og1874

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1 minute ago, Tom13 said:

PS Keinan*

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

3 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

you take yourself very seriously. Another clueless fan who judges players purely on their numbers

If you'd rather have Trezeguet playing for us than Davis, that tells me all I need to know. Clueless.

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. 

2 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

How do you know that?

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

Just now, Tom13 said:

Why were there a queue of clubs wanting him on loan then if he did nothing for us? Don't bring Trezeguet up...terrible footballer.

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>

1 minute ago, Zatman said:

Was Davis on 60k a week like Emile Heskey? 

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

1 minute ago, Tom13 said:

I'm not on another planet, I've explained why he was effective. Football isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Hence why there was a queue of clubs wanting him on loan. You're making him out as a donkey.

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

1 minute ago, Tom13 said:

He was never given a run of games for us like he's been given at Forest. Every time he started for us though, he caused problems, held the ball up, and linked play well. IMO he was effective.

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

8 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

So 5 in 14 or whatever it is is effective? 

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

Just now, Tom13 said:

You're very confusing.

So 5 in 14 or whatever it is is effective? You need to look at his allround game and the spaces and chances he opens for others.

Davis never performed effectively, consistently  for Villa. Don’t mistake the fine work he’s doing at Forest with his Villa career.

He’s not fit to lace Emile Heskey’s boots in terms of Villa career, and that was hardly stellar in itself.

Sorry, but if you’re a forward player (or even a midfielder) 3 goals and a handful of assists in 75-odd games is not effective. It’s not like his general play helped create tons of goals at Villa either.

Not sure what shade of specs you’ve got on right now, but they’re leading you a merry dance.

At no point during his time on the pitch for us has Keenan Davis ever been an effective player, or one good enough for Aston Villa - even in the Championship.

Just now, Tom13 said:

By using your eyes. He's not even prolific for Forest, but is extremely effective.

He's been effective for forest for sure. He was never effective for Villa.

if you reckon he was, then Ings must be having a balon D’or season in your eyes.

Just now, Tom13 said:

Was effective for us

Ings has more league goals this season than Davis has in in his entire Villa career, including 3 years in the championship. 

I’ll wager he has more combined goals and assists too.

By what metric was Davies effective for Villa?

9 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

Pretty effective then?

He said for us, not for forest 

Just now, VillaParkAvenue said:

We could definitely use the money, not least for FFP reasons. I’d sell for more than 50.

We’re pretty ok for FFP at the moment I believe - also remember that a signing costs their fee divided by contract length for FFP, while sales all go against it in one go. Grealish sold for 100m was +100m onto the books immediately, the signings we made were 90m/4 (22.5m/yr), so in terms of that transfer we were up 77.5m last year (more to it than that especially when wages etc come into it, but you get the idea)

He needs to pick up points from 4 games minimum to avoid pressure I reckon. Doesn’t matter whether it’s 3 or 1

Anyone else’s focus going down the pan as they get older? I’m finding it very hard to get sustained periods of work in any more 

11 minutes ago, mykeyb said:

But he is a winger ...

Doesn’t matter, I guarantee if there’s a sniff we’re in. Either instead of or with Coutinho

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

So, where's the VT pound going in extra time?

I'm still thinking Chelsea.

Chelsea on pens