stanthemanisgod

Also considering the Milner deal was effectively a part ex with Ireland coming here and the fact we've probably paid a few of the add ons for Bent now I doubt they get close to balancing.

what was it £18m plus Ireland for Milner and £18m rising to £23 for Bent?

Sorry do you mean negative as in spent more than we recouped? I would take anegative net expediture to mean we made more in sales than we spent in fees.

If so what's your point? Thought you were arguing that Lerner hasn't spent any money?

A lot depends on how the first half of the season pans out, come Jan we might not have a choice if we're not giving him the kind of service he needs.

But for the money we'd likely get for him I think you're being optimistic with the 4 or 5 I think 3 is probably closer to the mark.

so I would sell if we can

And that is the issue, closely followed by who replaces him?

Is he worth his wages? No, but I'm not sure anybody is, Bent isn't if he's not getting the service he needs to score. But the squad is thin enough as it is and he's certainly not worth his wages if he's not playing at all.

A lot is dependent on what Lambert see's as our preferred style of play and if he ses Ireland as an integral part of that, simply saying get rid isn't really adding much to the conversation.

We cannot wait to sign 2 decent wingers and another forward just to get Ireland performing. That could take another 2 windows.

very few players in the world are worth that kind of hassle

I dont think we need to, I think 2 decent wingers and a new striker would signal the end of Ireland's usefulness, we'd be better off playing a more direct winger focussed style and get crosses into Bent and his new partner, who hopefully could do the hold up link up stuff as well.

I think N'Zog should be the kind of player Ireland needs. If you look at when he had that blinding season at Citeh it wasn't with 2 wingers and 2 strikers it was as part of a forward 3 with player like Bellamy and Robinho who float around and find the space in order to be played in.

It's early days in the Lambert era and the cobwebs of last season will take a while to be blown out, but players like N'Zog, Gabby, Bannan, Gardner, even Holmann and Albrighton could and should be able to fit that style when the confidence grows.

If you imagine Ireland getting the ball quickly and looking up and seeing N'Zog, Gabby and Bent all moving into space showing for the ball I think that would lead to some very entertaining football and more importantly goals.

I don't think Ireland is a world-beater but he is a very decent, experienced player who adds a lot to the midfield if he is playing well. I can see his wages are a problem - of the club's own making, it must be said - but he probably deserves another season to see if he can become a consistent asset to our midfield.

His first season with Villa, he was managed by a fool who seemed to equate man-management with sending people he didn't like to the naughty step. Second he had someone who didn't really believe in attacking football but managed to look increasingly good amidst all the gloom and negativity. Now he has a proper manager, he should have a chance to show if he can step up.

If people don't like the way he played on Saturday, he was almost certainly playing as instructed or he would have been subbed off and he was not alone in looking a bit lost and poor in skill.

This.

As I tried to pooint out it was a very new look team, I'd struggle to call delph a regular so Given, N'Zog and Bent were the only players he'd played regularly within the positions allocated. It wil take time for things to click but when (if) they do I think we will see Ireland contribute a lot more than we have seen previously.

For how many years has our net spend been negaitive? Evidence would be nice.

Sold who of any note Milner, Young and Downing?

Bought Makoun, Bent, Given, Hutton, N'Zog, Vlaar, Lowton, KEA.

Thinking 1 season max of negative net expenditure, but if you could provide the figures that would be nice.

Well he didn't appoint MoN.

He did appoint Houllier who gave us Bent.

And as discussed he dropped the ball massively with McLeish but I would still argue some mitigation on his behalf there as I honestly dont think anybody else wanted the job.

Warnock has contributed more but if you ask me who has the potential to contribute more to the current squad it's Ireland.

The point still remains though he's our player, no matter how much you dislike him he's picking up his wages week in week out, I'd rather have him playing to somewhere near his best rather than rotting in the reserves, hence the discussion on what we need to do to get the best out of him.

I'd like to think that even the likes of sonic_bouma can see the man has natural ability and therefore the potential to be a valuable player for our club, regardless of what he has shown previously.

This is still off topic but....

A reasonable amount of money comapred to what? How much Citeh spend? Utd? Spurs? Swansea? Who?

