MrBlack

I guess my point is someone that has no affiliation with villa, that has no reason to know how good Jack is, other than the fact that they watch football and couldn't miss how good he is. There just seems to have been a complete blind spot over him (or perhaps its Villa) for maybe 3 years now when he has been performing exceptionally but being ignored by the media.

Is there anyone neutral that can claim they backed him for England before the whole country realised it. 

Yeah I know.. overly sensitive blah blah blah.

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

Paul Merson was also an early admirer, quoting jacks sublime ability for the weighted pass....Merse said there is no one better.

Again, another none neutral you could argue, but at least someone that Sky seem to be happy to put in front of the camera on a regular basis.

Can't think of any genuine neutral that has backed him until after his recent first cap,  except Ian Wright who did so just before it happened? Crazy that he's gone so under the radar except for the people that you would be able to argue are biased.  The fact they're right as well as biased isn't my point ;).

2 hours ago, BOF said:

I suppose that's one way of putting it yes.

At this stage of the season I'd say he's young enough to be benefiting from playing extra games. Won't be the case long term so hopefully we get a chance to rest him at times this season. 

It's a blessing in disguise that Grealish isn't liked by Southgate, as he's going to need protecting this season more so than Dougie.

Love that we have this problem compared with the issues of yesteryear.

10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

I think Jenas was the first pundit to really back him.

After the Brighton win last season he said it was embarrassing he hadn't made the England squad.

Perhaps not entirely neutral and is clearly a fan of Jack. Maybe he feels a soft spot for us after we paid him £1m for all of 90 minutes football.

Reading the latest news conference quotes  confirms he is carrying a knock :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54531438

In the frame to start apparently, but in the same article hes quoted as saying england don't risk injured players.  

Quote

Southgate revealed Aston Villa midfielder Jack Grealish - who has two caps but was an unused substitute at in the win over Belgium - had been carrying "a knock".

"I think he is enjoying the experience and he's enjoying seeing how we want to play and that's slightly different to his club," added Southgate.

"Obviously every player has to adjust to that, so he is very much in the frame. He's continuing to prove his position within the squad that's for sure."

13 hours ago, YouUnastanFren said:

https://streamja.com/pAmeK

Forget just saving that, I know a guy who would've caught it

Wow thats a shocking goal. Keeper seemed to dive without actually moving anywhere.

Franco's last major tournament I suspect, so doubt they'll change it up unless he makes a complete howler or they get hammered. 

11 hours ago, Kiwivillan said:

Not sure what you're talking about. Heaton was in club video interview pre season saying he hoped to be available post internationals but would have to play it by ear then we signed Martinez. Wesley has been mentioned repeatedly aiming for December January and Smith has said Engels has been injured. 

What's being held back?

I haven't seen any repeated articles on Wesley.  Certainly not with any club quotes. Smith talked about him once during the transfer window,  that I saw,  and that is the only club source quotes I've seen on him since the injury happened. 

I'm not asking for weekly updates but the odd interview with the player or "hes progressing as expected" wouldnt go amiss. Similarly for Engels, I think we had one quote from Dean this season,  and nothing the 6 months prior.  I get you might be OK with this given they were on known long term injuries, but I don't see the benefit in keeping silent on them. I am also not suggesting any conspiracy theory,  just explaining the club are very private on these affairs. 

14 minutes ago, sidcow said:

The going direct to press avoiding official channels, with a plan which is deliberately planned to fail from the outset (there is NOTHING in it for the remaining clubs needed for the 14 club majority) is clearly part of whatever political game is being played here. 

They will have their reasons for doing that though it seems like a PR disaster* for them, even their own supporter groups have come out against it. 

They are either just staggeringly arrogant or this is all a smokescreen for what comes next. 

* I am so disappointed in the press for not calling out Liverpool and Manchester United for the despicable way they've gone about this. 

Suggestions they've done it intentionally to then be able to distance themselves from the Premier League on the grounds of a falling out and disagreement about the direction football is heading in.  They can use this to start the conversations on forming a breakaway league.

Maybe they'll try and argue that they were disillusioned by the lack of action from the Premier League and took out into their own hands, and should be applauded for getting the conversation started. 

There aren't many scenarios where they come out of this looking good, but i assume they are very smart people and have thought of one that will sell well.  Very interested to hear what it is. 

10 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

Through some fairly ordinary Grealish performances he's become the nation's darling all of a sudden.

Cant believe the attention over that Wales performance. Southgate needs to hope Jack doesn't play "well" when he next gets a chance. People will lose their minds if he really turns it on and the side isn't built round him.

This has clearly been on minds of pundits and fans but no one wanted to be the first to stick their head up and admit how brilliant he is. They just moaned and came up with fiction to criticise him. 

