JamesBCFC

17 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

@JamesBCFC is actually quite a pleasant opposition fan.

I assume he might be here NOW to distract himself from the pain?

That's also a job that I got some cider working on.

6 minutes ago, Johnnyp said:

Gave it a great go on a pretty thin budget to be fair. Do you think you guys will keep players like Lloyd Kelly ? Wouldn't mind seeing us come in for him ( providing he doesn't agree to join us and then scoot off down the motorway to join another team )

Noises suggesting we will spend a bit more this season coming.

Lloyd Kelly I think will stay at least 1 more season. Was his breakout year and not played in the position his long term future is seen as.

10 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said:

Why are you here now?

Because you quoted me...

6 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said:

Why are you here?

Well the post was quite clearly a joke.

So I was here to make a joke while passing the time on my way home from Hull.

17 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

 

Do you have that quote saved?

Should I wait until you guys are out of the playoffs before starting "The race for promotion 19/20"?

We've got a flat tyre, but still racing.

1 hour ago, villalad21 said:

For his first season Lampard has done very well as a coach. Fair play to him

Eh.

He hasn't done a bad job, but he's taken a team that's a playoff side and nearly reached the playoffs (may yet do it).

Derby are always in and around the playoff picture. If he takes them up then he's done a very good job.

On 28/04/2019 at 07:51, JamesBCFC said:

We had an engine failure.

Got the car going with a bump start, we're still in this race.

Whereas on Saturday we played very well for most of the game, tonight we were bad until the penalty save.

Controlled the game with no threat in the first half and found ourselves 1-0 down.

Penalty save seemed to give the players belief and changed the game.

Was worth missing my brother's birthday to go though

2 hours ago, privateer said:

It will be interesting if Derby don't win tomorrow. If that's the case I fancy Boro to sneak in.

If Derby don't win tomorrow then Boro are favourites for me.

However, Rotherham have a decent home record and could cause a slip up there.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but come on Swansea.

5 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Who's this "City" you guys keep talking about. Do you mean Bristol? 

No, Bristol play a different sport 

9 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Well this is awkward

And is it really awkward? Not for me.

The comment made was a joke which didn't in any way suggest City would be getting promotion, and now we aren't.

9 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Well this is awkward

We had an engine failure.

3 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said:

My money is on the guy 3rd from the left.

So when does the race for promotion start?

Is this free practice now or are we in qualifying?

Are we allowed to pit for fuel?

9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

New rule on this next season isn’t there? 

There is.

12 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

When you think how many players Chelsea have out in loan you just realise what a joke ffp is. 

That's not an FFP issue as such. Academy spending is exempt from FFP, presumably the idea being that if a club is developing the players then they aren't spending a fortune to buy them- most will cost little to nothing (on a relative scale). However clubs attempting to horde as much young talent and then extort teams who want to loan one and using their academy status as a way to milk money from players they have no intention of using in the first team is an issue.

As an example Tomas Kalas is Chelsea's longest serving player, and has a total of 2 league appearences in 9 years. In that time they've charged a loan fee of at least £1-2m to Bristol City, Fulham (twice), Middlesbrough (twice) , FC Koln and possibly another team or two, as well as getting the club's to contribute to his wages which would be above what any of those clubs would have been paying at the time of him joining.

There's no intention of Chelsea using Kalas as a first teamer and since signing his last contract with them he has said he feels "like a training cone, moved around to wherever the club wants".

Thankfully there is a rule change coming in which I believe is limiting the amount of over 21* year old players a club can send out on loan.

*Might be over 23, as that's the max age for a 'Young player' award.

On 18/04/2019 at 12:47, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Meanwhile in Bristol City 

@JamesBCFC

It was **** ridiculous.

Fully understand that a club would mark up, and just for balance 90% of the time these were on sale there was a "50% off everything" deal in the shop, but they still took the piss with this.

