Bruce Sacked at last (now official)

[paul_e]

I agree with John on all except Hourihane, he's a step up from the rest which has shown with how he's linked with Grealish at times.  He's th eonly one of the lot that I see as being worthy of a squad place in the premier league.  Lansbury could be a decent player if he had the attitude for it but right now he's just a show pony, he's another one that I thought was a bad idea when he was signed and that I haven't changed my mind over.

[AsTallAsLions]

Lansbury ... he's another one that I thought was a bad idea when he was signed and that I haven't changed my mind over.

Simply put I thought Whelan was a poor signing at the time and he's done nothing since he arrived to make me question that

No disrespect Paul but you do seem to have quite the knack for clairvoyance.

[paul_e]

Lansbury ... he's another one that I thought was a bad idea when he was signed and that I haven't changed my mind over.

Simply put I thought Whelan was a poor signing at the time and he's done nothing since he arrived to make me question that

No disrespect Paul but you do seem to have quite the knack for clairvoyance.

Not clairvoyance, I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad.  It's also not hard to go back to the first few pages on their respective threads or the appropriate transfer window threads and find me saying just that.  More recently I've said the same about Grabban (although I'm less bothered when it's a loan which doesn't have any real risk to it) who I don't think offers us anything we don't already have and is just going to be in the way of RHM who I'd like to see get game time in the next few months.  I might end up being wrong on that, like I seem to have bene with Terry who I thought would struggle to play 2 games a week and would make 20-25 appearances all season.

[Risso]

I agree with Paul where Lansbury is concerned.  I think we've seen the last of him personally.  He's obviously nowhere near the match day squad now, and I can see him moving on in the summer, to a mid level Championship side which is about his standard I reckon.

[AsTallAsLions]

Lansbury ... he's another one that I thought was a bad idea when he was signed and that I haven't changed my mind over.

Simply put I thought Whelan was a poor signing at the time and he's done nothing since he arrived to make me question that

No disrespect Paul but you do seem to have quite the knack for clairvoyance.

Not clairvoyance, I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad.  It's also not hard to go back to the first few pages on their respective threads or the appropriate transfer window threads and find me saying just that.  More recently I've said the same about Grabban (although I'm less bothered when it's a loan which doesn't have any real risk to it) who I don't think offers us anything we don't already have and is just going to be in the way of RHM who I'd like to see get game time in the next few months.  I might end up being wrong on that, like I seem to have bene with Terry who I thought would struggle to play 2 games a week and would make 20-25 appearances all season.

Well I think it's important to note that we signed Lansbury before Hourihane, and anyone could see we needed to bring in a CM. Two might have been a luxury, particularly with Bjarnason arriving within a few days of them also, but that's an issue you'd have to take up with Bruce. The week before Henri signed for us he scored a hat-trick for Nottingham Forest, at a time when we were sorely in need of goals from midfield, so I honestly don't think you can stand over the comment "I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad".

[paul_e]

Lansbury ... he's another one that I thought was a bad idea when he was signed and that I haven't changed my mind over.

Simply put I thought Whelan was a poor signing at the time and he's done nothing since he arrived to make me question that

No disrespect Paul but you do seem to have quite the knack for clairvoyance.

Not clairvoyance, I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad.  It's also not hard to go back to the first few pages on their respective threads or the appropriate transfer window threads and find me saying just that.  More recently I've said the same about Grabban (although I'm less bothered when it's a loan which doesn't have any real risk to it) who I don't think offers us anything we don't already have and is just going to be in the way of RHM who I'd like to see get game time in the next few months.  I might end up being wrong on that, like I seem to have bene with Terry who I thought would struggle to play 2 games a week and would make 20-25 appearances all season.

Well I think it's important to note that we signed Lansbury before Hourihane, and anyone could see we needed to bring in a CM. Two might have been a luxury, particularly with Bjarnason arriving within a few days of them also, but that's an issue you'd have to take up with Bruce. The week before Henri signed for us he scored a hat-trick for Nottingham Forest, at a time when we were sorely in need of goals from midfield, so I honestly don't think you can stand over the comment "I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad".

Of course I can because it was my opinion and I've never tried to present it as anything else.  With hindsight I've been proven right and Lansbury has been hugely disappointing for us.  We were being heavily linked with both and, again, at the time I said I preferred Houri and that we should only sign 1 of the 2.  A big part of the reason I didn't want Lansbury is because I thought it would be one or the other, I was wrong on that as it turns out.

[curiousorange]

Lansbury was a pain in the arse when Forest came to VP. He was niggly and disruptive and did all the things you want a limited Championship defender to do. The fact that he's rarely if ever done that since, coupled with Bjarnason now knowing exactly what he's picked to do is why he can't get near the team.

[Ad@m]

I agree with Paul where Lansbury is concerned.  I think we've seen the last of him personally.  He's obviously nowhere near the match day squad now, and I can see him moving on in the summer, to a mid level Championship side which is about his standard I reckon.

The Forest fans I know weren't even that impressed with Lansbury, saying he only upped his game when it came to contract renewal time.

[AsTallAsLions]

Well I think it's important to note that we signed Lansbury before Hourihane, and anyone could see we needed to bring in a CM. Two might have been a luxury, particularly with Bjarnason arriving within a few days of them also, but that's an issue you'd have to take up with Bruce. The week before Henri signed for us he scored a hat-trick for Nottingham Forest, at a time when we were sorely in need of goals from midfield, so I honestly don't think you can stand over the comment "I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad".

