Jump to content

VillaTalk blog

  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Contributors to this blog

Smells like team spirit?




The_Steve ponders the new season.

Is it me... Or is there a renewed sense of togetherness in the squad? After the departure of Kersa and Culverhouse. Lambert giving the squad a clean break and bringing some leaders to the squad, we are seeing the fruits of that labour.

When our senior players like Guzan/Senderos reassure or celebrate at full-time with our younger players (e.g. Baker/Grealish) it makes a world of difference from last season.

For a squad often bereft of confidence last season, these small changes are noticeable and it's reflected in our approach to games. A more cautious but less naive Villa side probably explains why we've only conceded one goal in four.

Nathan Baker looked a different player when next to Senderos - yes, it's one game and an outliner does not mean a pattern. But such a vocal leader at the back must be reassuring. Especially when you have full backs confident in their own positions.

There are so many workhorses in this squad now. The midfield three of Westwood, Delph and Cleverley ran their socks off to close Liverpool down yesterday and I've noticed we've become harder to break down.

The hope is the team is just as much a unit off the pitch as it is on it. Roy Keane has been a breath of fresh air. But I think there are various factors to explain this dramatic turnaround in a short period of time.

For all the unnecessary restrictions placed upon Lambert. He's built a squad that is more competitive and drilled.

We've still got Kozak, Okore, Benteke to come back into the squad. Sanchez and Cleverley will give us another option when settled. The likes of Grealish make for impact subs.

Somehow, it feels like, some of the demons of last season of are exorcised. It's very early days, and I write high (not literally) off the back of an incredible start to the season, one I certainly did not predict.

Togetherness breeds confidence and the team are proving it thus far.



This post has been promoted to an article

Source: Smells like team spirit?



Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

  • Posts

    • It’s still early days in to the season, we have only played 8 matches. Give the players some time before making these rash statements. They are still gelling as a team, just be patient, it doesn’t happen straight away
    • I think the fact that teams who will finish the league at the top regular will sometimes go and pull stinkers like the one we had against Wolves, it does happen at the top league in the entire sport. Not making excuses for the players or for those in charge of them but someone has to lose a game of football if there is no draw. Smith has to start thinking about points, the points should come first and foremost. Even beyond the need to keep outscored the opponent even when we've outscored the opponent.  Collectively it was a cock up and collectively it must be put right. We have enough quality at this level to not do these stinker games but somewhere along the line the stinkers always happen due to lapses in concentration. Its then how the team responds afterwards that will show the teams maturity, respond wonderfully and all of a sudden a run could be put together, respond awfully and we will be in tons of trouble. The whole team and staff now have to prepare for the next battle and the wolves match somehow has to be put behind them. The one thing I think they have to be careful about isn't repeating there weaknesses and what happen go on and make it a strength.  
    • Okay, but that should be tipping you off that the reason deals like this happen is because they are *diplomatic gestures*, rather than because of any kind of commercial logic. A tariff is another word for a tax. They are taxes on either raw materials or finished goods. The main reason a country imposes a tariff is to protect a domestic industry from foreign competition. Again, nuclear submarines do not fit this at all. The only possible buyers and sellers are governments, so why would they tax themselves? What would that achieve, that could not be more sensibly achieved by adjusting the price of the submarine in the first place?* Similarly, there is no domestic nuclear submarine manufacturing industry to protect in Australia; if there was then they wouldn't need to order them from other countries. *This is not to say that there couldn't be tariffs involved in the process at any stage; in making the submarine, we might use some raw material or other imported from somewhere with a tariff on it or whatever. But there are no nuclear submarine tariffs.
    • Not if Italy puts a tarriff on Champagne and their sales go down. Because the Tarrifs go to the Government not to the champagne producers.
    • If the French put a tariff on the import of Prosecco, does it not benefit the Champagne industry?  
    • No I didn't say we sold Subs to the Aussies because of a trade deal. I said after the trade deal the Aussies moved the business to us. If it is for the benefit of companies why do countrys apply tarrifs. You cannot put a tax or tariff on a company and then say it is for yor benefit
    • Summary from Tuesday night - Conor hauled off Finn Azaz (Newport County) 13th/24 Home to Carlisle (2-2) - Came on in the 69th minute. 14 touches, 55.6% pass accuracy. WhoScored.com rating of 6.58. Louie Barry (Ipswich Town) 13th/24Away at Portsmouth (0-4) - Unused substitute. Conor Hourihane (Sheffield United) 15th/24 Home to Millwall (1-2) - Substituted in the 37th minute. 16 touches, 78.6% pass accuracy. WhoScored.com rating of 5.72. (not injured apparently). Kaine Kesler-Hayden (Swindon Town) 3rd/24 Away at Sutton (1-2) - Unused substitute. Ákos Onódi (Bromsgrove Sporting) 13th/21 Away at Rushall Olympic (4-1) - Played 90 minutes. Dominic Revan (Northampton) 6th/24 Home to Stevenage (3-0) - Unused substitute. Wesley (Club Brugge) 3rd/4 Home to Manchester City [Champions League Group Stage] (1-5) - Not in the squad. Tyreik Wright (Salford City) 15th/24 Home to Rochdale (0-0) - Came on in the 63rd minute. 18 touches, 76.9% pass accuracy. WhoScored.com rating of 6.24. Brad Young (Carlisle) 23rd/24 Away at Newport (2-2) - Came on in the 60th minute. 5 touches, 100% pass accuracy, 1 shot, 1 shot on target. WhoScored.com rating of 6.36.
    • I think the AUKAS deal was to a large extent about the deal - it was US arms firm lobbyists insisting that we come together to fight off the global threat of well, other arms lobbyists. I think the pact was secondary as a justification - the US is run by lobbyists, not people who are strategically planning geopolitics, those people just try and squeeze in when they can. That makes it primarily a deal. That doesn't make it a trade deal, it's not a deal that's in place for all future transactions between nations or blocs and it has no bearing on the trade between companies that operate in those blocks, it doesn't set rules, laws or tariffs for trade, it's a one off correction to an English speaking nation accidentally not putting enough of its budget into the US arms industry. The bloke on the corner selling you a Ferrari doesn't make him a Ferrari dealer and it doesn't mean that there's an agreement in place for all of Ferrari's future transactions with everyone you know.  
    • What relevance is company turnover, of Ferrari or Morrisons or anything else? You keep changing points for other points in a baffling flurry. You were initially saying we had sold nuclear submarines to Australia because of a 'free trade deal', which wasn't true, but now the argument has shifted to 'there is a market for nuclear subs'. I mean, depending how you define 'a market for' that could be true for almost anything, but what does it have to do with free trade deals? The purpose of liberalising trading rules is to facilitate commerce between two or more countries. It is for the benefit of companies, not governments; governments do not need a trade deal to make an arms sale, nor are governments answerable to the same rules as companies. Free trade deals are principally concerned with removing tariffs and quotas, neither of which are relevant concepts when it comes to the manufacture and sale of nuclear submarines. The Australian government would have to purchase nuclear submarines from a government, not a company, because nuclear submarines are obviously not a commercially available product. They could place an order with any government that had the capacity and desire to build those submarines, whether or not they had a specific trade deal in place with that country. This is really nothing at all like Ferraris, still less your supermarket groceries.
    • ok Its about 4 and a quarter  years of Morrisons turnover. Forget cars, There is quite clearly a market for nuclear subs.  These subs can last 25 years with a reactor, but does Nato want 25 year old technology on them. They will need upgrading and replacing, doubt a dial up internet still cuts it.

  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.