Junxs

I was shocked in the summer when he was given a new contract, one of the most baffling decisions we've made since the new owners came in. 

League 1 player at best, should not be the first option for a Premier League side, absolutely clear to see.

We've been really lucky that Watkins has played every minute of every game, looks like we are going to risk it until the summer. 

5 hours ago, SuperTed said:

We’ve been on the receiving end of a few of those though and we’ve always slated the ref and/or VAR official after. I imagine if you went on the Southampton forum now they’re talking about Mike Dean

Not me, the only decisions I have complained about this season are the Man City offside (which since has proven incorrectly called), and the Watkins disallowed goal against WHU on the basis that if it was offside then we should have had a penalty. *just remembered the Pogba incident as well, felt he kicked his own leg before he went down.

I think these tight VAR offside calls have been going on long enough now for all fans of all clubs to know they get chalked off due to the slightest of margins, and we've had far more of these go against us than the opposition we have been playing anyway. No one likes it, but at least its the same for all teams. If they had allowed that last night then there would have been uproar from every other team whos had an identical goal disallowed. They set the standard and have to stick with it until an overhaul of the system.

For me the Cash handball incident is pretty similar to the Trez pen that wasnt given, their player got the slightest of touches on the ball and with the rules as they are the penalty could not then be given. So for Cash to have had that slight deflection off his thigh in the same way can not then be given with the rules as they are.

Doesnt stop fans moaning, but when they actually analyse the 2 incidents I'm sure they will realise they were correct calls once the red mist has cleared. 

10 hours ago, SuperTed said:

Mike Dean on VAR, who when even isn’t on the pitch, needs to make it about him 

But both decisions were correct?

A penalty cannot be given if the ball is deflected off any part of the defenders body first, it's actually in the rules. It hit Cash' thigh before his hand.

The offside goal was offside, if he gave this as a goal then it would have been making it about him

6 minutes ago, dubbs said:

Had a good have v Liverpool bit other than that I can't think of another game where his "quality" has really stood out. 

I remember being frustrated with him that day as he missed so many chances that Jack put on a plate for him. Did get an eventual deflected goal. 

Overall this season I've been underwhelmed, think there's better players out there for the mooted price.

Not having a proper option off the bench could cost us this season.

This guy coming in and having to potentially play 20 games (should something really bad happen to Watkins) would be a disaster, I don't understand why we didn't prioritise a replacement first in the summer and now again in January. Even just getting someone on loan until Wesley is fit again would help.

Scratching my head trying to understand how we lost that, should have been 3 nil at half time. Bloody Pope is too good.

Considering we've had covid and now playing every few days, dont think we should be too disheartened by a bad result here or there, we are inevitably going to lose a few games. I'd much rather lose like this feeling hard done by than get battered by teams like we did last season, or lose by controversial refereeing decisions.

We are still a work in progress, and playing well.

Having said that some players are not doing as well as they could, Barkley McGinn and Mings need to perform better. However they don't have any competition, not serious competition.

I'm still delighted with the way this season is going and not going to let a freak result concern me.

18 hours ago, obanken said:

Even if we had lost that game 1-0 we would still have stayed up due to more goals scored if the rest of the results after that stayed the same. Why don’t anyone else than Villa-fans pick that up? 

I've seen this said by various people, it's simply not true. 

We would have gone down on GD of -27 compared to Bournemouth's -25

What really saved us wasn't Hawkeye failing but Watford sacking Nigel Pearson.

It also goes unappreciated that we actually broke a record for the first team ever to survive getting ≥8 points from the last 4 games. 

As for tonight, I don't understand why anyone would be sceptical, we will batter these just like a few weeks ago only this time finding the net.

2 hours ago, Rightdm00 said:

What is this madness!  It's like Trump has broken truth in 2021. Does Sky think people are that dumb? It's clear why the Watkins goal stood and it wasn't because of desperate deflection from a Newcastle defender. 

Just admit you got it wrong. Dean is a class manager. He will accept the apology and move on. Enough said. 

Apparently BBCs Match of The Day drew the offside line from Matt Targetts standing leg, so they could convince people of their narrative that we benefitted from the same rule by showing Watkins slightly ahead of the defender.

