on and hopefully his goal tallies do increase as it will mean another goal scorer coming up through the academy/reserves which means we haven't had to spend millions on someone.

 

Using goals per appearance is a little simplistic.  Most of Weimann's appearances were as sub, not a starter.  If you look at minutes played, I'd say he had a better scoring ration than Gabby last season.  I'm not sure how accurate the stats on this link are  http://www.soccerway.com/players/andreas-weimann/89062/ but according to that 9 of Weimann's 14 appearances were as sub and he only played  533 minutes.  Divide that by 93 minutes to allow for added time and it works out less than 6 full games, and a goal every 2.87 games.  Compare to Gabby's stats http://www.soccerway.com/players/gabriel-agbonlahor/2812/ which show he played 2765 minutes, the equivalent of just under 30 full games.  31 of his 33 appearances were as a starter when you have more time to get into the game.  His five goals give him a ratio of a goal every 5.95 games.   Yes Gabby was often out wide but Weimann wasn't always playing up front either.

Like I said the site might not be 100% accurate but it's an indication.

And it's not just stats, just observing Weimann will show you he has way more movement in and around the box than Gabby has, which is also the thing that raises Bent a level or two above Gabby as a striker. 

[ozzjim]

Ozz continues to try and make a case for Bent, just because he cost big money. If he'd have come through the ranks he'd be slagging him.

Denial is not just a river in Africa Ozz.

Bent scoring goals makes his own case.

[PaulWinch again]

Darren Bent is a much better striker than Gabby, the stats speak for themselves. We should be very happy that we have Bent in our squad.

[Percy McCarthy]

Not as an all-round player it doesn't. Now stop wanking over his transfer fee.

BTW, to whoever posted that Bent would get in at Man Utd/City. Any reason why they haven't bought him?

[ktvillan]

Not as an all-round player it doesn't. Now stop wanking over his transfer fee.

BTW, to whoever posted that Bent would get in at Man Utd/City. Any reason why they haven't bought him?

In terms of all round play, when Gabby played up front last season after Bent got crocked, he was all round dreadful.

[Percy McCarthy]

Agreed, but in terms of their all-round play throughout their careers Gabby has always been better, unless of course Bent's game has gone down hill since he came to the Villa.

[ozzjim]

So you would prefer Heskey over Gabby then I presume, who pre 30's was all round an excellent footballer?

It is a fallen argument about his fee, his fee was too high, but 9 in 13 saved us from relegation. Or are you going to ignore that?

Gabby was a very promising kid, but Houllier was right, he has bulked too much and lost his biggest weapon to some extent. Centre halves kept up with him last season, and he was more effective from the wing.

Also, how does the fee argument you are pushing equate with my argument that had Gabby cost 10 million we would be wanting him sold now? The fact is we all, me included, find it hard to accept Gabby is not the player we hoped he would be. He was diabolical last season and little better the season before.

Additionally, Bent is not as bad a footballer as people make out.

[ktvillan]

Agreed, but in terms of their all-round play throughout their careers Gabby has always been better, unless of course Bent's game has gone down hill since he came to the Villa.

I've never particularly rated Gabby's all round play, it's average at best, his first touch isn't fantastic, his hold up play is nothing special, neither is his link up play, he's not noted for his incisive passing.  His strengths are/were his pace and his instinctive finishing, and since defenders sussed that out they seem to handle him more easily.  Bent's all round play isn't great either, but his strength is his excellent movement off the shoulder of the last defender, plus his finishing.  Defenders seem to find that a lot harder to cope with.  Sit deep against Gabby, he's got little to offer in the danger areas. Not so easy with Bent.   They are first and foremost in the side to score goals, and Bent is  quite simply better at it than Gabby.

[gervilla]

So you would prefer Heskey over Gabby then I presume, who pre 30's was all round an excellent footballer?

It is a fallen argument about his fee, his fee was too high, but 9 in 13 saved us from relegation. Or are you going to ignore that?

Gabby was a very promising kid, but Houllier was right, he has bulked too much and lost his biggest weapon to some extent. Centre halves kept up with him last season, and he was more effective from the wing.

Also, how does the fee argument you are pushing equate with my argument that had Gabby cost 10 million we would be wanting him sold now? The fact is we all, me included, find it hard to accept Gabby is not the player we hoped he would be. He was diabolical last season and little better the season before.

Additionally, Bent is not as bad a footballer as people make out.

What ?
He had just turned 31 when he joined us and had been a waste of space long before that.

[ozzjim]

So you would prefer Heskey over Gabby then I presume, who pre 30's was all round an excellent footballer?

It is a fallen argument about his fee, his fee was too high, but 9 in 13 saved us from relegation. Or are you going to ignore that?

Gabby was a very promising kid, but Houllier was right, he has bulked too much and lost his biggest weapon to some extent. Centre halves kept up with him last season, and he was more effective from the wing.

Also, how does the fee argument you are pushing equate with my argument that had Gabby cost 10 million we would be wanting him sold now? The fact is we all, me included, find it hard to accept Gabby is not the player we hoped he would be. He was diabolical last season and little better the season before.

Additionally, Bent is not as bad a footballer as people make out.

What ?
He had just turned 31 when he joined us and had been a waste of space long before that.

But been picked how many times by world class managers at Liverpool and for England because of what he offers to a team? And named by a guy who has scored 40 goals for England as his best strike partner. I am no fan, and he was a stupid buy as we did not need his type of player, but his all round play when he was younger was better than Gabby's.

[Percy McCarthy]

Look, the relative merits of Gabby and Bent have been done to death, and we all know where each other stands on it. As a Villa fan, all I want is for one or preferably both of them to be rip-roaring successes for us.

What pisses me off is expressing an opinion that has been arrived at by watching them play football, and some fucking idiot coming on here telling me that I've based it on some abstract concept like how much he cost or didn't cost, or who he supports, or that I don't think it at all, and am in fact lying.

 So fucking patronizing.