peterw

16 minutes ago, Risso said:

He's missed a whole season's worth of games SINCE his ACL injuries though.

I know but that was just the injury and the time to get over that injury wasn't it? (Not certain)

Looking at this it was one bad injury and a series of niggles:

Nicolò Zaniolo - Injury history | Transfermarkt

36 games in a couple of seasons is quite a bit, but 7 games through 'muscle fatigue' should be something that could be looked after better (you'd imagine). its also quite and odd list when you see he had 10 days out injured according to the site between May - June 2022 which states he missed 5 games (for Italy). Which is highly unlikely. So take out whatever muscle fatigue is, because I'm sure that's manageable, his injury record isn't as bad as a total crock. I'm also guessing that's why we're loaning first rather than a flat out purchase. If he looks good and stays fit then its worth the punt. If not, then we avoid a jenas situation where we are lumbered with a crock. 

2 minutes ago, Risso said:

Personally I'm a little bit worried about his terrible injury record. He looks a talented player but he hasn't half missed a whole load of football. Are we limited to transfers where Monchi has worked with the incoming player? This seems a huge risk to me. Maybe not financially, just in terms of wasting a signing.

To be honest I'm more worried about Acuna. He seems to have a repeat of hamstring injuries from 2020 which isn't good. I know Zaniolo has had a more serious injury (ACL) but serious injuries rarely repeat themselves and a player can build up again from that. Niggly things like hamstrings that keep repeating very rarely go away. Its him I'd move on from whilst being tentative with Zaniolo (which I think explains the delay in signing - maybe going over terms of the loan agreement).

49 minutes ago, allani said:

I think there is also an element of the fact that Galatasaray were pretty smart because they signed him (for a Turkish record I believe) at a cut-down price because the European window had already closed.  They will almost certainly almost double their money in 18 months - meaning that they can break the Turkish transfer record twice next summer if they so wish.  Meantime I think that the loan fee already covers them for FFP for this season (possibly even showing as a slight profit) so that gives them extra funds for this summer too.  In the meantime they also got a player for 6 months whose goals & assists helped them to win the title.  It was an uncredibly smart football and business / financial decision to sign him in February.

Turkish football lost a lot of its financial muscle just before covid, and has not recovered so yes they are in need of cold hard cash. That said, they only got Zaniolo in in Feb and I think they're aware of the pulling power of the Prem League for any player and on top of that the financial incentives for the club. He has done excellently there but the deal as it was was good for the club. We've obviously seen something that makes the move a a little more risky than we'd like and so the renegotiation is likely to be around having to buy him after a certain amount of appearances.

20 hours ago, blandy said:

Without veering back into an off topic India discussion, looking at the responses to Russia's war on Ukraine from the perspective of different nations and alliances, maybe we need to understand why the responses are what they are. It seems to me that India's response to Russia is in line with their recent trajectory. I mean India was a very much third world country but (as with their cricket team) a decade or more ago, they decided "enough of being looked down on and patted on the head, we're going to assert ourselves, flex our considerable assets (pfk) and aggressively look after India's needs and aims on the world stage" - And that's what they've been doing with a great deal of success, in cricket and in general.

So with Russia, there's a situation there to profit from cheap oil and either use that to feed their industry, and/or to sell it on as a broker and make a ton of money for the benefit of India.

That ties very much with not wanting to alow China to assert itself as the hegemon in the area. That becomes particularly pertinent with China's belt and road initiatives in pakistan, and if there's something India do not want is an aggressive China (remembering they (CHN & IND) both have border conflicts) and and aggrssive China to the north (east) and alongside it kashmir/Pakistan border. being part of BRICS also allowed them to try and assert itself on the world stage as an economic powerhouse first across Asia but beyond. India is no friend of China and the Russia war is a distraction to them remeber that they were unaligined throughout the Cold |War (depsite what you'd think were Soviet leanings), and want to portray themselves as such now. There is no point in trying to compete with China if they deny themselves cheap imports of gas from Russia (also they have large wepaons contacts with Russia that they want honouring).

India is in a tricky place in wanting to place itself against China, which means Russia, but also needing what it gets from Russia.

I'm coming round to the belief that he will stay and will sign on. usually by now if a youth player is going you get more than a signal from his potential destination as the deal tends to be done early. I think the delay is indeed agent based but more that he wants Chuk to show his worth in the U-19s and then to go back to Villa saying, "look he's great we want 20k per week" (or some such conversation). I have now shifted full throttle and think he'll sign next week or soon after.

Obviously by the time you lot read this it'll be plastered over the news that he's signed for Dortmund or someone.

4 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

No, of course. I don't have the time, means or inclination to live in each to form my own first hand opinion though!

I can only listen to those with that experience, like yourself. Most of my negative views come from a lovely lady I used to work with. To be fair it mostly sounded like local governments, albeit those of or linked with Modi's party.

