og1874

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I know how it’s spelled, I’m just not arsed to fix my autocorrect

i literally never said I’d rather have Trezeguet. I just said he was far more effective for Villa than Davis was. Im not basing it on numbers either, I’m basing it on Davis doing barely anything of note for 70+ games. He literally did nothing.

https://www.spotrac.com/Premier League/aston-villa-fc/keinan-davis-32769/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/2021/12/17/aston-villa-salaries-2021-22-who-are-the-highest-paid-stars-at-villa-park/%3foutputType=amp&d=233

Championship clubs wanting him on loan doesn’t rewrite history to make him effective in a Villa shirt. And how you can say Davis was effective for us, and call Trezeguet a terrible footballer when he did more for Villa than Davis will do for his entire career, just about sums up how pointless it is to continue this discussion. I won’t respond to you any more. Kienan Davies was never, by any metric, an effective player for Aston Villa. </discussion>

45k - so 75% the cost for 5% the effectiveness.

He’s not a donkey, he’s just contributed next to nothing to Villa. He’s doing very well at Forest in a setup that suits him, playing at his level. This idea of rewriting history that he did anything for Villa… I just don’t get it. El Ghazi and Trezeguet were 10x as effective across the board - not just goals and assists - and we can’t wait to get rid of them

You’re on another planet then. He played 73 games for Villa, and did very little of note. Didn't score, didn’t assist, didn’t help create goals. He’s done more in 4 months at Forest than he did in his entire Villa career prior to that. If you took the Villa careers of Ross McCormack and Scott Hogan and compared them to his, you’d be hard pressed to say they contributed less

More so than Davis’ 3 in 75 for Villa, yeah.