peterw

maybe so, but if you move jobs to Brazil and one those that you didn't like was the only English person there you'd soon be on speaking terms.

If Buendia shifts to the right it allows space for Coutinho. Given that Barca are likley to cover some of his wages that wouldn't be an issue either. The drop down isn't going to be a deal breaker for the player;he wants to try and regain his place in the Brazil squad ahead of Qatar and sitting on the bench at a club higher up the food chain won't help him to achieve that. We are one of many in the next bracket that could try and tempt him, and of course the ace we have is the manager.

I'm naturally pessimistic so that's my starting point. So far the best football we have played all season has been under Dean Smith. On anther day we would have scored 3 at Chelsea by half-time, would have comfortably seen out the Wolves win, and Southamption ending with at least a draw. Not being a Smith apologist but we could easily be sitting in the top 6 right now. For me, there is the usual new manager bounce, and although we have ben tighter I think that can also be explained by the new manager bounce and that we have some very good players that should not have been losing 5 on the bounce. For all the good defending at Liverpool I personally was disappointed to see how we set out. Teams have scored against Liverpool this season and we did not set out to. Gerrard struck me then, as he did against Man City, as wanting to park the bus against the big guns and trying to nick a goal here and there. You could argue that because of the way we played previously we were too open and it is why we lost 5 and conceded too many. But that doesn't tell the full story and is without context. Are we tighter? Yes. Does Mings look better? Yes. Are we defending than at any time under Smith? No. Are we creating good chances in every game? No, but we are creating enough in games to win. I think we still look soft and vulnerable. I think that the new full-back thing isn't a thing because we were playing like that under Smith. Nakamba was playing under Smith. Ramsey was playing under Smith. So, for me what I'm seeing is the players responding to a new voice but not that the new manager has brought anything that isn't already there. The 2 defeats that have been mentioned above and not seeing it under Smith - we lost 2-1 at Anfield last season with a last minute winner against us, after taking the lead, and Trezeguet hitting a post at 1-1 when we were pushing before his injury. That was wholely better than this season's effort. And Man City? we lost by exactly the same score except we took the lead. I'm not in the jury's in or out camp as Gerrard is our manager and I'll support him every step of the way. Smith is old news nw, thanks for the memories, the hard work, and the great coaching, but gone you are. But neither do I attribute any great efforts from Gerrard into changing our style, how we play, and players used into beating the teams we would have wanted/expected to have beaten with all things being equal, anyway.

I think this is agreat period for him in terms of showing Barry what the future could look like for him depsite all of his early promise. He fails to make it at Villa, then being out of the matchdat squad entirely at a mid-table League One club leads to League Two football and sliding down the pyramid and out of football. It's a path followed by the vast majority of young talents who haven't developed along the lines hoped for. That he has experienced this side of the coin will tip him one way or the other. Work hard to succeed, or fail.

He played more than he didn't for an Inter team that won Serie A. He's probably forutnate that Bailey and Traore are both injured as I doubt we'd see as much of him as we have otherwise. However, that said he is a bit of experience in there but he should start backing his starts with numbers, an ssist or a goal to justify his inclusion.

So has Nicky Butt and Tim Sherwood. not really comparable, is it?

Sanson - Luiz - McGinn Ramsey - Buendia Watkins

I disagree - I think it's mainly a new manger bounce although with some tweaks along the way. We weren't suddenly a squad that was staring relegation in the face due to lack of quality, but one that followed the wrong formation (changed by Smith v Southampton), had some poor luck, some poor performances, and had then lost 5 on the bounce. The players are good players and reacted to that with the new face and new voice around them. Yes, as I said, things have had a tweak but the players would have produced better performances under SMith eventually. It was the eventually that was the problem.

Talk of Mbappe, Coutinho and the like. You know Newcastle will end up with Dele Alli on loan and Phil Jones.

Not sure he did. He saw the trap White was setting for him and avoided it.

