Jadon Sancho (loan)

[eye digress]

He deffo whimped out of one direct challenge and on a few other occasions, declined to position himself in such a way as to be involved in the fray. He was also a bit timid in coming forward, but that could be a fitness issue, I guess.

Other than that, I thought he did ok, however. He certainly didn’t bomb.

[ChicagoLion]

Emery might be deflecting I suppose, but the truth seems more plausible. He didn’t have a pre-season and lost a week or two with us so I can understand why Emery is managing his minutes.

There's little or no chance Emery had in his head that he would only give Sancho 40 mins when he brought him on. He's being kind there. What I would say is in the previous occasions, which in the cases of Bailey and Buendia were a lot harsher, it happened those players were given chances very quickly again afterwards. Sancho could be back in very quickly again.

it wont be at Anfield.

[Brend'Watkins]

Emery might be deflecting I suppose, but the truth seems more plausible. He didn’t have a pre-season and lost a week or two with us so I can understand why Emery is managing his minutes.

There's little or no chance Emery had in his head that he would only give Sancho 40 mins when he brought him on. He's being kind there. What I would say is in the previous occasions, which in the cases of Bailey and Buendia were a lot harsher, it happened those players were given chances very quickly again afterwards. Sancho could be back in very quickly again.

it wont be at Anfield.

I’m sure he will figure at some point against Liverpool.

I just wish he’d release the ball quicker once he’s beaten his player. He offers something different and would be a great asset to the team if he stopped thinking just about himself.

[Rigadon]

He’s been ok so far.  Nothing more than that, nothing less.   But he did chicken out of a 50/50 and sulked when subbed.  That kind of stuff doesn’t go unnoticed and not should it.  If he’s going to have any kind of revival he needs to fully commit to it.  Last chance saloon for him. 

[Somniloquism]

Trust his judgement but refuse to accept what he said as truth.

He subbed a sub
Pretend all you like but I’m not as gullible as you

He has subbed subs at least 4 times now I believe. One was Buendia, another might have been Bogarde, I think Diaby one time as well but I might be mistaken on that. They all are players who at the time were not being planned to come on so early and were being brought up to speed slowly. They were all emergency subs in the game and were then all subbed off as they hit minutes and tactically change the team as the match demanded.

[Somniloquism]

Emery might be deflecting I suppose, but the truth seems more plausible. He didn’t have a pre-season and lost a week or two with us so I can understand why Emery is managing his minutes.

There's little or no chance Emery had in his head that he would only give Sancho 40 mins when he brought him on. He's being kind there. What I would say is in the previous occasions, which in the cases of Bailey and Buendia were a lot harsher, it happened those players were given chances very quickly again afterwards. Sancho could be back in very quickly again.

it wont be at Anfield.

Why not? With Elliot missing there is more chance of Sancho then not.

[john e]

Emery might be deflecting I suppose, but the truth seems more plausible. He didn’t have a pre-season and lost a week or two with us so I can understand why Emery is managing his minutes.

There's little or no chance Emery had in his head that he would only give Sancho 40 mins when he brought him on. He's being kind there. What I would say is in the previous occasions, which in the cases of Bailey and Buendia were a lot harsher, it happened those players were given chances very quickly again afterwards. Sancho could be back in very quickly again.

it wont be at Anfield.

Why not? With Elliot missing there is more chance of Sancho then not.

Because he couldn’t trust him against Man city at home and after subbing him on he had to sub him off for his own good
So I very much doubt he’ll trust him away at Anfield

But it’s true you never know if you’re right and the plan all along was to give him minutes he’s got a good chance of playing next week
If I’m right and he got subbed off because he became a liability he won’t be anywhere near the Anfield pitch

Just have to wait and see I suppose

[Drummond]

FFS, How about we all stop scapegoating the lad and get behind him. He wasn’t stand out today but he wasn’t atrocious and contributed to our win. After a great team win why does someone have to be the punchbag.

Because he was absolutely woeful

Sorry John but that’s just hyperbolic bullshit.

Fair enough but Unai thought the same
I know he used the excuse of minutes to be kind but if Sancho was doing his job properly he would’ve stayed on
He had him away because he became a liability and we had a game to win, you call it hyperbole I call it good management

With respect I’d rather trust Unai’s judgment than yours

John, I like your passion, but you don't half make some stuff up sometimes. You've no idea what Emery thinks, and as he's only said that Sancho played the number of minutes that he was intended to play, you've no evidence from what he said either.