They don't even know if a player is behind the ball then he can't be offside, or they were banking on people just falling for it. Can they really not know the basics of the offside law? I'm glad I haven't paid the TV licence for 15 years.

I didn't realise there was a dedicated thread for this.. just posted the following in the post match thread, but deserves to be here:

Quote

Really annoyed by Skys comments regarding Watkins goal, trying to make it out as if we benefitted from the same rule that was our downfall against Man City, so they can say for the rest of time that the 2 decisions cancel themselves out.

No chance! For a start Watkins - even if he was ever so slightly ahead of the defender if you get the stencils out, that's irrelevant as he was behind the ball where Targett crossed it from, so he was not in an offside position at all. Furthermore he did not interfere with the Newcastle defender trying to make a clearance as he had no idea if Watkins was onside or not. What happened to Mings was criminal as a player snuck up from behind him and tackled him from an offside position. Despite what everyone in the media is trying to claim, Mings was never "in control" of the ball. 

What I'm really failing to understand with this so called new found rule, is why is a striker called is offside when a goalkeeper makes a save? S surely thats the same thing as a defender touching the ball when neither is in control of possession. Either both scenarios should be offside or neither. I've seen it countless times when a striker taps the ball in after a keeper has made a save "touching the ball without in control" only for it to be ruled out offside.

6 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Thanks for the clarification ... surprised VAR did not go to the referee?

He would have done, they are in constant communication so after seeing just one replay he would have OK'd it whilst we were celebrating. 

There was nothing to check as Watkins was clearly behind the ball

30 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

1st goal a bit similar to the City one. 

If the defender let's it go the goal does not stand but since he intentionally touches it the goal is fine. 

Watkins was clearly behind the ball, so in that regards it was nothing like the Man City goal at all

It's just Sky trying to protect the refs and Man City so they can forever say we benefitted from the same rule to stop our fans moaning

12 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

According to the commentator I was watching, Watkins while ahead of his defender was actually still behind the ball when the ball was passed, so it would not have mattered if the defender had not touched the ball. But I am surprised it did not go to VAR.

By the way, things don't "go to VAR" - every goal is checked regardless of the referee asking for it.

I completely agree with you though, Watkins was behind the ball when it was played anyway.

Targett went off injured last game which was only 3 days ago, do we know if he's fit?

Playing Taylor could cost us the match, in previous games in which we've dominated the ball (because we will today) and had Taylor in the team has led to numerous breakdowns of attacks.

I hope Nakamba doesnt come in for the suspended McGinn either, there is no need to play 2 x DMs against these lot. Play Grealish alongside Ramsey as 2 number 8s.

Drop Barkley to the bench as hes been out for 2 months and looked completely off the pace, can he even manage 2 games in 3 days? Bring him on after 70 if we havent scored yet.

On 15/01/2021 at 18:17, OutByEaster? said:

I have. 

Several times. 

We were told at the last meeting early in December that the club were in the process of building the necessary infrastructure for TV cameras. I'm pretty sure that's been completed, because its the same camera points they use for the highlights when they do them.

We played Reading in the Youth Cup and their coverage was superb, the full match on youtube with commentary, Leeds had two commentators and full match video. Palace had a former player helping a commentator on full video for £3.

We'll get a couple of tweets on a night when there hasn't been this much interest in our U23's for years, maybe decades.

 

 

The most annoying thing about this is that roughly 3 years ago we actually had excellent coverage. I used to watch all the games on YouTube. We made it to the final of one of the cups and it was all live streamed. Think we lost to Swansea in the final. Also remember watching Jacob Ramsey scoring an absolute wandergoal in one of the games that season live on there as well (though I think that was a regular u23s game)

Its all coincided with the relaunch of the Womens team, someone high up the chain has decided theres only so much they can cover or to keep fans interested in one or the other. I think there's plenty of room for both, but its fairly obvious at roughly the same time they started pushing womens football that they started ignoring/toning down coverage on the youth teams. It really doesn't need to be one or the other, but they don't want to create a separate womens youtube channel as then they cant tap into the huge fan base thats already subscribed to the main channel 

I wish they'd sort it out, I really miss not being able to watch the u23s and other youth games

42 minutes ago, Paul33 said:

WTF ?!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Sanson

You do realise Wikipedia can be edited by anyone right?