That's the other thing - India is governed in a kind of Federal system so although Modi is the leader of the BJP each state has an amount of autonomy to run things as they see fit. for instance I travelled from delhi to Amritsar last week and the Punjab still has more strict covid guidelines with testing needed for some unvaccinated people; Delhi however does not require it. I know that's on a different scale to foreign policy but just an instance of how something seen on the news in th UK may be a reaction to a federal decision rather than one taken by Modi.

Just now, sparrow1988 said:

Can't governments and presidents be freely and democratically elected but nevertheless act reprehensibly?

I mean Trump, Bolsonaro, the UK government, all freely and democratically electetd.

of course. but I still haven't seen an example of how the Indian govt has acted reprenhensibly and how that's comparavble to anything Putin is doing. Anything Trump did around jan 6th 2020 etc As i said - living in the country there may be some levels of disatissfaction but nothing to say Modi is reprehensible or comparable to someone who is also being called a war criminal.

6 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is I have heard plenty that fits the definition of reprehensible.

hearing isn't quite the same as living in it though. The government does a lot wrong and plays to its base (as most govts do) but in general are popular at home. Its not easy running a country of a billion people and having a free and fair electoral system. As I said the BJP aren't that popular down south compared to up north and so they play the Hindu card a lot admittedly. That said, I still find if difficult to find their actions similar to Russia for example.

8 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Do some research on Hindu nationalism and what it has meant for minorities in the country over the last few years.

Can do better than that - I live in India. Hindu nationalism is powerful and overbearing in many areas (not in the South) but I'm not sure the govt is comparable to those mentioned. 

On 26/06/2022 at 19:13, Davkaus said:

The reality is as the election approaches I might just find myself having to  hold my nose to get my tory backbencher out, but I'd just love one **** reason to vote *for* Labour instead of against the tories. What do they stand for? Anything at all? 

They seem to have one policy - don't rock the boat, or commit to anything, in case it loses us a vote. 

to be fair you don't ever tend to get parties announcing policies until general Election time as there literally is no point. If its a good policy that is popular then the govt will just nick it if they aren't able to rubbish it, adn which point come Election time there would be few headline grabbing policies left for an opposition to try and sell to the public. This whole 'what does Labour stand for' is disngenuous at best and againg propagated by the right-wing press. The point of an opposition is to oppose and only at Election time to announce what they would do or change.

regarding the strikes then everyone knows where Labour stands. Lammy even pointed out when asked that they are the Labour party so their sympathies lie with the rights of workers. But he and the shadow govt are hardly likely to say they are in favour of strikes. Imagine how the right-wing media would spin that. You could see it when kay burley tried to ensnare Mick Flynn when asking what the picketers would do if people wanted to cross the picket line. despite him saying they will picket them she was provoking for more, then mentioning the miners strike. 

It is clear that the Govt (and media) want to drag Labour into the mess they have created and it is for Labour to stay out of it. If you want a labour govt (which is still unlikely) in 2 years then giving free ammunition to the right-wing estates is not the way to go about it. No point asking about Brexit and returning to the EU (which Lammy also ruled out as an election pledge), SNP/pacts, strikes and would labour go on the picket line because it is all designed to trip them up and then see them attacked. The right-wing agenda is obvious and is running scared. It is also why they are attempting to discredit the opposition rather than fight their own cause backed by their own success stories. They have none.

Quickest return out of lockdown? Yes, but only because Johnson was prepared to let "the bodies be stacked up". That wasn't a successful policy that was just good fortune on his behalf. if he'd have taken the circuit breaker in Spetember as Labour called for ratehr than in November then perhaps more deaths would have been avoided. The deaths that weren't avoided when the Tories dithered over initial lockdowns and then allowed thecare homes to become death traps. So don't then tell me about successful roll outs of vaccines when they contributed to one of the largest amounts of covid deaths in the western world in the first place.

We know what labour stand for. Trying to not let the right-wing in the country destabilise them. they want to appear to be a centre-left party that can once again appeal to 'middle England'. So don't expect them to try and inflame but to appear benign and reasonable. You want the Tories out then you have to accept what Labour stand for now - which is don't rock the boat, let the electorate like you, don't give any free hits to the Tories/right-wing stakeholders and then publish your manifesto only when need be.

11 hours ago, bickster said:

My missus and daughter are at Centre Court today

Quick detour via Albrighton on the way home for she whose wrath is worse than Khan's

interestingly that is my wife's surname and a few years ago we did a job at Wimbledon with various enforcement agencies. We could literally have closed down the tournament as some umpires and more importantly the racket stringers were all on the wrong visas. However, given that the racket stringers job was deemed to be specialised they could have replacements from the Uk and these had been flown in especially from (I think) Japan. If we'd followed the letter of the law (so to speak) they could have been arrested/detained and removed from the UK forthwith. There may have been a little bit of a backlash though so as you can imagine they were allowed to stay. So we literally couldn't have closed it down. Damn.

