KentVillan

Yes, and we're all also forgetting that while describing someone as "black" is of course fine, and Tammy is "black" (among many other things!), basing an entire song around it is weird. We've had so many great black players down the years, and there's never been any need to sing about it. Why take the risk of making a player feel unwelcome or uncomfortable because you want to prove a tiresome point about political correctness? It's not about freedom of speech, it's about respect. You're singing about a human being who is very likely to experience racist abuse throughout his career because of his skin colour. And he's one of our own star players!

Re: the song, I think it's a tough one because if you hear the original "Whoah Black Betty bamalam", the last two words map so well to "Tammy Abraham". I can see how someone would come up with it without meaning to be offensive. But I don't think highlighting a player's skin colour in a song is really something we should be doing. These are young lads who sometimes get serious racist abuse because of the colour of their skin, and regardless of what you think about political correctness, we should try to support them and avoid adding to that burden. That's not to say this is the most offensive song of all time, but wiser just to avoid it no?

Not a big Taylor fan, but I thought he had a decent game today. His movement off the ball was excellent, and he also won the ball back high up the pitch a few times. He did give the ball away a few times, but most of those were where we were completely boxed into our own corner, or he was trying to cross into a box of 8 defenders.

This game was made for him, as I think Lee Hendrie said at half time. Sometimes you want the reliable 7/10 performer who does the defensive work and keeps the ball moving around, and sometimes you want the player who can "unlock the door" with a moment of genius. Hourihane, for all his faults, has those moments of genius in his locker (which I think would work equally well at Premier League level).

I would obviously rather keep him, but if he has an amazing season for Villa next year and his price tag is £60m+ with several Champions League clubs showing interest, then you have to be realistic.

It's a market. Big clubs don't have some special ability to rip off smaller clubs. Unproven players are cheaper, and Jack still hasn't proved he is a Champions League quality player, or that he could fit in at a club other than Villa. Having said that, I don't think we should sell Jack, because I think he is worth more to us than the fee other clubs are currently prepared to play for him. If we go up and he has a good season in the PL, then things might change, and we might want to cash in.

My biggest concern with letting Whelan go is that we don't have a natural replacement coming through, and this is always a tricky position to fill. If we stay in Championship, I'd keep Whelan for another season if he fancies it, and sign a younger prospect to compete for that place. If we go up, this is the signing we really need to get right IMO. Fulham showed how great attacking talent can get you promoted, but they'll be exposed in the PL if you don't invest in a good, streetwise defensive mid. Wolves signed Joao Moutinho and did really well out of that.

Watching DS's press conference, the man is a class act. Always feel like he's here for the long haul, and sees promotion as just the first step in getting Villa back on track. Particularly liked this exchange:

Fair play to Liverpool, to be honest. Whatever you think of the fans, they have a class manager, and some really top drawer players, and they play brave, exciting football. They also just knocked out one of the most arrogant smarmy teams in world football. Some of the key groundwork for Liverpool's current success was done by Christian Purslow - so bodes well for our future as a club. UTV

Yeah and Dean Smith shot Steve Bruce from the grassy knoll

A classic Arsenal player in many ways. Passes the ball very sharply -- lots of drilled low passes that open the play up quickly. I worry he lacks that extra string to his bow that would make him a regular starter in midfield. If he could add a bit more defensive quality to his game, then he could probably challenge for a starting place, but not clear that he has it in his locker.

Think DS called it right resting key players, and think he picked the right ones to rest. This game was also a good opportunity to get our bench match sharp - some of the 2nd choice players could have a key role to play in the play-offs. He's done everything right recently. Just hope the luck goes our way when we need it. Can't see us getting outplayed, but you never know what will happen.

Banned for 2 games: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48140118 Hilarious news, but not sure it actually hinders Leeds that much.

Not criticising him, because I love his passion, but I don't know how "hard" it is to run into something like this. People accuse Conor of being soft because he doesn't always look like he fancies a 50-50, and I put more stock in stuff like that.

I just went on Dean Smith's Wikipedia page to check his stats. Had a heart stopping, stomach churner of a moment when I saw section 3 of the contents... Then realised I was reading the biography of American basketball coach Dean Smith.

Mediocre manager who doesn't know how to set up a defence, and found his level at Brentford -- whose success was all down to their scouting network and data analysts. We deserve better!

You're making a lot of big assumptions here: 1. That signing Tammy would be an "eggs in one basket" transfer, rather than just a bare minimum needed to have a chance of staying up. If we go up I'm not sure spending £25m on a striker should be seen as a wild gamble anymore. We'll probably need to spend that again on another striker, or at least bring in an expensive loan player (a la Jimenez at Wolves). The market has shifted with the new TV deal. 2. That there are multiple decent strikers (3+) with genuine PL potential available for the price of one Tammy. I'm not sure any amount of ingenious moneyball is going to find three plausible strike options for £8m a pop. That barely buys you a PL right back these days. 3. That you get enough time in the PL to experiment with all your different signings. Each striker experiment is going to take you several matches. By that time you might be mired in a relegation battle, and have lost several of your "must win" fixtures. 4. That we're going up. 5. That if we go up the plan is to buy Tammy. 6. That Tammy would join us if we went up. So this is a slightly pointless debate at this stage. I generally agree with the idea that we shouldn't be too emotional about signing players who've done well for us this year, as it's a big step up. But by the same token, I don't think we should write off Tammy as a PL option, or even worry too much about whether it will happen.

