January Transfer Window - The Verdict.

[Clark W Griswold]

Dele Alli on his best day wasn’t half the player Platt was on an average day. Platt’s runs in to the box were things you cannot teach. Just so instinctive. He score so many superb goals for us but the one that will always stick out for me, probably because of where I was sat upper Trinity at the North, was his header from Kevin Gage’s cross vs Bradford in our promotion season. Huge game, massive win, 1-0 job done. Brilliant. Now he’s just a bitter moon faced wanker. A conversation for another day.

That goal might well be the one I'm picturing as well but I don't really remember the games I went to that season very well, I only got really into football after the 90 world cup.

And literally every kid in our school thought he was the best player in the country, even the ones who supported inferior sides like Liverpool.

He was PFA player of the year. He was one of the few players we’ve had in my time (same as you) that I would say was world class. One of the very best midfielders in Europe, indeed the world between 1989 and the mid nineties (when he joined Arsenal).
Nearly 20 goals from attacking midfield two seasons in a row for us, we were going for the league one year and in a relegation battle the other. England captain, nearly a goal every two games for England from attacking midfield.
As for whether we’d have won the league in 92-93 had he still been here, we wouldn’t have had the rest of the team if he had because we bought most of them with the proceeds from his sale. But yes, in theory that team in 92-93 with Platt and also a fit Tony Daley would have certainly done it.

[brontebilly]

Platt and Lampard were somewhat similar with that late run into the box?

[Exeter 77]

Platt had the knack and intelligence to be in the right place at the right time in the penalty area. Villa have never had a player since who could consistently time a run that well. The fact that he played with Sid Cowans at Villa helped him enormously though.

[Percy McCarthy]

He kinda did next to fuck all in midfield though, which seems a bit churlish considering he got 20 goals a season, Best finisher I’ve ever seen for us.

[KevinGage]

My last on the matter. I will take to the grave my conviction that if Platt had stayed and played in that Atkinson side, we'd have won the inaugural Premier League. Comfortably.

Wouldn't have had the money to sign most of the side that took us to second if we'd kept him.

I do often wonder what would've happened if we had persuaded Rambo McInally to stay in the summer of 89, mind.

Imagine that 89/90 team with McGrath, Platt, Cowans, Daley plus Rambo up top.

The fee from Keown OG would've still covered the McGrath deal. Adrian Heath had a negligible impact on the side despite the £450,000 fee (which we prob wouldn't have forked out if McInally remained at VP). So the only real extra would be the Nielsen fee.

All pie in the sky, ofc. Graham Taylor would have to be silvertongue extraordinaire once Bayern had made a concrete offer. 

[Risso]

25 is the bottom end of the range and 25 in 18 games would mean 52-53 over a full 38 game season so is right in the range I'd aim for. This season it's clearly lower than that but I'm not expecting the team to over-achieve to make up for Gerrard being shit, that's not fair, to make up the difference  would be an extra 7-8 goals on top over 25 games, which would be top 4 standard (and is actually where we are under Emery so far). Nothing here is a contradiction, in a full season I think 5 players all aiming for 8-10 goals is an achievable goal for a side like us and gets you well on the way to a good season.

We were specifically talking about what was possible from this point onwards this season though, not extrapolating it over a whole season. You said that 30-40 goals from the current forwards as a total for the season was possible, starting from a game ago. I thought it was doubtful then, and extremely unlikely now we've sold Ings.

[tomd2103]

He kinda did next to fuck all in midfield though, which seems a bit churlish considering he got 20 goals a season, Best finisher I’ve ever seen for us.

Often thought about it as he was my favourite player as a kid and I think he would probably be that modern number 10 / attacking midfielder (cue Mick McCarthy) type of player now.

[eamonn]

Was Platt lazy off the ball?

[Sexual Ealing]

Was Platt lazy off the ball?

It didn't really work like that back then, did it? He was a goalscorer, so he was in the team to get goals, rather than press. I can't remember, I was 11/12 when he was in his pomp for us.

I used to play in a similar position back then, and I sure as fuck didn't track back. I think my deep experience of the Shropshire junior leagues qualifies me to make the point.

