AntrimBlack

Brilliant performance. Thoroughly deserved to win. We played some great stuff, made a lot of chances. Just disposed of several glasses of `BUSHMILLS' and it's emotional.

Which one is you, Stevo ?

Mellberg, yes. He clearly loved the Villa. The other two, great players, but no more than mercenaries. I love Villa players more for their loyalty than their skill - Charlie Aitken, Brian Little, Ian Taylor, etc. You beat me to it, mj.

Think you're reading something that isn't there. What Sherwood is saying is just common sense. I understand why you'd think that, but it's more due to his previous comments about "after this season". He seems very assured that, should we stay up this season, we'll never be in this sort of mess again. Can't help but feel there is reasoning behind that. That is probably just his natural confidence.

He has been much better in recent games, but he started from a low base. I am still not sure of his worth, and would hope we might get better.

Arsenal, yes, but Liverpool - just no, no, no.

I know it is lower division, but I think Robinson might turn out to be a good one for us. Certainly seems to have goals in him, and more besides.

Oh, let us have our little joke.

Yeah - he wishes !

Agreed. What I really care about is for him to have a long and successful career with Aston Villa.

It is possible we will need to replace Benteke, and Kozak is not the man for that job.

I would imagine he will lean heavily on Reilly in that regard.

First Irish player would be correct. `British' would be a misnomer, in that these are the British Isles, therefore English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish are all British. As a person I would imagine he is English, and holding a United Kingdom passport. Here in Northern Ireland, we have dual nationality, and can choose either a united Kingdom or Irish passport.

I think that is the key thing about him.

Agree with the first bit, and you are right, he does have to be careful about the bulking up because of his playing style. As to the hair - I like it! That and the rolled down socks gives him that certain something that sets him apart.

People were saying the same about Lambert. Oh, cheer up, man, wee bit of positivity would not go amiss.

I do not think he does go under the radar. I think he is very noticeable, (and not just because of his hair ), but because of how involved he is. I have often said he is the sort of player Westwood and Cleverly (obviously Cleverly not so much recently) need to look at to see his positivity and how he influences the game. I think he is already becoming an important player for us.

I think a number of our players were unhappy that the referee did not give a free kick for us, and because of that I think Sanchez went in hard. I like Sanchez, thought he had a good game, but I do not think he `took one for the team' or was breaking up a dangerous attack or was aware that he was throwing away a Wembley semi final. He just basically went in hard and recklessly as he is wont to do at times.

Martin Keown seems to think we have picked up a bit of a gem in Sherwood.

Very big call from Sherwood, keeping Richardson after Tuesday's performance from him. I try not to go over the top about player's performances, but that performance was terrible.

When in doubt, throw commas all over the place. Commas are like buses, none for ages, then suddenly...............

You must be trolling me. My response was to the person who said we shouldn't change anything in attack because we scored 3 against QPR. Football doesn't work like that. That was my point. We didn't play Sinclair either. So does that mean we should be perfectly happy if he doesn't get a look in again when he's fit? Well, no, if our attackers are playing well and we are scoring goals, I do not think we should change it. If, however, we are not scoring and the attack is failing, then Sherwood should obviously look at his other options.

Very happy player now under Sherwood. Smiling and laughing during the matches, not just the last match, have not seen that for a long time.

May as well never sign any attackers ever again then. Talking about the decision not to play him in this specific match. Yeah I get that. So if we scored 3 goals in this match we may as well not buy any more attackers, right? That's how your logic is working. Point is, scoring three doesn't mean you shouldn't be looking for improvements. Just because we scored three goals doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for better attacking options, regardless of who provides them. Scoring 3 would indicate that there is not a lot wrong with the attack, and it does not need much improving. Unless you think we should be scoring 4, 5, 6 goals every game. You've missed the point. Scoring 3 in a game is fine, but it doesn't mean everything is brilliant. We scored 2 against Hull in august. Did that suggest everything was fine? Thanks but I have not missed the point. Try re- reading my post. You have. My point is you don't say "well we scored 3 goals, let's never ever change anything ever" It doesn't work like that. Just because we scored 3 goals doesn't mean Gil should never play. Otherwise by that logic we'd never make anymore attacking signings because we once scored 3 against one of the worst teams in the league. Then try re-reading your own posts. Apart from commenting on things I did not say, your responses are erratic and quite nonsensical.

But what if we get relegated because he has not picked someone else - how will we know?