Of course I can because it was my opinion and I've never tried to present it as anything else.  With hindsight I've been proven right and Lansbury has been hugely disappointing for us.  We were being heavily linked with both and, again, at the time I said I preferred Houri and that we should only sign 1 of the 2.  A big part of the reason I didn't want Lansbury is because I thought it would be one or the other, I was wrong on that as it turns out.

Well you've had me go through the Henri Lansbury - Signed thread and I can't find anything from you until August 2017, a full 6-7 months after the man signed (and that being a slagging match between you and Ads, the topic of which wasn't even Lansbury or his ability). So again, hindsight appears to be a wonderful thing here.

[Clampy]

Whelan has had some decent games but he's also had some ropey one's as well. With Jedinak not always being available early on, he did an adequate job in the midfield. He's not to everyone's liking but I think he's been ok overall.

[paul_e]

Well I think it's important to note that we signed Lansbury before Hourihane, and anyone could see we needed to bring in a CM. Two might have been a luxury, particularly with Bjarnason arriving within a few days of them also, but that's an issue you'd have to take up with Bruce. The week before Henri signed for us he scored a hat-trick for Nottingham Forest, at a time when we were sorely in need of goals from midfield, so I honestly don't think you can stand over the comment "I just didn't think either of them were what we needed and didn't see them adding anything to the squad".

Of course I can because it was my opinion and I've never tried to present it as anything else.  With hindsight I've been proven right and Lansbury has been hugely disappointing for us.  We were being heavily linked with both and, again, at the time I said I preferred Houri and that we should only sign 1 of the 2.  A big part of the reason I didn't want Lansbury is because I thought it would be one or the other, I was wrong on that as it turns out.

Well you've had me go through the Henri Lansbury - Signed thread and I can't find anything from you until August 2017, a full 6-7 months after the man signed (and that being a slagging match between you and Ads, the topic of which wasn't even Lansbury or his ability). So again, hindsight appears to be a wonderful thing here.

I haven't made you do anything and I certainly won't be checking myself but I promise you I never wanted Lansbury and have called him a show pony for a lot longer than the last few hours.  Aside from that I'm not really sure why you're arguing, he's been poor since he arrived and most forest fans weren't that bothered when he left so there's nothing controversial in what I've said.

[Toronto Villa]

Whelan has had some decent games but he's also had some ropey one's as well. With Jedinak not always being available early on, he did an adequate job in the midfield. He's not to everyone's liking but I think he's been ok overall.

He's decent and he's had some decent games when not asked to do too much. Unfortunately he's prone to too many clangers in dangerous positions when we really should know better. Same as Jedinak to a lesser extent. If nothing else Thor has come in a plays a lot less complicated game and he's better keep the play moving and passing to teammates. Something you can't always count on the other two to do.

[ChicagoLion]

The problem with jedi and thor both being in there is that neither of them are particularly good passers so just getting the ball to Grelaish, Snodgrass and Adomah becomes harder than it needs to be.  Whelan would be the counter to that but I just find him utterly ineffective in almost every other aspect, he's just an older version of Westwood for me.

Whoa, that's cold man.

Even writing it I felt like i was being incredibly harsh but I think it holds true, no mobility, no cutting edge, lots of 'show' in defence but very little impact.  I think the idea of a player who holds a role in the middle of the pitch and keeps things ticking over is great but they need to offering something on top and first of those is for them to not let players run through their channel and get chances around the dge of the box.  That's where both of them look poor and show that they can't do the DM role that their style is suited to.

I think Whelan tackles and intercepts more than Westwood did.
Slower though.

He averages 1.8 tackles and 1.1 interceptions per game, that's pretty similar to Westwood when he was with us.  As I say, there's really not a lot between them.  For me to play that DM role you either need to be   all action, constantly tracking runners and closing space or you need to win everything that comes near you, anything you bring after that controls how high up the leagues you can go.  Whelan wants to be the latter but he just isn't dominant enough, whereas Jedi can do that style well and we look a better side with him there, despite him being a fairly poor player in many ways.

Simply put I thought Whelan was a poor signing at the time and he's done nothing since he arrived to make me question that.

Westwood, Gardner, Hourihane, Whelan, Barny, Lansbury theres not a fag paper between the lot of them

we have swapped average box standard for average box standard,
the only reason some look slightly better now is because they are operating at a championship level

I agree with this, mediocrity abounds.

[Damo70]

Oh for a midfield of Sid Cowans, Steve McMahon, Kevin Richardson for Sunday

Sid is the best Villa player I have ever seen after Paul McGrath. Kevin Richardson is possibly the most under rated player ever to play for us. It is no coincidence that he won major trophies in three different teams. I was a massive fan of Steve McMahon (until I met the miserable sod years later) but he would have to tone his style down to stay on the pitch in a local derby these days. As would a lot of players from his era to be fair.

[john e]

Oh for a midfield of Sid Cowans, Steve McMahon, Kevin Richardson for Sunday

Sid is the best Villa player I have ever seen after Paul McGrath. Kevin Richardson is possibly the most under rated player ever to play for us. It is no coincidence that he won major trophies in three different teams. I was a massive fan of Steve McMahon (until I met the miserable sod years later) but he would have to tone his style down to stay on the pitch in a local derby these days. As would a lot of players from his era to be fair.

I was one who never appreciated Richardson at the time, I was young though and maybe didn't know what I was watching at the time
I reckon I would probably rate him highly now

I think Petrov falls into this bracket as well,
 I loved him but could see why others didn't get him, much the same as I didn't with Richardson,
maybe it's age maybe it's just some people like me take time to gain the knowledge to appreciate what they are watching exactly