That said it's not a story that should have reached front page of the BBC website

Club was wrong to do it, and today's result was shit been a bad week for us. And despite all this I just bought my ticket for Millwall away- I think I need a lobotomy.

1 hour ago, hippo said:

You're (not you personally - Bristol C)  being a bit Liverpool ish about this - create as much noise and bluster as you possibly can and some of it will stick. I was pretty close to where it (the pen) happened on the day - my initial reaction was stonewall pen - the TV angle does give an element of doubt - but to me its not blatantly the wrong the decision - the worst you can say is its debatable . IMO the Weiman goal looks the harsher decision.  

The Abraham goal for Offside was weird - because he initially was waved on and then the linesman changed his mind.

-You can do this with any fixture - our own fans were doing it in the DS thread when were on a non winning streak - Pick out a couple incidents and say 'yep thats 2 goals we should have had'  most cases its pie in the sky. My summary (and I try to be fair) - pretty even in the first half - 2nd half I thought Bristol were poor to be honest - after the goal your composure went and you speed forward at 100mph - with mis placed passes halting your progress - and you then played right in Jedinaks hands, by giving him high balls to deal with - and what was the Baker sub about ? - the goal you scored was caused by us faffing about at the back  after that Steer took a couple of crosses - and that was it.

 

 

Generally agree with your summary of the game. We certainly weren't as good after your first goal.

The Baker sub I think was to allow the formation to change. Can't fully recall off the top of my head though.

34 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Being fair it is a close decision. Although interestingly none of your lot complained either. 

The linesman won't have been able to see as he was the other side of Hourihane. The ref was looking straight at the incident and gave the penalty, so I would defer to the referee. 

I mean you said we weren't dominating before the penalty. On chances alone that can't be considered true. Adomah, who was onside, had missed a free header at an open goal from 4 yards out and O'Leary had already made two unbelievable stops from Hourihane. It could have legitimately been 3-0 already. 

I'm with you on VAR, so long as they implement it properly. I don't think it would have changed a thing on Saturday. 

 

Before Adomah's miss Matty Taylor also missed a free header with the goal gaping (though not as open as Adomah's miss). In about the second minute Eliasson pinched the ball off of a defender and should have put Matty Taylor 1 on 1 but instead dragged his shot wide.

We could have easily scored a couple from those chances. 

I'm not disputing that Villa created more chances, but I don't think simply looking at the stats shows a fair reflection of the first half. We moved the ball around well ourselves and looked good on the counter until that final pass, so our moves broke down before the shot. And playing the counter attacking style you are naturally going to have less possession. 

However, I'm not suggesting that we were on top, just that the first half was evenly matched in terms of quality.

Abrahams offside wasn't even close, whereas the Weimann one was a tight call. So think that's a bit of a moot point to mention. 

An aside on the "but for O'Leary it would have been a hammering"  type comment I think that's a bit of an odd one. The fact that he made lots of saves on its own doesn't mean Villa deserved to win- after all O'Leary is being paid to stop shots from going in, he wasn't doing anything beyond what he is paid for. This also applies to our home match where we lost to Stoke, but Butland pulled off 3 or 4 worldies and we hit the post twice. Butland making those saves is what he is paid incredibly well to do. 

However, post penalty, Villa were well on top. And based on performance from that point an argument that Villa deserved the win is entirely valid.

On VAR, I don't think you get the penalty if it was there Saturday, and it would have cleared up the Weimann onside/offside once and for all. That's potentially a 2 goal swing right there. Still don't like VAR mind.

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

@JamesBCFC I think the penalty call was soft, but he was nudged and I'm sure you're aware that's the only reason he handled the ball. Ultimately we all know what the referees are like in this league, we've suffered ourselves. In fact, we had a spurious decision go against us midweek which cost us a goal and a man. We went on to win 2-1.

What I will say in your favour is that I can't remember the last time a goalkeeper pulled off that many world class saves. You should be very proud of that, he's clearly some talent. He prevented a cricket score.

