Jordan Amavi - gone again

[Chris Stares]

I don't think he's the right type of player for the 'style' of football we play. He's an attacking full back. If we played on the front foot more, we'd see more of what he's best at. But we soak up pressure and it puts a magnifying glass to his defensive frailties. And when we do have the ball, it's rushed and direct, which means we don't have it for very long/very often and again, every mistake is highlighted. Amavi would look better in a different team, I'm sure of it, but he'll continue to play poorly in this system.

Since Bruce took over, none of our better 'footballers' have performed well, and he's shifted most of them out or dropped them. They just take up space. The left back spot is the perfect example; a young, once exciting, player with potential but makes lots of mistakes is dropped for a solid, but unspectacular, experienced international. It's not necessarily a bad move, and we had two months where this worked. And I'm sure it will work again. It's just not exciting or inspiring. But I guess if you want that, you wouldn't hire Steve Bruce as your manager. My only worry is that, if we are planning on three separate teams for our unstoppable progress to the top, players like Jack and Amavi might be quite useful for stages 2 and 3, but we decreased their value and shipped them out at stage 1. It just seems a bit wasteful to me.

That is one of the most insightful analyses that I have read and articulates my thoughts with much more clarity than I would have done.  Watching Amavi play it's clear there is a decent player in there - he does a lot of things well but it's the stupid mistakes, which are invariably punished, that put the microscope on his deficiencies.  I completely agree that in a different system Amavi could be a very effective player, but playing the way that Bruce sets us up invariably puts too much strain on us at the defensive end of the pitch and thus magnifies the regular occasions when our players make (invariably "fatal") mistakes.

[Neil Hawkes]

I'm a little confused, did he not play for a period with Taylor behind him and still was not all that good?

[frank black]

I'm a little confused, did he not play for a period with Taylor behind him and still was not all that good?

Yes he did and yes he was ineffective.

[oldham_villa]

Amavi would be perfect in Big Ron's team of 1992.

[passitsideways]

There's a big gulf between attacking from left back and being an actual effective left winger though - I mean, I bet if you played someone like Leighton Baines further forward, he'd be regarded as a Championship-standard plodder at that position.

[ChicagoLion]

I tend to stick up for players with talent because it is so rare in our club these days and Amavi like Grealish has talent.
It is up to the coaching staff to get the most out of this talent yet all i see is players comming to Villa and getting worse not better.
Until we change this scenario we will forever remain on the outside looking  in.
If you don't believe me check out how many spurs players have come through the ranks or have been developed.

[PaulTheVillan]

What I've noticed lately from Amavi is he tends to come inside and use his right foot, often giving the ball away.

[Ad@m]

Rumours Atletico Madrid have come in for him with a fee of circa £10m. If it's true I'd snap their hand off.

[LukeJames]

Rumours Atletico Madrid have come in for him with a fee of circa £10m. If it's true I'd snap their hand off.

I guarantee if he ends up there he'll turn into one of Europes finest attacking left backs.

[cdbearsfan]

I'd take £15m. That would be a significant increase on what we got. £10m means virtually no profit.

[PaulWinch again]

Rumours Atletico Madrid have come in for him with a fee of circa £10m. If it's true I'd snap their hand off.

I wouldn't. I'd take £16 million plus incentive and sell on fees.

[KevinGage]

I'd take £15m. That would be a significant increase on what we got. £10m means virtually no profit.

I like him as a player - have done since his debut against Bournemouth.

But how do we argue that he has developed sufficiently in his time with us to justify a 50% price hike?

It's not all on him, he's had the misfortune to operate under some truly deadbeat managers during his time with us.

Anything close to the price we paid will prob have to suffice as we embark on Sell to Buy 2.0. The last attempt served us so well.

[OCD]

It's a free market. He's worth whatever someone's prepared to pay for him. If someone's prepared to pay £15m, no justification is needed.

[KRS]

We don't need to justify a 50% price hike...the increased costs of players in the transfer market does that itself.

[kippaxvilla2]

We really should be holding out for a £25m offer from somewhere.