Good point, who was the first neutral pundit to back Jack?

I seem to recall Ian Wright getting very opinionated on it just before he got his first call up but I assume there have been neutrals calling for his inclusion since last year

2 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I’ve never been Purslow’s biggest fan but I think it is important that we have someone like him with a level of media profile and hopefully some presence within the PL.

As a club we need to be more bold and not simply along for the ride.

He is very eloquent and comes across as some one that knows what he is talking about. That interview is a bomb. Completely exposes the real sham behind the Liverpool, Man Utd, EFL agreement.  The fact that they even discussed them outside of formal channels is the problem.

The fact they did so and came up with a self serving solution isn't news.

Be interesting to see if they respond to it,  as I'd love to know why they thought it was ok to discuss it amongst themselves rather than with the actual Premier League.

BBC Sport article on the above interview. Nicely done Purslow!

Quote

Project Big Picture is "highly unlikely to get traction within the Premier League," says Aston Villa chief executive Christian Purslow.

The plan's backers want to reduce the Premier League from 20 to 18 clubs and scrap the EFL Cup.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54535326

2 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said:

He’s in the training photos from this week:

https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/october/GALLERY-Squad-train-during-international-break-/

I think he’s just been injured, but should be back soon. There doesn’t need to be a conspiracy. 

Its one area where our club secrecy is a disappointment for me. Fair enough, don't leak your transfer budget, don't give away who you're interested in, but the total absence of ANY official club news on the injuries of Wesley, Engels and Heaton just confuses me. It's what leads to the conspiracy theories. 

23 hours ago, Zatman said:

I do think Conor is more exposed at international level than he is at Premier League.

Well yes, obviously, a confirmed case of Covid in the Ireland team is more than we've had at Villa.

I understand playing 3 International games consecutively.  One friendly to get the team's understanding in shape, dust off the cobwebs, then 2 competitive games to make use of the fact that all the effort for just one competitive game is ridiculous.

But to do so across 8 days (edit: sorry 6 days!!)  means no team is playing the same team in each match, so that friendly at the start of the run becomes totally pointless.  Shouldn't have happened.  Arguably, the entire nations league tournament shouldn't exist at all

Edit: on topic, hope John gets some form of rest in the next game, ideally starting on the bench. 

59 minutes ago, birdman said:

This is what I dont get because to my mind he's the most normal looking footballer! No tattoos, normal hair, bit of stubble. What stands out for people? Could be his graceful Rolls Royce style of play which is somewhat effortless. People see that and assume lazy luxury player I suppose. But how can you be so thick to assume without actual study?!

Because people still pay for sky, people still watch the programs,  and the pundits still get paid.  Where is the incentive to work harder and deliver real insight when you get nothing extra for it. There will be a few that take pride in their work, but most just want the pay cheque.

13 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Again I might be wrong but my understand was they can offer 35m at the time and also discuss terms with the player. If he agreed to join Barcelona instead we would get whatever fee was agreed and the buy back would no longer be in place. 
 

But I’m probably totally wrong on this.

edit: just read back and I’m almost certainly wrong. Doesn’t sound right at all.

Honest answer is noone knows. It is highly likely that city agreed the transfer of Luiz back to them at the time they agreed the sale. It may already be contractually obliged for him to move,  in which case it wouldn't work as you described.

However, the agreement may just be with Villa, in which case they'd also have to agree terms with Luiz, and in this scenario your scenario could play out. However, i think it is unlikely City went down this route.

It would have been an easy decision for Luiz to agree to a guaranteed return of City trigger the clause, so i don't see why they wouldnt have done it.  There could, however  be clauses in that agreement  such as City needing to be in the Premier League, in the champions league, have Pep as manager... lots of unknowns and the fact is noone knows. 

Which basically means,  assuming he has a good season and plays for Brazil,  we will likely be paying some money to keep him,  as he'll be worth more than the clause is valued at. Whether we can offer city enough to mitigate against the benefit they'd get of having him is another matter.

Assuming he's a £50m player,  we may only have to offer them 20m to keep him (assuming a modest buy back figure of 30m). That would mean we only paid £35m, over 2 seasons, for a £50m player.  We should be able to persuade City to let us buy out the clause.

But the club should be making plans assuming he'll move and have identified his potential replacement if we can't keep him.  Arguably should have this in place for all our players but especially those that are likely to leave or more critical to the team. 

3 minutes ago, barry'sboots said:

No.  Typically plays on the left where Jack is currently.

However, we need options/rotation etc..

I am hoping that AEG goes out which only leaves us with three wide players and I also see Jack as the cover for Barkley, so we could do with another body.

