Jump to content

VillaTalk blog

  • entries
  • comments
  • views

Contributors to this blog

Player Match Ratings: We win at Fortress Villa Park!




This was our first Boxing Day win since 2005 and the first time we have won 5 successive home league games since season 1992-93 when we won 7 on the trot and Villa Park was a fortress, as it now threatens to become again.

Burton arrived for the first ever game between the two teams to face an all but full Villa Park. We opened the scoring after 15 minutes but instead of pressing for a decisive second goal we then surrendered too much space in the midfield to our visitors.

Burton came increasingly into the game and scored a spectacular equalizer 16 minutes after we had gone ahead. For much of the rest of the game they had looked the more likely of the two sides to get a winner and they were perhaps unlucky to leave Villa Park with nothing to show for their efforts. But our first two substitutions made a real impact on this game and rather than concede as the end of a game neared we continued with our new-found habit of clinching a late winner.      

This was not the sort of game that will have the extra visitors to Villa Park wanting to rush back to see more of the same but it again demonstrated that under Steve Bruce we have found the happy habit of winning games when we are below par. That gets teams promoted but we may need more than that later this week to win a sixth successive home game against high flying Leeds United. We owe them one after our recent defeat at Elland Road and we need to cut the gap between us and them sooner rather than later.        

My player ratings from a Boxing Day game that 41,337 fans attended and which took us above the club that dwell on the dark side of the city are:

Mark Bunn – 7 – Reacted very well to get a hand to a Brayford header in the fourth minute of stoppage time having got down low to save a shot from the edge of the box from the same player on 25 minutes. Had no chance with Ward’s 31st minute equalizer from a Brayford cross but although the finish was sublime he was allowed too much space with both Hutton and Gardner staying static some way off him. Mark was relieved to see Dyer’s shot hit the post on 73 minutes when beaten. Made decent saves from Ward on 35 minutes and from O’Grady on 77 minutes.    

Alan Hutton – 5 – Not the easiest of afternoons for Alan and he found some difficulty in coping with Dyer at times.   

James Chester - 6 – Solid when he needed to be.      

Nathan Baker – 7 – A rock in our defence who did the simple things right without any unnecessary frills.

Jordan Amavi – 6 – Seemed to have his mind elsewhere early on but got more into the game as it wore on.

Albert Adomah – 6 – Hit the ball harmlessly over on 62 minutes after a Bacuna cross had fallen to him after Kodjia had failed to connect with it.    

Gary Gardner - 5 – Substituted at half time having picked up a knock on 43 minutes.

Mile Jedinak – 6 – Solid as a barrier in front of our defence which is what he is there for but he cannot be expected to do the whole of our midfield’s job on his own.  

Leandro Bacuna – 7 –  MOTM - A good hard working all round display if still a little bit below the Champions League standard that he set for himself last year! Scored our opener on 15 minutes. He started and finished the move playing the ball out wide to Adomah who hit an inviting cross into the box which Leo headed home powerfully having run on into the box. Hit an effort just wide of the post 4 minutes earlier after the keeper had pushed out a Hutton cross to him inside of the box and McCormack had not got a touch to help the ball in as it sailed past him.

Ross McCormack – 6 – Hit our late winner on 78 minutes. Adomah fed Ayew on the right who hit a nice low cross that evaded both McLaughlin and Brayford before Ross controlled the ball at the far post with his left foot and hit it home with his right. I hope he will take confidence from this goal as we will need him to have his shooting boots on next month.  

Jonathan Kodjia – 5 – Hit a fierce shot from the left on the 80th minute that was off target. Some way off his excellent penetrative best yesterday.        


Jack Grealish – 7 – Replaced Gardner at half time and brought us some needed creativity. Played a one-two with McCormack before jinking into the box and hitting the ball with his left foot which deflected off McLaughlin into the path of Kodjia who tapped the ball in on the 52nd minute only to be adjudged to have been offside.    

Jordan Ayew – 7 - Replaced Jedinak on 75 minutes and looked keen to make a positive impression in the short time that he had available to do so. Claimed an assist with the low cross that produced our winner and proved a significant threat to Burton following his introduction. An impressive few minutes and a marked improvement on what he had produced in recent games that he has started.      

Gabriel Agbonlahor – Replaced Kodjia on the 86th minute and showed some energy by chasing down opponents but was not on long enough to gather a rating.

Up the Villa & A Happy Promotion New Year to all readers!

John Lewis



Recommended Comments

There are no comments to display.

  • Posts

    • I don't really understand people saying No Time To Die is "slower" than the other Craig Bond movies. Did you not see Spectre? One of the slowest and dullest films I've seen. Right up there with TInker Tailor Soldier Spy in the award for "nothing **** happens"
    • 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.

  • 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.