OxfordVillan

38 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

You're confusing abuse of someone for what they've done (or not done) with abuse of someone for what they are.

If you want to critisise Rashford, Sancho and Saka for their penalty technique then that's completely legitimate and they'd have to accept that. Why should they have to accept racist abuse?

Racist abuse of footballers didn't start with social media but it's a lot easier for someone to send abuse from behind their keyboard than it was when you'd have to buy a ticket, get off your arse to travel to the ground and wait for said black guy to be within earshot of you. Why should they have to get off social media to avoid racist abuse?

Agreed but a lot of the critisism these guys have received has been racist. References to the fact that all the penalty takers that missed were black, like that had anything to do with it.

I agree we're on the whole a fairly tolerant country in that we don't have police literally crushing a guys windpipe on the road, but there are still people who feel comfortable and safe spouting this shit in our society. The social media companies aren't doing anywhere near enough to stop it at source. That's what this is about. They need to put some kind of system to de-anonymise these people so they can be found and society can see that Mr Jones at number 37 called Tyrone Mings an XYZ, so they can lose their friends, livelihoods and in the most extreme cases, their freedom.

Who wouldn't want to live in a country where people felt they couldn't call someone the N word or insinuate that a black England player missed their penalty because they were black, rather than just acknowledge that like the rest of the guys who've missed pens down the years it's because we English (white, black and everything inbetween) can't take a **** decent pen?

Well balanced post, well written. Far, far better than some of the adolescent responses. With regard to what you’ve written, and I’ve highlighted in bold, take a look at the following petition. I’ve signed it and would encourage everyone else to do so. 
 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575833

4 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Yeah guys, racism exists all over the world and we’re not even the worst at it anyway so I’m not even sure what you’re all moaning about!

This is such an embarrassing take.

Except I haven’t said that. That’s your interpretation. Carry on mate 

27 minutes ago, Enda said:

You assume I care about trying to “win over” or “be inclusive” to racists. That would be a mistake, I’m not trying to be inclusive.

I don’t give a bollix about them. What I want is anyone wearing a Villa shirt, white or black, is not subject to racist abuse.

When the abuse stops being endemic, the lads will get off their knees. Not before. One hundred percent. We can then move on to calling Tyrone a muppet or a liability or whatever we want, once it’s not about race. Just look at the comments Saka got the other night. Just look at them. Did Southgate or Waddle get that?

This isn’t Tory versus Labour. This isn’t the national anthem. This isn’t even WWI commemoration and poppies. This is players in our squad saying they want the racism to stop, and for the good people in the Holte to have their back. It’s not a big ask.

I’m not sure how old you are, but I remember Southgate receiving dogs abuse for his penalty miss. I remember effigys of David Beckham being hung from bridges following his sending off and England’s resulting elimination from WC98. Social Media wasn’t “a thing” back then, had it been you can guarantee Beckham would have turned his phone off, ditto Southgate. So stop acting like the world started with social media, and that every piece of abuse received by a non white footballer is a racist attack. There is barely any part of this world we live on untouched by racism/prejudice/sexism etc. The UK is one of the most cosmopolitan and inclusive countries on the planet, not perfect, but one of the better examples. We have nowhere near the level of racism of the country that this movement was imported from, namely the USA. Do we have racists in the UK? Yes we do. As does every country on this planet. 

27 minutes ago, Enda said:

**** ‘em.

The “politics” is for black people to get a modicum of respect. If you can’t back that, honestly, **** off.

That’s the spirit of inclusiveness, tell someone to agree with your opinion or **** off. Yes, that’ll win them over  The funny thing is, you probably don’t see the utter hypocrisy of what you’ve written……..the same as many who bash away at their keyboards on social media whilst sat on their own throne of righteousness. The calamity kings and queens. 

Good morning Mr Lange………….

3 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

To be honest, I think Phillips is overrated. I'm not saying he's not a good player and he's very tenacious, but I think there are a decent amount of better defensive mids around.

I think Phillips has looked good this Euros, but I’d also say that Declan Rice is a vital part of that midfield pairing who seems to have gone under the radar, and he does a hell of a lot of good work. What Villa should be encouraged with is that Smith wanted Phillips 2yrs ago, so he knows and sees a good DCM. That we didn’t get him is a shame, but at least we know the manager sees a very good DCM, and so hopefully we get that sorted this summer.

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

You're talking about something that happened over a year ago when Southgate probably didn't rate Jack. He's allowed to change his mind and clearly has since calling him up to the squad. 

