Matthew Lowton

[Toronto Villa]

I'm sorry but if you marry a bloke who is or aspires to be a professional athlete, and especially one at or near the top level of the game then you better not complain at his schedule which quite frankly is the furthest thing from your bog standard 9-5. If weekends are valuable or holidays then marry a bloke who works to that schedule. If not, take it on the chin and enjoy the perks that come with being married to a man who earns way in excess of the national average. It's a choice. Nobody put a gun to her head when she met him. Harsh, I realize but for most regular folk it's a tremendous trade off.

[pauliewalnuts]

There's also no guarantee when he went off and made himself available for work that he'd have stayed on the bench, either.

[Drummond]

He's a Sheffield lad who was playing for a Sheffield team. Then he took the big move but perhaps nobody explained what that would mean. For her it's got to be hard. She chose to be with him, not the Villa. To be fair, it didn't look like he was going to suddenly go from Div Three to the top division.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'd imagine that sort of situation happens at Sheffield United too, mind.

[Ad@m]

I noticed his mrs commented on him having to leave his one hour old baby last week to join up with the squad and then be on the bench .

Commented where? She needs to remember Villa pay for them to lead a good fucking life, footballers wives should be seen but not heard

What a ridiculous attitude. I don't care how much you earn, I think it's entirely understandable that a woman who has just given birth would be upset to see the father of her child have to disappear to go and sit on the bench and do nothing. 

Isn't it part of the deal, though?

They have to put up with being played or not played from one week to the next. They have to do stuff like train on Christmas Day, too. Stuff you or I don't have to do.

It doesn't strike me as that bad a deal in return for a million pound salary.

It isn't even that big a deal in the context of football - you often hear about players missing the births of their children because they're off playing in some tournament or other.

At the end of the day, it's a job. An exceptionally well paid one which is almost entirely about positives. They get a remarkably good life in return for what they put in.

It's her having her husband by her side immediately after giving birth not her missing out on a shopping trip. It's really not that hard to understand she's likely to be a tad emotional.

If Lowts chose to go to the match then she should take it up with him. If he asked for time off, had that request denied, and then ended up sitting on the bench I can understand why she/he is pissed off. Some things are worth more than money and it wouldn't have been that hard for the club to show a bit of common sense.

[PeterWithesShin]

Starts today.

[curiousorange]

Starts today.

Did five minutes work, knocked off.

[sirlordbaltimore]

Did 'alright'

[Mortimer's Bear]

I thought he played okay today, still a shadow of his former self though.

[PaulWinch again]

He's the same player as he was last year, he still makes exactly the same defensive errors.

[pauliewalnuts]

I noticed his mrs commented on him having to leave his one hour old baby last week to join up with the squad and then be on the bench .

Commented where? She needs to remember Villa pay for them to lead a good fucking life, footballers wives should be seen but not heard

What a ridiculous attitude. I don't care how much you earn, I think it's entirely understandable that a woman who has just given birth would be upset to see the father of her child have to disappear to go and sit on the bench and do nothing. 

Isn't it part of the deal, though?

They have to put up with being played or not played from one week to the next. They have to do stuff like train on Christmas Day, too. Stuff you or I don't have to do.

It doesn't strike me as that bad a deal in return for a million pound salary.

It isn't even that big a deal in the context of football - you often hear about players missing the births of their children because they're off playing in some tournament or other.

At the end of the day, it's a job. An exceptionally well paid one which is almost entirely about positives. They get a remarkably good life in return for what they put in.

It's her having her husband by her side immediately after giving birth not her missing out on a shopping trip. It's really not that hard to understand she's likely to be a tad emotional.

If Lowts chose to go to the match then she should take it up with him. If he asked for time off, had that request denied, and then ended up sitting on the bench I can understand why she/he is pissed off. Some things are worth more than money and it wouldn't have been that hard for the club to show a bit of common sense.

I understand her being a bit emotional, but he's paid a lot of money to do a job. He might have needed to come off the bench, so the fact he didn't start is neither here nor there.

I certainly don't think it's a good idea to start talking about it on Twitter, either.

[pauliewalnuts]

He's the same player as he was last year, he still makes exactly the same defensive errors.

That's the thing.

He did well towards the end of last season, but for most of last year, the general consensus of opinion on here was that he was poor defensively, which seems to have been forgotten.

[supertom]

He's the same player as he was last year, he still makes exactly the same defensive errors.

That's the thing.

He did well towards the end of last season, but for most of last year, the general consensus of opinion on here was that he was poor defensively, which seems to have been forgotten.

He's not doing the good work at the other end of the pitch to mask the defensive shite. In all honesty I thought his goal against Stoke last season was the turning point, the kicker which eventually kept us up. At that point we were trudging along a bit cluelessly in the game and if anything Stoke looked the more likely to score next. For me that goal added a couple of points to his season score card at the time. If that perhaps meant overlooking more of the negative aspects, who knows. Perhaps.

[Rigadon]

He's the same player as he was last year, he still makes exactly the same defensive errors.

That's the thing.

He did well towards the end of last season, but for most of last year, the general consensus of opinion on here was that he was poor defensively, which seems to have been forgotten.

That goal and a few decent performances largely going forward masked the fact that he is defensively naive and loses concentration at key moments.  There is a player in there though. 

[Mister E]

He played well today, I thought.