You said

Because he was absolutely woeful

Emery's comments on Sancho's substitution
"He's not happy": Emery recognized Sancho's frustration with being taken off. "Yes, sure he's not happy," the manager said after the match, "but I did it before with Morgan Rogers, with Emiliano Buendia, with Leon Bailey".

The manager explained that Sancho's limited playing time was pre-planned because he had played for 60 minutes in the midweek Europa League loss to Go Ahead Eagles. Emery noted that an early injury had altered his initial plan, but the substitution was still necessary to manage the player's return to fitness.

Focus on the team: Emery emphasized that Sancho is part of a larger plan to improve the entire team. After the match, he expressed pride in the collective effort against Manchester City, stating, "Every player, in the tactical structure, was fantastic, defensively and offensively".

[john e]

FFS, How about we all stop scapegoating the lad and get behind him. He wasn’t stand out today but he wasn’t atrocious and contributed to our win. After a great team win why does someone have to be the punchbag.

Because he was absolutely woeful

Sorry John but that’s just hyperbolic bullshit.

Fair enough but Unai thought the same
I know he used the excuse of minutes to be kind but if Sancho was doing his job properly he would’ve stayed on
He had him away because he became a liability and we had a game to win, you call it hyperbole I call it good management

With respect I’d rather trust Unai’s judgment than yours

John, I like your passion, but you don't half make some stuff up sometimes. You've no idea what Emery thinks, and as he's only said that Sancho played the number of minutes that he was intended to play, you've no evidence from what he said either.

You said

Because he was absolutely woeful

Emery's comments on Sancho's substitution
"He's not happy": Emery recognized Sancho's frustration with being taken off. "Yes, sure he's not happy," the manager said after the match, "but I did it before with Morgan Rogers, with Emiliano Buendia, with Leon Bailey".

The manager explained that Sancho's limited playing time was pre-planned because he had played for 60 minutes in the midweek Europa League loss to Go Ahead Eagles. Emery noted that an early injury had altered his initial plan, but the substitution was still necessary to manage the player's return to fitness.

Focus on the team: Emery emphasized that Sancho is part of a larger plan to improve the entire team. After the match, he expressed pride in the collective effort against Manchester City, stating, "Every player, in the tactical structure, was fantastic, defensively and offensively".

You gotta give it to Emery
He’s a very good man manager with a ruthless streak

[PeterWithesShin]

Barring more injuries he won't start at Anfield imo, he will likely make a sub appearance though.

[eye digress]

Trust his judgement but refuse to accept what he said as truth.

He subbed a sub
Pretend all you like but I’m not as gullible as you

He has subbed subs at least 4 times now I believe. One was Buendia, another might have been Bogarde, I think Diaby one time as well but I might be mistaken on that. They all are players who at the time were not being planned to come on so early and were being brought up to speed slowly. They were all emergency subs in the game and were then all subbed off as they hit minutes and tactically change the team as the match demanded.

Bailey vs Liverpool at Anfield two seasons ago. Think it was an injury induced change (was there a red card in there as well?). Also presaged Bailey's stellar form period.

[RamboandBruno]

Barring more injuries he won't start at Anfield imo, he will likely make a sub appearance though.

Limited options there with Beundia out and Elliot not going to play. I think he’ll be more likely to start Guessand there to support Cash, then bring Sancho on in the second half, especially if its close.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

I thought Sancho slowed us down a bit yesterday, everybody else had read the instructions and were moving the ball quickly, Sancho lacked the urgency. Also disappointed he didn't do better having wonderfully beaten his defender and took the ball along the line before trying twice to score himself. Maybe I'm being harsh and he didn't have any options, need to see it again but shooting straight at the keeper and expecting the ball to go through him can only be a Villa striker virus that's doing the rounds.

[Smithy]

I thought Sancho slowed us down a bit yesterday, everybody else had read the instructions and were moving the ball quickly, Sancho lacked the urgency. Also disappointed he didn't do better having wonderfully beaten his defender and took the ball along the line before trying twice to score himself. Maybe I'm being harsh and he didn't have any options, need to see it again but shooting straight at the keeper and expecting the ball to go through him can only be a Villa striker virus that's doing the rounds.

I thought the first effort was him trying to square it across the box, rather than a shot?  After Donnaruma got a hand on that, the second was definitely a shot (and not a great one, but he had zero time to think about it).

I still think there is a good player in there for us.  He offers something different, and I think 1v1, when we're potentially playing teams sitting deep (or low block or whatever it's called this week), his dribbling will be a real asset.