I was at the Ahmedabad test (third test maybe?)and for two sessions England were comfortbaly the better team and had India I think around 5 or 6 down. By the final session you could see the bowlers visibly wilt in the heat and the Indians took advantage. Added to that Bess bowling poorly meant Anderson (for example) who had been bowling brilliantly in  the earlier part of the day was being carted around by I think Pant, when Bess should have been able to tie up one end giving the quicks more tiem to recover. Sending Moeen home didn't help either.

That was a test we could easily have taken better advantage of the opportunities we had and 3-1 could easily have been 2-2. I thought we were poorly managed during that tour we contributed to the defeat as much as onfield problems.

12 hours ago, bickster said:

Don't forget that the G20 includes some fairly reprehensible Govt. Saudi, China, Brazil, India

There will be an anti-Russia majority but nowhere near complete consensus

And absolutely nothing will happen to Putin there either. No world leader would sanction it because they could be next

India's government is reprehensible? Given they are one of our most 'important' partners that were freely and democratically elected (in the world's largest democracy) I'm not sure how they can be descirbed as reprehensible?

I'm pretty sure Northampton were telling him to stay put as a 13 year-old but off he went to bigger and better things. Now its turned full circls and we're offering the same arguments that Northampton probably did (well, not entirley but you get my drift).

11 minutes ago, John said:

Agreed, but it's still astounding that players like Dennis Mortimer and Gary Shaw (whose toes did twinkle) were never capped, and Tony Morley only got 6 caps. and Gordon Cowans 8 (when he was playing for us). 

when you look at the squad Greenwood chose Mills and Anderson over Swain; took Corrigan over Rimmer; Rix over Sid; an injured Brooking over Mortimer (brooking a good player without doubt but we were also taking an injured keegan); and Coppell over Morley. A side that was the best in europe was deemed good enough to only supply 1 player at that World Cup for England. ****. I hate Greenwood almost as much as Italy for knowking out that Brazil side.

I think he needs a loan too - get him some minutes playing grown up football week in week out. disagree with nakamba though, time for him to go.

McGrath, sir Brian, then a toss up between Sid and Morty. 

In a day or so I'll give 3 different answers.

I see the point but we should be doing what's best for Aston Villa. If that means developing him for someone else whilst he contributes points on the pitch then so be it.

It may simply be that Carney is just waiting to see how many minutes he has next season, and how many games he plays. I've seen the comparisons with Ramsey mentioned above and carney probably sees it too. Ramsey was picked as a first-teamer from the start of the season and stayed in the team throughout. If Carney finds himself starting games, and used more foten than not it may be all the encoragement he needs to sign an extension. If he is used pretty much like this season he'll go. To be honest I'll be comfortable either way - if he hasn't made the breakthrough next season and is still sitting mostly on the bench then it my be right that he moves on.

I doubt we'll do too much more with in-comings maybe one or two, as the squad team still look like they need to gel and get used to a way of playing. Signing too many in one window sets that back for a fair few months. We now already have a solid spine with some qulaity around it. Yes, there are a couple of positions where an upgrade is needed, but I think we need to be deeper rather than bigger in terms of what we have.

For the players that we have I actually think Ings suits us better. Watkins makes teh runs down the channels but we don't actually need him too as that means we're by-passing the midfield which in the diamond, or 2 10s isn't what we should be doing. Obviously that doesn't mean the long pass or quick ball to the forward is never on, but it seems we were confusing the Smith tactics of pulling defenders wide with how the diamond works. We need a forward who can just do his work in and around the box. I thought we had a sneak preview into this when Watkins went off a few games back (Palace? Burnley? maybe Liverpool?) and I think we actually looked better with the movement and directness of Ings than the pulling out and wide of Watkins.

On 26/05/2022 at 19:24, DakotaVilla said:

They were speaking about match day pressure. This is what Martinez said:

”I seen it from covid. Player was playing and I was think oh my god what a player. Comes to first time with a crowd and he’s hiding. Last season with no pressure and you were doing amazing in training but when pressure and fans watching you’re hiding, don’t want the ball too much and don’t want to go forward like before. I can see it”

Neither Konsa or Luiz have ever hid and certainly don’t play in positions where they are meant to go forward so If that’s not target then I’m a bloody goat. 

Re Newcastle he only took the move because he was guaranteed to play and to be fair they’ve been on an amazing run. We all know that the Geordies will be on his back quicker than anything when expectations start to increase rapidly next season. 

The problem for targett was no Grealish in front of him meaning attackers were less likely to overload on his side knowing a counter-attack would mean Grealish in space. Also, its not as if his passing or form fell off a cliff until his loan. 100% Konsa for me.

8 hours ago, PaulC said:

It doesnt mean he cant play on the right but he may not be as comfortable on that side. 

Indeed. When he was being kicked by that french referee he was on the right-hand side so it may be that its just Seville that have him playing on the left.