I could argue he is spending a reasonable amount of money, Lambert has had money to make signings with so far only 1 player being sold, the issue has been wages recently not neccesarily transfer fees.

Some will argue Lerner let wages spiral out of control, I would argue he took a punt on the potential increase in revenue CL footy wo0uld bring in and then took steps to control spending before they did spiral out of control. Last years management appointment was very misguided and I appreciate that it's going to take a lot for the fan base to get over that. But the Houllier appointment was different, imo it was a risk that ultimately didn't pay off but wasn't doomed to failure from the start like McLeish.

He has invested in the infrastruture of the club, the training facilities and youth set up are world class and we still have some of the cheapest tickets in the league.

He's a decent owner, doing what he can in line with his personal wealth, he's made some mistakes an he's done some good stuff for the club as well.

I'm not really sure what else people want him to do?

The way I see it is we have 3 options:

1. Stick with him and see how he performs when the rest of what is quite a new team (if selection remains like it was on Sat) settle and get used to each other.

2. Get rid and buy 2 proper wingers (tough task to do either if you ask me) and set up in a proper 4-4-2 getting crosses in.

3. Get rid and find a cheap, but good enough, second striker/attacking midfielder who can come in and create chances out of nothing.

For me I dont think we can get the business done to replace Ireland with 2 decent wingers, and I think anybody we signed coming into that supporting role would struggle until the rest of the midfield are creating the movement and space required to pull a defence out of position.

It's not about making excuses for Ireland, it's about having a rational conversation about what he does best and what is needed to get the best out of him, because whether we like it or not we're continuing to pay his wages, so makes sense to me to try and get the best out of him.

What is apparent so far is that Lambert clearly places a lot of emphasis on passing the ball, and there's few better passers of the ball at the club but with Bent the only option he's not going to unpick the defence every time he gets the ball. He needs the support of the rest of the team to create space and opportunity for the killer pass.

Milenko27 wrote:

Its not easy being Ireland either in that role, he is a great passer but when he gets into positions where he would like to play those throughballs he often has only one option and it gets very easy for the oppositions defence to stop/read the play. We need to create more runs/options going forward...

Yes and no... If you're Paul Scoles or Stevie G and the space opens up then yeah pull the trigger, but if that's not the strongest part of your game and you're more likely to hit row z then the pass has got to be the better option most of the time.

The issue being is Ireland needs the rest of the midfield getting into to positions that mean the opposition defence cant sit there and mug Darren Bent. The wider players need draw the full backs out to create the space, then the ball carrier or a CM need to make one of the CBs think about coming out to create the space for Bent.

this is the only knock I had on Ireland yesterday, he had chances from 20 yards out to shoot the ball, instead decided to try to put it through to bent as he was getting mugged by two defenders. if you have an opening shoot the damn ball. this will allow bent to clean up a rebound.

It's all relative,we're never going to have 100% of possession for 90 minutes so there's little point having 80% of possession and doing bugger all with it if the opposition are able to hurt you with the remaining 20%.

Equally there's no point in punting the ball forward to nobody and inviting the opposition to have possession.

Possession is only valuable if used correctly, I would rather play 5 passes through midfield and lose the ball in the opposition box than play 15 passes across the back 4 and lose the ball near our box.

But I think the confidence to use the ball more effectively will come once the players get used to knoacking it about rather than lumping it forward.

Nobody is doubting to be succesful you need to have players that are comfortable on the ball, at least I havn't seen anybody on this thread claiming anything of the sort.

The argument was over the pros and cons off possession football against counter-attacking football, or in VT extremes tippy tappy Vs kick and rush.

Personally I think the ideal comes somewhere between the 2, if you look at spurs I wouldn't call their style tippy tappy or kick and rush but they use the possesion they have to move the ball quickly.

The reason we've been so reliant on counter attacking play is that we've largely had a team of committed but less talented players that aren't as comfortable on the ball and those that were comfortable on the ball have been poached by more successful clubs.

Trying to get us passing the ball and moving better is being pragmatic. It's the way the game is played at the top level nowadays. People need to accept this. Kick and rush is dead.