R.E the penalty. Hourihane backed into Hunt, then collapsed and handballed on his way down.

When Hunt asked the referee and linesman what it was given for they gave contradictory answers- one said for pushing Hourihane, one said for pulling him.

Going back a bit into the offside, one thing that's quite telling IMO is the reaction of players. Not sure who it was, but you can see one of the Villa defenders shaking his head when the goal is scored, rather than appealing for offside. Usually if a goal is offside (and even sometimes when it isn't) you get plenty of appeals that it was.

Don't want a bollocking for derailing the promotion thread, but appreciate yourself and a few others being able to have a reasonable debate on it.

The decisions still frustrate, and while I dislike VAR, it's becoming apparent that it's needed as the refereeing standards are declining. Regardless I'm now looking forward to Reading on Good Friday, hopefully I'm over this illness by then!

*Bolded bit is a bit subjective.

2 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

I know, I meant more in terms of the linesman should only raise the flag if he's sure it's offside. From that still picture I'd be amazed if he was 100% sure - it's incredibly tight. Maybe the video makes it clearer. But it's irrelevant, we won and there's no way we could say we didn't deserve to - O'Leary kept the score respectable.

To be fair, has any fan from either club said that?

Edit- read it as couldn't say you didn't deserve to score.

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Can you find me that angle James? I can't see that on any replay, unless there was somebody playing him on out of shot. I was also there and called it straight away, but if you have further evidence I'm happy to see it. 

No I don't. But if you think you deserved something out of a game in which you were completely outclassed then I think you are overrating your side. 

7 minutes ago, brommy said:

Unless Bristol City were claiming a Villa player out of the picture was closer to the goal line than the 6 Villa players in this picture, Weimann is OFFSIDE, albeit by less than half a yard.

It’s extremely odd to claim Bristol City deserved even a draw from the game when they had 10 shots less on target than Villa and Bristol City’s keeper was their man of the match. Bristol City will do better to focus on their remaining games and not to blame others for their lack of superiority last Saturday.

Weren't completely outclassed until after the penalty though.

First half Villa created the better chances and had a bit more possession, but we looked good on the ball and dangerous on the counter- albeit the final ball was lacking.

Villa started undoubtedly stronger second half, but weren't quite dominant until Hourihane won a penalty by committing handball.

After that I fully agree that Villa were well on top, the question is would that still have been the case if the penalty wasn't given? The majority of the chances created were after that, at which point you have two after effects, the momentum shift of the goal, and our players having to wonder what they can actually do without being penalised. I think that's a valid point to make on how the game shifted.

1 hour ago, Dick said:

Not at all.

Weird you think that even the slightest disagreement means someone is salty. 

17 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

Off topic, but I’ve referred to you lot as “Bristol” a fair bit, mainly because typing the full name out seems overkill and “city” is a bit vague, I don’t want people thinking I’m referring to small heath or Stoke or someone. If your neighbours were in the same conversation, I’d have to change that I guess. No harm intended. I have found just typing “Bristol” looks a bit weird and unfinished.

As for calling us “Aston” - meh, we get called worse. I don’t find it annoying but a little bit odd, most people say “Villa”, it’s more natural to say. It would be like calling Leyton Orient “Leyton” instead of “Orient”.

Bit in bold I fully agree with, and it grates when Man City or Man United are just referred to as "City" or "United"- even seen it done when they were playing against another "City" or "United" themselves!

I wouldn't necessarily expect an opposition fan to refer to us as "City" or at least not outside of the context of a game where we played their side.

Obviously I can't speak for all our fans, but the consensus seems to be most of us find being referred to as "Bristol" a bit annoying, though I can't say exactly why. Doesn't wind me up enough to upset me as it were, but found it did wind up quite a few Villa fans on Twitter when your club was referred to as "Aston" yet those same people couldn't see they were doing exactly the same thing with "Bristol". All O was doing by saying "Aston" was to highlight that.

But very much straying off topic now, sorry mods.