weedman

18 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

3:52. He absolutely clatters Jack's shin with his knee. A little higher and he could have broken his leg I'd imagine. Leeds fans at the game were braying all game about him diving. Dumb words removed.

 

Yup that's the one, they complained about him diving for it. Like I said, we can't take anything they say seriously afterwards

3 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Ironically Cooper should have been sent off for his tackle on him at Elland Road 2 years ago.

And the Leeds fans made a whole compilation about it and marked it as a "dive". You couldn't make it up 

In all honesty we should automatically block Leeds fans in the Jack Grealish thread. Their views are horrendously biased. Look at the video after we played them they made showing Grealish "diving", they were all fouls and 1 should have been a red card despite their guy winning the ball as it was a potential leg breaker. 

Better yet just block Leeds fans on this forum. They are absolutely obsessed with us so let them read it without being able to comment. Let them spout their nonsense on their own forum that we don't bother reading because we don't care about the views of little Leeds fans

On topic, Grealish is **** ace just keep him away from cars please 

5 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

I do find it a little strange. Trent I thought made a valid point last nght about our defence not being as sound as it was but then got jumped on. 

I like Dean, want him to be our manager but also feel it's OK to point out issues in our game when I see it.

The squad is young, still trying to gel and needs improving and most importantly needs our support. It absolutely does not mean I want him out.

Why is it OK to criticise, Conor, Mings, Target, Trez or SJM but not Dean?.

 

I mean sure, it's a valid point, it just doesn't mean anything. He wasn't saying our defence was worse than last season, he agreed it is now better, he was literally saying our defence isn't as good now as it was during a tiny 4 game run where we had the best defence of anyone in the league.

I think the reason people jumped on it was because what kind of a criticism is that? We finished 17th last season and critical this year because we don't have the best defence in the league after 10 games like we did after 4? We obviously weren't going to finish the season with the best defence in the league, so it was absolutely inevitable that it would "regress" in subsequent games. Using it as a stick to beat the team with is ludicrous. It's punishing them for having a good start 

If we win every remaining match 5-0 can we complain that our attack has regressed since our 7-2 v Liverpool? Of course not because that would be ridiculous 

We've conceded more goals but arguably our defence is still solid, we have a really low xG against and are getting super unlucky to concede with basically every shot the opposition has, and they're all unsaveable worldies to boot. The odds of that continuing all season are staggeringly low, luck evens out over a season and the better performances you put in the more you will eventually gain in the longer term over the course of a season. 

Constructive criticism and criticising for the sake of it are very different things. Taking the results with no context just in order to throw criticism out there is always going to wind people up, especially when it's pretty much been universally accepted by all apart from a few on here that we were very very unlucky not to get at least a point, and realistically deserved all 3. Getting shocked and outraged by it seems crazy to me. 

So I've just skimmed the last 10 pages and I think we've concluded that our defence isn't as good now as it was when we had the best defence in the league for 4 games, if we completely ignore every stat and don't watch any matches and concentrate soley on results we're more likely to go down than we were a month ago, and if every single shot we concede continues to result in a goal while our attackers consistently miss open goals we'll be in trouble this season, got it 

11 hours ago, TRO said:

I don't disagree......but the team were too passive, they lacked aggression, particularly in midfield.

The first Brighton goal, was unbelieveable in terms of organisation, quite remarkable......and its not the first time..what do we learn?

our lack of consistency is an issue....home form is a real problem.

Surely the first goal is a problem with being overly aggressive? You can't complain they didn't show enough aggression and we're too passive then complain when they went in too aggressively and got left exposed. You can get caught out when pressing.

If you want the team to play aggressively and on the front foot then they're going to get caught out like the first goal from time to time. I think that first goal was terrible defensively, but you have to accept that playing this style is going to leave us open to that from time to time, it even happens to Man City and Liverpool (against us) and they have some of the best defensive players in world football. Our defenders aren't as good as that and will occasionally get caught out 

I was never a Bruce basher, but I'd take the occasional goal like that given away to play this pressing style than the timid all out defensive hope to nick a goal on the counter of our previous style, which leads to its own defensive errors itself. Got to take the good with the bad, and since playing this way we've had far more good than bad 

We all love Jack Grealish already

21 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Yep, Maguire, Mings, Coady, Keane, Stones, Gomez.  All good but none of them great.  Any combination of those is much of a muchness.

Dier though is complete garbage.

Yeah we've got a bunch of poor CBs for England. Have to also add in Dier and Walker, neither of whom should play CB (Dier just shouldn't play full stop). Mings has flaws which we can all see every week, but honestly I'd still pick him over most of those on that list. Maguire has a touch of the Titus Brambles about him, great in 1 moment and completely awful the next, Coady Keane and Gomez seem to have the same flaws as Mings and Stones can't defend and is nowhere near as good at playing as he thinks he is.

Honestly the best 3 are probably Maguire, Coady and Mings, but like you said you could pick any combination of 2 or 3 and it wouldn't make a lot of difference really. They've all got mistakes in them and they're all good on their day. Pick the most in form ones at the time and that should work

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Lol only just motm

 

How many Leeds and Blues fans must have voted on that to drag his rating down to a 7.38?! 