[Percy McCarthy]

Was Platt lazy off the ball?

It didn't really work like that back then, did it? He was a goalscorer, so he was in the team to get goals, rather than press. I can't remember, I was 11/12 when he was in his pomp for us.

I used to play in a similar position back then, and I sure as fuck didn't track back. I think my deep experience of the Shropshire junior leagues qualifies me to make the point.

I was old enough to notice he hardly touched the ball apart from caressing it beautifully into the net.

[Scott Nielsen]

I do often wonder what would've happened if we had persuaded Rambo McInally to stay in the summer of 89, mind.

Imagine that 89/90 team with McGrath, Platt, Cowans, Daley plus Rambo up top.

As do I. I knew our players better then than I do today which seems absurd when I think about it. Back then we only got one televised game a weekend on telly (and that wasn't often Villa) and I remember my dad bought me a shortwave radio so I could listen (barely!) to our triumphs during the Div 2 season, 87-88.

Glory days.

[London Villan]

I do wonder how that 89/90 team ever got the ball back? The 532 formation with Platt and Cowans in midfield was hardly tough tackling.

[paul_e]

25 is the bottom end of the range and 25 in 18 games would mean 52-53 over a full 38 game season so is right in the range I'd aim for. This season it's clearly lower than that but I'm not expecting the team to over-achieve to make up for Gerrard being shit, that's not fair, to make up the difference  would be an extra 7-8 goals on top over 25 games, which would be top 4 standard (and is actually where we are under Emery so far). Nothing here is a contradiction, in a full season I think 5 players all aiming for 8-10 goals is an achievable goal for a side like us and gets you well on the way to a good season.

We were specifically talking about what was possible from this point onwards this season though, not extrapolating it over a whole season. You said that 30-40 goals from the current forwards as a total for the season was possible, starting from a game ago. I thought it was doubtful then, and extremely unlikely now we've sold Ings.

Without finding the post out, which I can't be arsed to do, I'm just gonna assume a misunderstanding here. Getting near to 60 goals from our position when Emery came in would've meant champions league form over 3/4s of a season. However it should be our target going forward.

For this season getting around 50 will be good and to achieve that we need 25-30 goals so we need 15-20 from our attacking players.

Given we've had 17 from them so far, Ings included, getting to 30 for the season isn't just a target, it's the minimum I'd expect. The goals Ings scored don't stop counting because he was sold.

What's a bit weird is that you're digging this up on a different thread and I'm not sure why. I've been consistent for years in wanting the goals spread out more across the team, in wanting about 1.5per game as the target and thinking doing that woild put us in the mix for the top 6.

The only slightly new points are that I've given splitting strikers and wingers, mostly because they seem a little interchangeable under Emery and I've clarified that, for a full season, I'd be challenging 4-5 players to aim for 8-10 each.

[Risso]

Without finding the post out, which I can't be arsed to do, I'm just gonna assume a misunderstanding here. Getting near to 60 goals from our position when Emery came in would've meant champions league form over 3/4s of a season. However it should be our target going forward.

For this season getting around 50 will be good and to achieve that we need 25-30 goals so we need 15-20 from our attacking players.

Given we've had 17 from them so far, Ings included, getting to 30 for the season isn't just a target, it's the minimum I'd expect. The goals Ings scored don't stop counting because he was sold.

What's a bit weird is that you're digging this up on a different thread and I'm not sure why. I've been consistent for years in wanting the goals spread out more across the team, in wanting about 1.5per game as the target and thinking doing that woild put us in the mix for the top 6.

The only slightly new points are that I've given splitting strikers and wingers, mostly because they seem a little interchangeable under Emery and I've clarified that, for a full season, I'd be challenging 4-5 players to aim for 8-10 each.

It's relevant and therefore not weird because selling Ings was a key decision in the transfer window, and in my opinion selling him and not replacing him has weakened the attacking unit, making the chances of hitting targets for goals scored much less likely. We'll see over the second half of the season of course, but generally having one recognised striker wouldn't be considered desirable by most managers.

[eamonn]

Stop fighting, we're remembering our world-class Platt!