Well, if you look at the results on Saturday & Sunday, some of the best results were achieved by superb counterattacking play based on soaking up pressure coupled with pace of attack, so if that's what you mean by "Kick and rush", I think you need to think again. As I keep trying to point out, Wigan, who are crap and fight relegation every season, play a passing game and often dominate the possession so I suggest there is no guaranteed link between this style of football and success.

That kind of style doesn't get you very far. In fact most of the teams that won at the weekend are very good with the ball, or at least far better than we are. Man City, Swansea, Newcastle, Fulham and Chelsea. You point out Wigan, but how many of the top teams are comfortable on he ball? All of them.

Umm, we weren't actually discussing "being comfortable with the ball". Counterattacking football requires players to be exceptionally good on the ball, maybe more so than teams who retreat into a short passing game.

No it doesn't. Where did you get that idea from? To be a good counter-attacking side all you need is pace, which is why we used to be so good at it.

Not neccesarily.

It's no good having the fastes players in the league if you cant get the ball into the opposition box, unless you're suggesting you have them queued up on the half way line and literally thump the ball over everybodies head for them to run onto?

If you look at teams like Man Utd they counter attack very well, through a combination of pace and skill on the ball, whether it's the ability to beat a man and deliver a quality ball into the box, or the ability to play the ball from defence through midfield with incisive, quick passing.

there is more o football than the 2 extremes of punt and run or tippy tappy 50 passes along the back line. The succesful teams will hold onto possesion when they need to but equally play direct, INCISIVE, football when the opportunity to break is there.

Lambert has all the time in the world to get the team and the tactics right as far as I'm concerned because after the disasters of the last two seasons both are in a rather chaotic state. But it is of no benefit to anyone to pretend that the display we saw on Saturday was heading in the right direction.

I have to disagree with this, albeit based on reports from other people, if we pased the ball around as much as people claimed even with no end product that is still a move in the right direction, compared with belting it into the channels and watching it bounce straight back.

You cant expect very pass to be a killer through ball to Bent, we need to get used to keeping possesion and bringing onto to us to create the space to penetrate an organised defence. The first stage is getting used to passing in and around the middel third of the pitch, once that becomes second nature the confidence to apply that style in the final third will come.

For me the selection policy and the commitment to a playing style is a step in the right direction even if the overall performance was short of the required level.

For me N'Zog is a bit like Ireland in that it's a chicken and egg type scenario.

By that I mean if Lambert gets the team playing in a way that allows Villa to be successful whilst lining up like we did on Sat we'll need luxury type players like N'Zog and Ireland. The issue being is they are often less effective than harder working but less able players during that transition.

So yes we could sideline N'Zog and replace with Herd for now but eventually we'll get to the point where we'll need a flair type player to give us a cutting edge.

So I guess the decision is whether it's financially viable/desireable to sell these players on the cheap to then need to replace them with similar for more money later, or keep them involved and hope the rest of the team develops quickly enough to enable them to play to their strengths and prove their worth.

Now I'm not saying there aren't better players out there but I do think we need to be realistic about how much we want to spend and what kind of names we can attract without at least signs of improvement on the pitch.

It's hard to know what's best, that's why we pay a manager a lot of money, but I would say we don't have the wingers or strikers available to play a direct 4-4-2 at the moment.

N'Zog is not an out and out winger and really you'd expect him to thrive in a fluid midfiled that lets him cut inside and swap position at will. What we seem to have suffered from on Sat is a lack of movment in the final 3rd, and that will come if given time. West Ham will always be well organised defensively, so we need players making forward runs in order to draw their defence out of position. Bent will not get the ball in goal scoring positions when he's surrounded by 3 defenders.

Whilst I agree keeping the ball with no end product is annoying it's better than backs to wall defending for 85 mins because we cant keep hold of it. We lined up with effectively only 4 regular players on Sat, 5 if you count Delph but he hardly featured last season. It's bound to take a bit of time before the team gels and players can instictively make and pick out the kind of movement we need to play through teams but it will come.

Basically we need to sign Robinho then we might get something out of Ireland.

No, I think we have the type of players we need in N'Zog, Gabby, Holman and KEA, we just need the players on the pitch to offer more to create the spaces Ireland or anybody playing in the hole needs to influence a game.