18 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

Really good overall.

Can't remember the score, but he flew in on someone up in the Arsenal half and it was a really poor challenge. I panicked because a fraction later and a card was definite and the colour was up for debate. He's done it a few times now and I hope he doesn't get caught out.

Even though I think it was at 1-0, it felt like the only way Arsenal were getting back into it was a red on our side.

I've noticed this too, he seems to love a Ben Mee style "leave one on them" kind of tackle and he needs to cut that out or he's going to either seriously injure someone or get a red card. 

Aside from that I think he's been decent, not spectacular, not bad, around a 6-7/10 so far and room for improvement 

On 04/11/2020 at 10:29, onmeedson said:

Top teams use it because they have the top players, ours defence have ball watchers.

I mean haven't we only conceded 1 goal from an indirect free kick since lockdown v1.0? It's only been a problem in 1 match out of the last 10, I don't think that's cause to write off everything we've been doing and throw the defenders onto the scrap heap over it

The problem with man marking set pieces is its relatively easy for an attacking team to set up to block a defender if they're chasing an attacker. A little bit of movement and suddenly attacker has gone one way round a crowd of players and defender has to go the other way and, oh look another attacker happens to be standing there and defender has to divert, meaning the man they are marking is now in acres of space for a free header. 

Zonal marking, or a mix of both, as we do is definately better. All the top teams do it this way for a reason. We just did it badly, the zones were clearly wrong and McGinn, who's job is really as a disruptor in there didn't disrupt anything. Zonal marking isn't the problem, our execution was the problem 

23 minutes ago, est1874 said:

I don't mind him picking the same 11 players provided they are the best available to him and are fit to play (*caveat: it's clear that they aren't always fit, i.e. McGinn/Drinkwater last season, Barkley this season).

What annoys me more is deploying the same tactics regardless of the opposition. There's no better word for it than stupid IMO.

6 minutes ago, VillaCas said:

He doesn’t 

He also can't make big tactical changes when the games are so close together, it would be counter productive to keep changing things up. You want the players as used to the "system" as possible, small tweaks here and there, sure, but big tactical changes specific to the opposition will cause so many issues.

Remember these players are people, not robots. A lot of football is intuitive and spontaneous, telling players to do things contrary to how they naturally play is asking for trouble. They need to be working on that change for a long time before it can reap any rewards, doing it on a game by game basis will just lead to a truckload of mistakes 

10 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

And when it deflects off his head and goes in he gets all the blame there as well. Had he jumped he may have stopped the goal or it may have still gone over him or it may gone into the back of the net anyway. Who knows, lets just leave it. 

As a keeper I never wanted my wall to jump. If someone puts it over the top and under the bar fair play, if they put it under the wall its much harder to save and have you ever seen a wall in real life? They're pretty static most of the time 

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

I agree with the rest of your point, but not this. Adverts have diminishing returns as breaks get longer.

The longer an advert break, the less effective they are, and the less they'll recoup, typically. think about it, would you sit there for 15 minutes watching ads? 2-3 minutes, with content to come after, people will watch, and the advertisers get their eyeballs, but 15 minutes of ads will see everyone get up and do something else until the second half.

Fair enough, maybe a good incentive to them to throw a couple of pundits at it? Not the proper ones like Carragher or Neville but the shit ones they pick up in the Championship or talksport. Just some drones to chat rubbish to get people to watch the ads? I'm sure they'd still turn a decent profit at a fiver with all that 

1 hour ago, John said:

Martyn Ziegler's very interesting report on yesterday's meeting, from The Times today:

"The Premier League has earned more than £5 million from the first two weekends of pay-per-view (PPV) matches but clubs have agreed to review the price after accepting that demanding £14.95 per game has been a PR crisis. At a meeting today the 20 clubs decided to stick with the fee for the next two rounds of matches but agreed to review PPV pricing after the international break, with a decision due to be made on November 5. It is highly likely that the PPV fee will be reduced to £9.95 to fall in line with the sum charged by clubs in the EFL, in the hope that the cut will persuade fans’ groups who have boycotted the games to drop their protests.

The clubs were told that the first nine PPV matches had brought in an average of 39,000 paid subscriptions, totalling £5.247 million, though some of that money will go to the broadcasters. Some matches attracted fewer than 10,000 subscriptions, and none more than 100,000. The average was calculated before the Brighton & Hove Albion v West Bromwich Albion match on Monday evening, which is likely to have attracted fewer than 10,000 paid subscriptions.

Mike Ashley, the Newcastle United owner, has urged the Premier League to cut the price to £4.95 per match but, according to sources at the meeting, the clubs were told that would actually cost money to produce. Some club chairmen also raised eyebrows at Ashley’s stance on the issue given that Newcastle were the only club to vote against a rescue package for clubs in League One and League Two. The Premier League review will aim to find a price tag that will raise viewer numbers considerably and therefore increase income. Satisfying disenchanted supporters will also be essential. The Liverpool fans’ group Spirit of Shankly has already raised £81,000 from people donating the £14.95 fee they would have paid to Sky Sports Box Office for Saturday’s game against Sheffield United. Other groups have organised similar boycotts.