No, Southgate specifically gave an answer as to why he wasn’t selecting Grealish when just about everyone in media etc was calling for his inclusion…..that answer was that he couldn’t put championship players into the squad as they weren’t proven at the highest level possible. Southgate then went on to call up Leeds Utds championship player Kalvin Phillips whilst continuing not to include what was now the premier league player Jack Grealish. If memory serves me correctly Southgate then went on to cite players such as Sancho, Rashford, Sterling et al, as players in Jack’s position that were ahead of him. Now you could well be correct to say that Southgate didn’t rate Grealish good enough at the time, and that would be fair enough, but he didn’t say that, he gave other answers. To many looking at the situation it seems that Grealish has been held to a higher bar than others, and I would be sympathetic to that thought. 

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

You seem to have ignored the posts where people genuinely believe Southgate is going out of his way to ruin Jack. 

I don't think many people have an issue with the idea that Jack should have played more. 

No, I’d say ppl have been pointing out how they see Jack Grealish being treated differently, and this can be partly backed up with fact. The easiest example of this being Southgates STATEMENT to media, when questioned on Grealish’s continued absence from the England squad, citing that he wasn’t being selected due to lack of being proven in the Premier League (he had previously said he couldn’t select players playing in the championship). He then selected the championship player Kalvin Phillips for the England squad. 
So things like that tend to sit on ppls minds, and understandably so. It’s fair for ppl to question certain decisions in the here and now in the absence of clarification of historic actions. 

Next week the transfer market will resemble this 

2 minutes ago, MrBlack said:

Wanted to keep pace of Sterling on. Became then a toss up between Foden and Jack. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to infer the remainder.... kane is a striker and he didn't want to take our only striker off (and penalty taker). Foden had been on even less time than Jack, and so was the fresher player to leave on.

Whether you agree with it or not (i don't), they are some pretty logical arguments to follow.

I see you don't belive the moon landings happened though, so guess you're not too good at drawing your own conclusions.

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Haha no, why? 

I've lived in Solihull all my life. 

Was just a hunch. Seriously though, there was no moon landing. And there is no definitive explanation as to why Jack over Foden. It’s just “it was either jack or phil”…….and left there. So we make our own minds up based on previous things.

4 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

I’m assuming you’re American, Jonah?

21 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

This will take you a minute and even a toddler could easily comprehend it. 

 

Lovely clip  Which part of it does Gareth explain specifically why the end decision to sub jack off was made? I understand tactically why an attacker would be sacrificed, I’ve just been asking why Jack? Still haven’t gotten any reasonable explanation. 

13 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

You could say the same about people who don't think we landed on the moon or that Covid is a hoax. 

It doesn't justify having a crazy opinion and not having it questioned. 

We didn’t land on the moon, no. 

9 minutes ago, R.Bear said:

Because Grealish is a weak defensive player and doesnt press very well. He was brought on at 1-1 when England needed a goal, Southgate did not want to gamble on penalties. When England scored he wanted to run out the clock and not gamble on being caught out going for a 3rd. England passed the ball around effortlessly to see out the game. You get one chance and cant **** it up. Jack's feelings or the fact he had come on as a sub were irrelevant. He deduced that the best 11 to see out the game were the 11 who finished it.

End of story. There is nothing more too it than that other than some peoples warped minds.

Listen, the end justifies the means for you. That’s fine. Some ppl are minded to look where others don’t. That’s also fine. Doesn’t make them warped. There’s a certain amount of narcissism in that type of thinking. 

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Its quite obvious and I believe Southgate explained it. 

We wanted to go 3 at the back, Sterling's pace was important to counter and Foden had only just come on. 

You keep saying it's normal to take a cf off, but I've not seen that. Why would you take off Kane, who was playing well, holds the ball up well and is our best finisher? 

You can disagree with the tactical decision, which I did to some extent, but to claim it was a personal decision is absolutely crazy for the reasons I previously explained. You must think Southgate is some utter psychopath. 

The clip I’ve heard is Southgate saying it was between Foden and Grealish to come off. He doesn’t elaborate any further than that, and isn’t pushed to give any further explanation. Some might have looked towards Mings to come on as part of 3 at the back, and put Kyle Walker to RB with Shaw at LB. It could easily be argued that Mings brought more physicality to the backline. Look, the end justifies the means for most people, and I get that. But don’t you question, even slightly, why it’s always Jack, where Southgate is concerned? 

14 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

It wasn't a personal choice against Jack Grealish at all. It was a tactical decision. 

Do you know how insane it sounds to claim that during the biggest moment in English football for nearly 80 years, and during the biggest moment of Southgates career, that he was thinking about personally going after Jack Grealish instead of what's best for the team?

