Panto_Villan

To be honest he's not actually played particularly well in the league this season in the few games he has played. So in a theoretical situation where he doesn't get injured again and plays all our games, but scores say a total of 12 league goals...looks decent but not as good as he did last season...how would everyone see that panning out? If he's not amazing this season we're not going to be able to get £30m for him, which means we may well not want to sell him - but we've probably already agreed he can go. I wonder what would happen then? Would it pan out well for Villa?

Incidentally, at what point does a player stop being a "prospect"? The article and manager describes Bacuna as a prospect despite being 22. I'd say he's very much at the upper bounds of being a prospect by then unless he's been showing remarkable game-on-game improvement, no?

It's true that writing players off early is not confined to VT and any club will have fans that do it. However, that doesn't mean that it's a desirable behavior or we should not aspire to be fair-minded when evaluating our players.

I wonder why you're so keen on the Economist. (It's not a newspaper, by the way). It's always struck me as rather dull, plodding, and prone to repeat uncritically the false certainties of the establishment. You get more diversity and more intellectual challenge in the Torygraph or the FT, if reading right-wing papers is your thing. The Economist reminds me of a student magazine that is written by Economics undergrads. Every now and then there's a good, interesting article, but most of the time it's old hat 'micro 101' and rather tedious... The 'Schumpeter' column is particularly hilarious and clearly written by someone who has never read Schumpeter before. You're absolutely right that the FT is more diverse and intellectually challenging. The Economist isn't so financially focused as the FT - it's more of a current affairs paper with a business and economics section, while the FT really is the Financial Times. It's also not inherently right wing, rather it's liberal in the literal sense of the word - supporting free market economics like the Tories do, but supporting social liberalism like Labour and the Lib Dems do. I'd say that makes it relatively centrist. The columns are named for economists who contributed to economics, rather than because that particular columnist agrees with their views or is some way obliged to communicate them in the column.

Writing him off before he really had a chance? Thank god we're so much better to him, eh chaps?

I thought his previous team thought he was crap and we were idiots for buying him? Maybe they sold him so they could spend the money on an ACM?

Meh. Houllier was condemned for some ill-chosen words about Liverpool, and McLeish was damned for his methods more than his results. It's not *just* results and actions that count. Obviously nobody can tell the future but the signs so far have been good with Lambert. Also, to be fair to the community, I haven't seen much moaning about Lambert since we avoided relegation last season so I think you're being a tad harsh about the 'hardcore moaners'.

It's quite the improvement, especially when you consider he was even dire in the pre-season games against fairly poor opposition.

Maybe Benteke could tap him up on international duty? More likely he would tap up Benteke on international duty. Always wanted to do that

Maybe Benteke could tap him up on international duty?

I'd be gutted if we sold Guzan, properly gutted. Villa having a brilliant keeper in goal reduces my heart attack risk by approximately 400%.

I agree with Morpheus entirely. He did something similar to Clark and it's like someone has flipped a lever in his head.

But that just makes him a worse version of Emile Heskey, which is one of the meanest things you could ever say about anybody.

I find him utterly uninspiring. I was thinking earlier that I don't think I could name a worse player in our squad (bomb squad remnants aside). He's not hair-tearingly useless, but he just doesn't seem to have any flair or excitement about him at all. Does anyone else think there is a worse player in our squad? I can see Bennett getting a few votes but tbh if we had to give one away I'd rather it were Bowery.

I agree. It's the thing I like most about Villa. At the end of the day we're not a good side and we won't really win anything until we have our very own Arab. But at least, unlike those who DO have their very own Arab, we have kept some of the important aspects that are disappearing from football like love for the club, passion, effort, professionalism and a real desire to do well for each other. Just look at them all at the end of the Man City game. Who didn't feel like they wanted to run onto the pitch and go mental with them?? But then again, that might all be clichéd nonsense. Maybe I'm just drawn in by the beard also. Isn't KEA our very own Arab?

Yup, but Belgium stole him from the parking lot and resprayed him. EDIT - vaguely related to stealing and respraying players, "Speaking with Roy in the office there is a possibility Januzaj could qualify to play for England from 2015."

Adnan Januzaj. Guess where he's from?

It's better to have loved and lost, then never loved at all. There's no shame in getting excited that Villa might make it back to the big time, even if it didn't / doesn't ultimately pan out.

Oh, Hull are above us in the table. They're probably not THAT awful a side then... Does anyone have a new barrel? I seem to have worn the bottom out of this one.

If he said he thought Kozak was terrible, the next question would be "So why didn't you sub him?"

Surely you'd admit you're more likely to get an assist passing to Eden Hazard than you are passing to Jordan Bowery, and more likely to score a goal being played in by Juan Mata than you are by Ashley Westwood?

Have we really only lost to the "Top 4" away in the last year? If that's true, colour me impressed.

Con said he'd be scoring goals if we dominated games like Chelsea, and I'm inclined to agree with him here. It's much harder for him to get goals or assists without the vast attacking riches and possession that Chelsea enjoy. Not to say he's definitely as good as Ramires but just comparing stats is not a fair comparison.

You like your hyperbole, don't you? I like Bacuna but don't think comparisons with the best full-backs in the world will flatter him.

Offers something in the other two, though. I'll take that right now.