I think it depends on your context. I don't think he comes across poorly at all if we're looking at it from the perspective of CEOs and those that run football clubs at the highest level in the pyramid system. We know the game is all about money and hearing our CEO confirm as much doesn't make him sound bad at all, but the type of CEO that we probably need in the pool we're swimming in. Regarding the Premier League not being the problem, again I think that needs to be seen in the context of the report. There are many issues that it dealt with from the governance, to agents, to transfer fees, regulators and so on. The core of that isn't the Premier League - although the counter argument would be that there wouldn't be as much around the game if it weren't for the Premier League and its riches. But what is the alternative to it? We certainly do not want to strip it back to the point where we lose the best players, the best coaches and lose what is now undoubtedly the best league in world football. There is non t compare to it. I also do not like the ideas of regulators - name any business or ex nationalised company where regulators have made one iota of difference for the consumer in real terms? And I'm not for fan ownership or too much influence when it comes to multi billion pound industries in which the vast majority of us have no understanding. Yes, there are conversations to be had over ticketing and replica kits and so on, but not as to the running of a club. It may work for lower league clubs which are more often than not run by local business people, but not for Premier League clubs. The game has changed. The world has changed. Football needs better governance undoubtedly, but we do not want to make knee jerk reaction responses because we as fans think we know best. We have emotional attachments to not just the club, but to the area, and our decisions are weighed heavily that way. Changes are needed - and although I don't agree with everything Purslow said, as a CEO I think he had at least 19 other nodding heads. Those are the people that need to work this out.

True but which players will he only have 48 hours with that are key? Martinez/Mings/Cash/Bailey? He'll know all about the first three without having to have moved from his set top box at home - and being in the game is likely to know about Bailey. Not sure it'll be too taxing for him.

I've never had an ITK and don't really take much of this but this sent to me by a mate - I work in Delhi, he in Belgrade both at High Commissions/Embassy (for context) - his message thus: Pal of mine working for Scot Govt who has close ties to the Rangers board reckons that Gerrard's reps, Rangers and Villa met last night. £7m compo on the table. Pretty much a done deal according to my mate. Only things left to negotiate is who Gerrard takes with him form the backroom and not leave Rangers too exposed without any first team coaches. Apparently...thought I'd share.

Reading not your strongest skill I see.

I really don't want Gerrard or McAllister if it comes to that, as it just seems more of the same that got us into trouble before 15/16. I'd rather have none of the back room staff that were around for the O'Neill stage onwards (yes, even Sid - although that's a different conversation). We are taking a step backwards into looking for a name rather than looking to be inventive and pushing on with exciting ideas and a manager that is a signal of intent. Gerrard is an open goal that could do for Purslow when we have the chance to really sell ourselves to some better, experienced, and successful managers. Gerrard has achieved nothing of note other than win a league when Celtic were struggling. If he wants to earn his spurs in the Prem then he needs to be moving to a Wolves or a Palace, not us. He may succeed he may not, be we need to look at elite level managers/coaches before we look at hollywood names. I really am against his appointment and think it sends out all the wrong signals. I'm quite underwhelmed at best and disappointed at worst that this is the best Purslow can come up with.

language, established communities, opportunities, Aston Villa.

he always looks knackered. Plus he's probably only 2 hours of sleep at the moment.

Although the personal problems didn't help, what did for Bosnich was timing. Had he have been playing at a time other than when the back pass rule was being introduced his huge flaw would not have been exposed. Every other part of his game were top quality and for two or so years at Villa he was top quality. However, as the focus on goalkeeping changed he severe limitations as a footballer stopped him progressing further than he may have done even 10-15 years earlier.

Yeah, agree totally. I presume that the club saw someone who will be an easy profit - give him a season online and no cost to us, then sell him as he's clearly good enough for League 1/2 standard. Whatever we get for him is just money in the bank - however small.

some good shouts so I'll go for something different: Overrated: Merson (went missing in too many big games) Laursen (not particularly good on the ball) McGrath (nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, only kidding....) Underrated: Lee Hendrie - we've had some great players playing for us but Hendrie gets criminally overlooked. Was a great Villa player for a good number of seasons.

MON is and was an egotistical gobshite who dropped is in the lurch less than a week before the season was due to start. For that (and I wanted him gone at the end of his second season) and that alone he should never be mentioned in the same breath as anyone of high regard in the Villa manager scheme of things. Lerner's crime? Asking him to cut back on his sales and move out those he'd paid top dollar for and wasn't using. MON is in my used to like but is now a total dick - see also; Hodge, S., Barry, G., Yorke, D., Bosnich, M., Platt, D, Southgate, G., - oh, there's more...