17 minutes ago, TRO said:

if we got 12m I would bear my **** in the Co-op window.

No one wants to see that, hope the figure is 11.75m now

11 hours ago, Rodders said:

£12m    - may I suggest £2-3m. He's proven at championship level, not really at PL level though he could be useful for lower sides. He's also 30 and not much left on his contract. Re-coup what we paid and I'd be happy enough

2-3m 

He's a full Ireland international, aged 29 - still has 4 or 5 years in him. 

You're all acting like he's 36

Why do we always undervalue our players?

Probably would have got relegated if not for his contribution after lockdown. 

One of the sweetest left foots in the premier league and he's only worth 2m? .. good joke!

January is known for inflated prices as well, set pieces are really important for teams who struggle to create chances from open play. He could be a real coup for some of the teams in the bottom half of the premier league. Burnley, Newcastle, West Bromwich etc.. don't think he'll want to drop back down to the championship just yet.

Just now, barry'sboots said:

If we got 12m for CH I would be amazed ... and overjoyed!!!

Why?

If we were in the market for a player like that, don't you think we'd be getting quoted 20m by the likes of Brentford?

The only reason I think 12m and not higher is because he doesn't have that long left on his contract and is near 30, like I said earlier, played a huge part in our promotion and was involved in nearly every goal we scored after lockdown. 

He's not spectacular but a solid premier league player.

Apart from the Man City game, we should be in with a good chance of winning the rest. Sadly doesnt always work out like that. So think 3 wins and 1 draw - 10 points.

We'll definitely be wanting revenge against West Ham and Saints, who's bubble seems to have burst and dont look like scoring with Ings out

Wheres this talk of free transfer come from over the last few pages?

He was instrumental in our promotion and again in keeping us up, was involved in nearly every goal we scored after project restart!

He would be the most productive player at somewhere like Newcastle or West Brom. Definitely still a premier league player, just doesnt suit our style anymore as we are fast paced now. He doesnt suit the AM role because he's not fast or tricky enough, or the DM role as he's not fast or good at tackling. What he's excellent at is shooting and free kicks whilst good at keeping possession and rotating the ball. 

12m would be a fair price I think.

9 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Fair enough but shouldn’t signing players mean the ones who aren’t getting on the bench or in the team will be surplus to requirements? I see comments like signing Samson means we will lose Luiz or aren’t going to sign Barkley.   Does it have to be that way? 

No, I certainly don't think either of those 2 will be unregistered.

@MaVilla has pointed out Kalinic has already left, I'd forgotten about that. So there is room for one more player as it stands if Lansbury remains out of the picture.

The way we play, with 2 DMs and 1 CAM, I dont think Hourihane fits either of those positions, sadly lacks the pace although he has some good attacking qualities. Might be best for all if he was allowed to move on.

40 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

why it is every time we are linked to a player it means a first team player is leaving? Our squad lacks a lot of quality. 

Because our 25 man squad is already full, we already had to omit Lansbury so are beyond the limit as it is.

There is no need to keep players around if they arent going to be included in the 25 man squad, especially now we are out of all the cup competitions

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

No chance was he getting 12 goals. He scored in 4 games with a hattrick against the worst team in the league. 

Also unlike Watkins, when he wasn't scoring he did nothing for the team, which was a huge problem for us and a reason we were so poor. 

He has a clean slate with me and I think he will be fine as back up but pretending he wasn't woeful last year is pointless. 

I don't recall many other players scoring a hattrick v Norwich last season, and no one managed a hattrick when we played Sheffield United this season.

Using the same argument you could say Watkins has only scored in 3 matches this season.

I'd say he was on course to get double figures last year, would definitely have been a better option to have than Samatta or Davis

20 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I wonder if it's a genuine trial or just that because he's on loan to Gloucester and they're not playing any football we're doing them a favour and giving him some game time.

 

Doesn't make any sense, why would we do them a favour to give game time to one of their players at the expense of one of our own players?