Premier League executives will also consider the fact that some clubs will feature on PPV more than others because the “big six” teams are selected more often for live Sky and BT Sport matches, so some fans will be asked to pay more than others. However, there appears to be little room for manoeuvre on that matter. Some clubs proposed that the review considers making the matches available only via their websites, but that seems unlikely to be pursued either.

The Premier League clubs will also hold further talks with the FA over the governing body’s ultimatum regarding signing overseas players once post-Brexit laws come into force from January. The FA has told the top-flight clubs that it will not agree to their demands to be allowed to sign young, unproven talent from across the globe and that it will instead recommend to the government that the existing rules for non-EU players — under which permits are awarded based on international appearances — are extended to cover all EU players in future, too."

That is absolute bullshit about it costing them money at £4.95 per match. We don't pay £4.95 per match now (taking subscription into account) and they still find the money to spend billions on the rights. A little thing called adverts that they show repeatedly throughout the broadcast seems to cover most costs normally, if anything with no half time analysis they can just play a solid 15 minutes of adverts instead and make more money than normal can't they? 

8 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Whilst I agree the price is a piss take these are games that would never normally be aired on tv. So whilst 35k fans would get to watch the game there would still be a lot of fans that would have to watch it on dodgy streams. I guess my point is would the ppv seem as bad if crowds were allowed?

I personally think if they had gone for £9.50 a game there wouldn’t be such an uproar. Over £10 tipped people over the edge. 

I agree, I think people wouldn't have been happy with paying £10, but a lot of people would have done it, I mean I paid £7 or whatever it was a game in the Championship through the website, I'd probably pay £10 in the PL, especially when you're getting full HD etc with that, but £15 is a piss take and I'd imagine there's a lot of people that could afford it but won't pay it out of principle - I'd also guess that most of those would end up paying the tenner if that was the price 

9 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

obviously not a clue how true it is but theres a leak doing the rounds saying that 74 people paid for west brom vs burnley

unfortunately I think the PL will be too stubborn to back track on this no matter how badly it fails

If they'd aired the game free they'd have made more in advertising revenue

13 hours ago, birdman said:

If a fiver I would probably buy most of them. A tenner maybe the odd one. At fifteen quid there is no chance especially if they're not bothering with any post game highlights or analysis. That's taking the piss. 

This is where I'm at as well, £15 a game is taking the piss, especially with so many games in such a short space of time, it's not like boxing where you pay for one fight once every 6 months or a year, there's multiple games a week at the moment! I mean, they must have done their research, but I'd imagine that price is just causing people to find alternate ways of watching, if it was priced at £5-8 kind of range so so many more people would sign up. 

6 minutes ago, Stratvillan said:

I'm assuming the "you" is general and not me, as I didnt do any of those things.

Yes, wasn't referring to you, perhaps certain other Leeds...sorry, "Villa" fans that even when blocked seem to keep clogging up the board by appearing in quotes

19 minutes ago, Stratvillan said:

This is it for me. We have had such disappointment over the last decade that we could almost see what was coming.

This isnt so much doubting Smith as doubting villa. If I'm being honest I probably would have changed manager, but what Smith did post lockdown I think was amazing. If you look at our defence - jesus!

My youngest (11), said tonight this must have been like supporting villa when I was young. I was born in 71, so was 11 /12 when we won the league and European cup. I said not quite  but we are getting there.

We will lose 3/4 in a row this year. But we wont buckle like previously - thank you Dean. 

Doubting is not the same as writing off. Doubting him was perfectly normal - with the way we were playing I'd be surprised if there was a single Villa fan without any doubt. Writing him off was and is completely different and, as has been proven, completely wrong. 

When you couple the "writing off" with ridiculing and putting down anyone who didn't agree with you and then proclaiming that you were clearly right to do so whenever we played poorly and despite being proven absolutely wrong by the seasons end STILL trying to take the moral high ground by claiming it was nothing more than a simple critique it just makes it clear trolling rather than an informed opinion or debate

1 hour ago, DJ_Villain said:

Alright then, have it absolute that your finishing position at the end of the season (aside from relegation places) determines how many signings you can make in the following transfer window...

Isn't that the same? What's to stop teams deliberately losing because they need lots of signings and need to finish lower in the table to achieve that? 

59 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

I've always thought a "Signing Cap" could be implemented in the Premier League.

If you win the league, you are allowed to make one additional signing in the next summer transfer window... In order to make more signings that window? You need to get current players off the books permanently through sale, release or retirement.

Second place gets to make two signings

Third place three and so on...

Teams below the top 10 and newly promoted sides are unrestricted...

The issue with that is its open to manipulation, sitting in 9th place with 5 games left it'll be better to lose and drop down to 11th for the signings rather than push for 8th which will only hinder you the following season