I don't think there is or will be a reliance on Bailey similar to that of Grealish, more that we have signed some good players and need them on the pitch so they can play together which, given that we're a quarter of the way through the season, we haven't been able to do at any stage of the season. All fully fit and raring to go. It's been bits and pieces and not settled anywhere - which could admittedly cost Smith his job. I'd point to two mistakes tactically (Tottenham away - I said before the game that we'd be out of shape with 3 at the back given that they only play one up top who likes to drop deep, and Arsenal away where changes should have been made after only 20 minutes or so). Anyway, back to the point - we've chopped and changed and still not found a settled group due to injuries. All sides have them, but when you're searching for your identity (or recreating) after such a top player leaves as Grealish is, then that does take time. Add to all of that that two coaches left pre-season, the manner of Grealish going (and timing), international breaks, covid protocols, the before mentioned injuries, players taking time to settle/get used to each other it's hardly surprising that it's been up and down. However, the highs we have looked very very good, and lows the polar opposite. I'm not sure if getting rid of Smith will help calm things down and help us settle or add to the problems. We seem to have everything right behind the scenes and I doubt the decision to remove SMith would be taken as a knee-jerk to anything such as losing a few games. BUT, its a results business and Smith knows that a turnaround is needed and quickly. A defeat next weekend followed by another the week after and he is on thin ice. The difficulty is that by sticking to 3-5-2 even when we should have changed it (Spurs/Arsenal) means that Smith is has a tricky call to make. He needs to ditch 3-5-2 as it isn't working any more; however, it is likely to be the best option against West Ham who have a strong 2 in the middle (rice/Soucek) and pace out wide. If we do go with 3-5-2 and lose, then Smith is open to accusations that he has no tactical nous and shouldn't be sticking to a losing formula. His detractors will point to him not being able to adapt and will stick to losing formulae come what may in the hope it comes right. As it is 4-3-3 could work in the West Ham game but would need Bailey to start and a winger (Traore/El Ghazi) on the other side. It would also mean Ings or Watkins dropped. We don't employ the 4-3-3 system like Liverpool so playing Watkins wide wouldn't work as he'd be spending too much time too deep. So it's Watkins or Ings. One could drop behind, but again, that's not the position for Ings (and definitely not Wtakins to take up, and that should be left to Buendia - who still needs to find his feet anyway. If 3-5-2 is the preferred formation than we need Konsa back in the middle and Tuanzebe wide. I get with Tuanzebe is in the middle as he is better at coming out with the ball, however Kona is the better defender so should be in the middle. That's a separate issue though. It may be just as simple as Smith's message isn't been heard for the first time. It may be that the paradox of all these changes is that one more is needed to bring a new sense of calm and direction. It may be that Smith will pay for Grealish going and new signings taking their time to settle on top of everything else mentioned above. I think he will pay and be replaced, whether he needs to be is another point entirely.

At any level - but specifically youth - stand outs aren't necessarily the be all of a scouts mission. Yes, the ability to do the basics are a necessity and those that do things better than most will get noticed. but for a scout - and a coach - there are more important factors. Ability beats all but it has to remembered that ability at a younger age group tends to be evened out as a player develops physically, and a great 8 yra-old finds themselves just one of a number of good players when they're 12. Same for an 18 year-old when they become physically mature. What a coach/scout is looking for more than anything after the intial ability is decision-making. Mistakes can happen and are accepted, as long as it was a mistake trying to do the right thing, from an over hit pass to a teammate not seeing what could have been a good ball so a mistake followed (pass intercepted, caught in possession etc). At an early age you can work and develop half decent players if they have shown they are decision-makers better than their age group. From reading a game, to knowing when to make that pass, to (stand up Ashley Westwood) knowing were teammates should be standing or which space needs covering (a good old point does the trick); and so on. Decision-makers also tend to be winners. They won't panic at 0-1 or 0-2 as they will keep their heads whilst trying to get back into a game. From that you can see leaders. It doesn't need to be captain material but those that will not accept defeat during a game and will keep pushing to get back into the game. It's as much, if not more, mental based at the younger age group. Yes, you have talent but have you got quite simply, a football brain. Many great young players don't and fall by the wayside. Many okay/average/decent players have it, and coaches/scouts will pick up those they think has a chance to be developed into a pro. They don't all make it, and most won't, which is where the elite players come from. because they do. They hone all the skills looked for in a player.

It's highly likely that he played for Ipswich u-23 to get some minutes under his belt after being out.

It's likely that we'll keep him until January at the very least and see how he is doing in training in trying to push fr first-team minutes; if he isn't getting too much by then I think we'll send him on loan.