I honestly think that replace Ireland with Sigurdsson or anybody else in a similar style and we'd be having a similar conversation after Saturday's game, perhaps with the exception that they may have had more shots.

Sonic Bouma,

In a team that is attacking well Ireland does score goals.

There may well be players out there that are better than Ireland but for whatever reason they remain out there and not in a Villa shirt. Ireland was selected on Saturday (I assume) because the manager considered him to be the best player at the club in that position and therefore worthy of a starting place.

All I'm arguing is to get get the best out of Ireland (the player we have and seem to be picking) the team needs to be playing in a certain way, I would argue that as the manager selected Ireland he would want his team to play in tha way, and I'm fairly confident Bent would be happy to see the team play in that way.

I personally would be horrified if our main attacking threat came from midfielders taking pop shot, which you seem to lace a lot of importance on.

bent doesn`t make intelligent runs.

I disagree with this, I think his goalscoring record is testament to his ability to find space in the box, however up top on his with 2 or 3 players covering him makes finding that space more difficult. And that's the crux of this whole argument an isolated Bent will not score regularly.

I'm not indicating we should try to sign players to build a team around Ireland.

But bar some shots from outside of the box players like Michu and Sigurdsson would still need options in order to play as well as they have done for Swansea.

For Bent to score we need to provide him with service, we either do that by getting the ball wide quickly and getting decent balls into the box ( would require 2 new wingers and another first team striker to be effective imo) or we try to play the ball through teams in a 4-4-1-1 or 4-3-3 formation with a player like Ireland/michu/Sigurdsson pulling the strings (requires the other attacking midfielders get get into positions to free up time and space for the playmaker and Bent in order to make sure the ball into the striker is good enough to create a chance).

As the squad looks at the moment I think we have more chance of making the latter work, but we can't single out Ireland as the weak link when he only has Bent in front of him and 4 or 5 players to pass through.

Now I'm not arguing that he's the best payer in the world in that position but he is the best player at the club in that position, so we either need to fully commit to that style of play which may take a few games to 'click' or we need buy the players that would make a 4-4-2 work.

I would argue it's not mythical, but as I argued above he's not Messi, he's not going to create something out of nothing.

He is probably the most talented footballer we have at the club with the ball at his feet, but he needs options, any player we replace Ireland with would still need options.

What Lambert needs to figure out is if the other players in the squad can play the 4-4-1-1 system, if we need to play 2 out and strikers and go a bit more direct or if we need to find a striker in the style of Rooney who can play that link up role with more of a direct attacking threat.

But as we stand Ireland is the best/only option in that floating position.

blimey Harry was signing the likes of Sully Muntari years ago while we were sleeping.... Danny Murphy when he left Liverpool would have done a good job for us.

And look where Pompey are now! Harry crippled Pompey by paying wages the club couldn't afford, we've been stung with that in recent years as well. It's clear that whilst there is money to spend wages are a central issue.

We also need to factor in the 'stepping stone' status of transfers, despite a couple of very poor seasons I would prefer us to stay away from the Wiganesque signings that come to us for a season or 2 in the hope of securing a move to bigger club. I would prefer players that buy into the philospehy of the club and are happy to stay with us for the long term.

Finally as I've said many times, we're traditionally a club that conduct its business behind closed doors, as fans we really have little or no idea who we have and havn't approached, it could be we've spoken to everybody on that list and more but decided they weren't the right player for the club, who knows.

Ireland is never going to change a game on his own, he's not going to get the ball in his own half and skin half the opposition before sticking it in the corner.

If you look at when he had his 'season' at City he had clever players making clever runs, creating gaps in even the most organised defences meaning he could pick his pass to the best option. If at Villa he's only got Bent making intelligent runs, it's not hard for a defence o double up on him making Ireland's ability on the ball ineffective.

Ideally he needs 2 wide players dragging the full backs awayf from the penalty box, leaving one CB to close down the ball and one to cover Bent (who should be able to find some space). It's abit like when we had ash Young and everything had to go through him, teams would double up on him and we'd struggle to create anything.

Could Ireland do more, probably, but he's showing enough to warrant a starting place imo and I think as the players get used to each other he'll become more effective, especially at home and against teams that like to play more than W Ham do.