Tammy has been class for us this season, but to put his prospects as a Premier League striker in perspective: Bristol City loan 2016/17 23 league goals in 41 appearances = 1 goal every 1.8 matches Swansea City loan 2017/18 - 5 league goals in 31 appearances = 1 goal every 6.2 matches Aston Villa loan 2018/19 - 24 league goals in 36 appearances = 1 goal every 1.5 matches Of course he is getting better, but his return at Villa isn't a dramatic improvement on his return at Bristol. I'd say he'd bring in about 5-10 goals in the PL next season if he stays fit. Dwight Gayle's record is a good example - 23 goals in 32 in the Championship when Newcastle walked the division, and then 6 in 35 the following season. If we go up (big if), we need to reset our expectations ruthlessly, so we don't end up as another Fulham. Some players carry their form up the divisions, and some just don't for whatever reason. It can be a lonely life feeding on scraps at a counter-attacking, relegation-threatened club. Fine for someone like Jamie Vardy or Ian Wright. Not as much fun for a striker who likes to get involved in every phase of the game. Not a criticism of Tammy, just a dose of realism. He's done well, and I would like to see him stay, but only for a sensible price.

I'm not disagreeing that he is often caught out of position, but I just don't think this was the main problem. Taylor was also miles out of position most of the time, and he has started looking much better since we settled on Whelan + Grealish in the middle. I imagine you'll see the same improvement if Hutton gets back in the team. None of this is to say that Hutton is a great player who deserves to be in the starting 11, but I think it's a coincidence that we improved when he was injured. Mings and Grealish are much bigger factors.

How many of the goals we conceded with Hutton in the side were his fault? I remember a couple of very bad f***ups, but I'm not sure he was the chief culprit in most games. Think people are being a bit unfair on him.

Delegation isn't giving people full autonomy to do whatever the f**k they want. There is always accountability for the more senior person, and somebody as successful as Alex Ferguson would have been aware of the daily training plans, even if he wasn't directly coaching the players. Nowadays, because clubs tend to want more control over transfers / contract negotiations / business decisions, there is much more time for the "manager" / "head coach" to focus on coaching, so that's what they do. It doesn't mean they aren't delegating tasks to specialist coaches or assistants. The secret edges that were available to managers in the past are harder to find now. Gone are the days when you could unearth a Roy Keane, a Les Ferdinand or an Ian Wright playing in front of a few hundred fans (Jamie Vardy is the exception that proves the rule). It used to be possible to transform an English football club by just clamping down on the drinking culture. Now most players look after themselves without any encouragement. So nowadays, the only way to consistently outperform your budget is through better player psychology, better coaching, better tactical preparation, and better in-game decisions. That's why the game is moving towards the head coach model. Let the club focus on the long-term strategy, and let the coach focus on the players. The trick is to give the head coach complete authority over his areas of responsibility, and to listen to his advice on what the club needs going forward, while not letting him pursue quick fixes in transfer market. I see Purslow, JGP and Smith as a good example of this setup. Our setup isn't really that different from what United had under Fergie -- just that some of Fergie's responsibilities are handled by Purslow and JGP, and some of Kidd / McLaren / Queiroz / Phelan's responsibilities are taken on by Smith. The point is that under the old Villa model, nobody was doing some of the stuff that needed doing.

There is loads of evidence -- all the games this season where Hourihane has played as the deepest midfielder, and we have struggled to control possession. I like Hourihane, but he doesn't have the right temperament for DM. The role of a good DM is to be a water carrier, and make the players around you look better. Hourihane is someone who wants time and space to do things with the ball. Sometimes you can get space as a DM if the opposition don't press you, and when that happens Hourihane can look very good (better than Whelan probably). But the good teams don't let a DM look up and line up a 60 yard pass. Remember the Sheff Utd game where they pressed Hourihane from the 1st minute, and he looked shellshocked? In that situation, I'd take Whelan's calmness and simplicity over Hourihane's Hollywood balls.

To be fair, it's a tiny minority of posters on here who have a quasi-religious belief that DS was a deputy cleaning lady at Brentford and doesn't belong anywhere near a big club like Villa. Vast majority of fans are on board from what I've seen at games, and even during the bad spell it was more the players than DS himself who were getting the brunt of the abuse. My take has always been that he deserves at least one summer transfer window and pre-season with the players, preferably two... hopefully a lot more.

Hadn't thought about it like that really, but it's a very good point. Sometimes, what gets you the best results in the short term holds you back in the long term, and vice versa. To caveat that a bit, there was a period when DS was starting to second guess himself (remember when we tried Jedinak as DM, Kodjia out wide, Hourihane as a deep lying playmaker?) and it looked like he was scrabbling around for a solution. But in the main he has stuck to his central philosophy, which is to control possession in the opposition half, with high full backs and wingers. In possession, we often end up with something that looks like a 3-4-3, as Whelan drops into defence, CBs split, both full backs push high like wingbacks, and wingers are free to come inside. This style has been a feature of the DS reign, but when Grealish was injured we turned over possession too quickly in the middle of the park to make it work. We were also getting severely punished for losing possession because of some of the defensive personnel, and DS has sorted that out as well. So as others have said, it's not just Jack's return, but a few different things coming together at once. I'd also give DS a bit of credit for making Glenn Whelan the cornerstone of the midfield. That wasn't an obvious choice, but it's worked.

Yeah I suppose if this was a fair reflection of what I'd actually said, you'd be right*. But it isn't, so you're just arguing with some fictional invention that you plucked out of your crack. * ignoring the fact** that we have already won games without Jack ** actual fact, not an opinion masquerading as a fact