Do you have any insight as to why (out of 4 attacking players) it happened to be Jack Grealish that was chosen to come off, 35mins after he was put on? It seemed to me that the idea was to hold onto the ball in the opposition corners (Trippier did this 3 or 4 times), with no thought of risking putting the ball into the opposition penalty area. Given that, it would be normal to take off your CF, as you’re not trying to score. 
So rather than call me insane, can you instead offer a reasonable explanation  why you think it was Grealish who was taken off? 

32 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

The mental hoops you've had to jump through there to twist reality to your agenda is utterly astonishing. I'm actually impressed. 

Not a hoop in sight 

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I'm talking about the Samatta fans because it's the same situation in reverse, so perhaps it might illuminate how your views come across. As an England fan, it's people who aren't actually interested in the team you support calling your team / manager shit because that team isn't doing what they personally want ("I just want to see Samatta play FFS"), irrespective of whether it would actually benefit the team.

Is Aston Villa a shit club because we won't play Samatta when better options are available? Of course we're not. It's a stupid metric to assess the success of Villa or the competence of our management. Whether Southgate is playing the sort of football that entertains some random Finnish guy is a similarly stupid metric by which to assess his competence.

We are of course playing quite boring, defensive fooball. You're perfectly entitled to want it to be more attractive, and to want to see more Jack Grealish. But the fact you aren't getting that doesn't make him a bad manager.

Your example is monumentally dreadful. Samatta was a pretty dreadful player that didn’t just NOT improve the Villa team, he made it worse. Grealish has the backing of almost the entire nation, everyone calling his name in the stands. A player whose stats and performances in the premier league are up with the very best. It hasn’t just been Villa fans questioning how he’s been utilised, it’s been national. Tell me, what did Trippier do in that final 15mins? From what I watched he seemed to run unopposed into the danish corner with no intention other than to stop, hold the ball, play it back. Denmark were essentially down to 9 men. I’m quite certain that if I want someone to hold onto the ball in the opposition third, maybe get a free kick or two……well, I’d turn to Jack Grealish!

2 minutes ago, Ginko said:

I understand why he took off Grealish, and didn’t really have a problem with it. He was never going to take Stirling off since his running caused them problems (even though he does lose the ball too many times when he tries to run through defenders instead of past them), plus he’d just won us a penalty.

It was either Jack or Foden, and since Jack is slightly more of an injury risk, he just edged it. Better to ensure he’s fit for the final, as he’ll no doubt be needed more than Foden will.

No chance was Kane going to come off with the potential for a penalty shootout. I don’t know how good Jack is at penalties, but I’m fairly sure he doesn’t take any for us, does he? He’s probably fairly far down the order in that regard.

Not sure why so many here have a problem with the decision, to be honest. 

Correct my if I’m wrong, but England were 2-1 ahead, having just controlled the first half of extra time. Denmark were essentially down to 10 men. To leave Kane on because he’s a good penalty taker (not backed up by his effort minutes earlier) would mean we’d have had to have conceded an equaliser…….which would have been catastrophically poor play given the above mentioned circumstances. I’m sorry, but however anyone wishes to dress this up it’s a personal choice against jack Grealish. 

1 hour ago, ferguson1 said:

Once we scored they put four up top, so Gareth had a decision to make cos he wanted the extra defender on.

The final result shows he made the right call in taking an offensive player off.  Should it have been Jack, I’m not so sure but hey ho.

Ultimately, we love him and he knows it. 

I’ve mentioned earlier in the tournament that as long as England win then Big nose is beyond reproach. But what shouldn’t be beyond questioning is, why Jack? Why not Sterling, Foden, Kane? Most managers sacrifice their CF when wanting to defend a lead and run down the clock. It’s a bit like when Big Nose cited only playing in the championship as the reason he wasn’t selecting Grealish……before selecting Kalvin Phillips whilst in the championship and not selecting Grealish whilst now playing premier league. Look, it’s clear to anyone who wishes to look that Southgate has a problem with Jack Grealish, whether that be personal or professional, he’s said/done too many things that have been contradictory, at best. But he’s getting away with it. Southgate humiliated Grealish last night, and he knows it. He’s making it abundantly clear, “there’s something you can’t do (defend) and I don’t trust you”. I’m not sure this won’t hugely affect Jack’s confidence and state of mind, he’s just been humiliated in front of a nation wide audience in the most important football match in years. Who wouldn’t be affected by that? But as I said at the start of this, at the moment big nose is beyond reproach because of results, in what is another very favourable draw and run of games, not to mention slices of good fortune. I remain convinced that upon meeting a team of any note England will fall short under Southgate. Dean Smith will have a big job on his hands getting Jack back up and firing for next season. Grealish with England has been like handing your baby over to your brother to hold and watching him drop it.