I would have loved Rashica but Benrhama would be good.  However, I think King may be the answer as he can play across the front three, brings PL experience and is less expensive.

Agreed,  Benrahma won't move for a rotation/ backup spot and he isn't going to get into our first team on merit at the moment.  Its also stupid money for someone that isn't coming in to start.

I rate him, and think he'll do fine in the Premier League, but we don't need him at the moment. Thread should be moved to other football, pending closure

48 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

He was our 3rd highest rated performer last season only Jack and John were better (and mcginn was really highly rated early in the season like an 8.2 up to week 10). We only won 1 game that he didn't play. The crystal palace game which we were a bit lucky to in my opinion as I think they had a goal wrongfully disallowed. Which could have changed the game.

Guilbert also averaged 3 tackles won per game last season which is very impressive especially since it was his first year in England and we struggled too force teams into dead ends last season.

Yes he turned off against Stoke but then he had played less than 300 minutes since restart prior to that game. No wonder he was rusty. 

Whilst an individual player can not generally claim to have a material impact on a clubs form (Grealiah aside), it definitely goes to show he's not a weak link. Maybe the rating system values a tackle that stops a probable chance over an interception that prevents a probable chance, or something that rewards  Guilbert's style of play more than it is actually worth in real terms, but I never felt worried about him compared with how I feel about Targett.

1 minute ago, rodders0223 said:

If Dier was starting over you would you be happy. Maguire even for that matter

Madness. Not one left footed defender in a back 5.  Ignoring that, even if he was right footed he should have started ahead of Dier. Guys a tool.

As for Grealish  I reckon he'll start him in the next game,  worst case scenario for Villa,  would just be typical

11 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

You know this is a good thing for Villa. Although I hope this doesn’t mean he starts against Denmark. It’s ridiculous they are playing 3 game’s in a week. 
 

Edit: heard there could be 9 changes so he is using the squad well and giving everyone a chance. 

Makes sense. Stick with the team that won the last competitive game, ignoring the performance and making it clear that noone could ever have got into the first team no matter how well they played in the last non competitive game. Its a free hit as we're not expected to win.

Then you can mix it up for Denmark if we are rubbish (which we will be).

Ahh, the days when we were minutes away from oblivion,  had lost a record number of games, had a toxic club environment and were an embarrassment to our clubs once great name.

I'm glad we can now discuss the finer topics in football about how 4231 and 433 are different. Good times are back.

Shame he's come out and said that, although i suspect there is some truth to it. I'm sure he'll continue fighting for his place but if the quotes are genuine he's shot himself in the foot.

I would back him to get game time this season and deliver when called upon, but saying that makes it less likely he'll get those opportunities

At £5 i'd buy it.  Or in a different world where I could watch the game with my mates I'd pay £15 and get them to bring me a beer with them on their way round.

£15, knowing every household has to pay this or be in breach of covid laws is a bit of a scam.

If the clubs need the money, perhaps they should stop paying insane wages to footballers. Needs to start at the top though. 

6 minutes ago, TRO said:

That maybe so, but Jack is a player to be on the ball.....I don't think Jack will ever be great player without the ball.

It was clear last night he was isolated for the early exchanges and only when he drifted over to the right where the ball was that he made his mark.

He is playing with strangers at present.....they will get used to him and used properly, he will raise their game, by helping to win matches.

There was a moment early on when DCL had the ball and needed to pull it back until the box not noone was there.  Jack had watched the play build up from outside the box and didn't move an inch when it looked like the ball might be on.  I dont know if it was ball watching or him not sprinting to avoid injury, but the same happened a few times to a lesser extent before he picked his play up. 

I must say I'd never noticed it in his play for villa, but it would definitely have been fair to criticise Jack's off the ball play last night. I put it down to conserving energy/avoiding injury in a friendly, but i wouldnt say he'll never be a great player off the ball.

18 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Are you playing funny buggers with me?

In case you would actually like to know, I don't seek to create issues for others or talk down about people as a pastime.

If I were to be unfair with him, then wouldn't I be perpetuating the sort of behaviour that has made people take issue with Southgate's treatment of our Jack?

You are right about being fair to him, but you aren't being fair. You were being overly generous. As another poster pointed out,  their Mrs saw the attitude of Gareth change when he was asked about Jack. I was curious,  and asked my Mrs to watch the interview and ask her if anything stood out... she immediately said (having not seen the game) "did Jack not do very well?".

He is, either by design or accident, trying to play down Jack Grealish in every way he can.

Maybe he's bizarrely trying to protect him from the limelight until he unleashes him full force at the next tournament...

Maybe he takes exception to the fact Jack went out drinking and inhaling nitrous oxide as a teenager in the England setup. Who knows why, but he definitely has an aversion to recognising Jack's ability and performances.