jackbauer24

And the award for the overuse of the term 'every time' goes to... He's scored TWICE in FIFTY-FIVE games! It's really simple, he's not even 'young' (he's older than Luiz) and you can't just be that 'unlucky' all the time. He's nowhere near Premier League quality and I'd be disappointed if he was involved too much even if we get relegated. It might seem harsh but I doubt he'd even be prolific in League One. Absolutely awful I'm afraid and that's based on his career, not the twenty minutes he spent strolling around last night not working for the team...

Do you think Smith is good enough to manage in the Premier League? That's the only real question. If yes, then you keep him on. You put this season down to other factors/learning experience and you maintain some stability. If no, then however good he may be in the Championship, you get rid as you're just guaranteeing an endless cycle or definitely having to change the manager on any promotion. Get someone else who can build AND lead us in the Premier League. Me? I think whether by hook or by crook he manages to keep us up he stays. If he doesn't he goes. It's a results business. And seeing as we're 99.9% likely to be relegated in the next few days, I'd be drawing up the short list pronto - and Terry wouldn't be on it!

I think there is slightly more chance of us finishing above Watford than Bournemouth. I can see Bournemouth surviving at the expense of us and Watford quite easily.

It's all irrelevant if we don't beat Everton. If we don't beat Everton then we won't be taking it to the last day of the season whatever happens in other games.

Brighton are the sort of team we should have been attempting to match this season. They are light years ahead of us on one key ingredient - fight. Just dipping in and out of tonight's game and you can see the difference in speed, desire, aggression, teamwork. I'm not sure they have much more talent than us but it makes such a big difference. That's why this season will go down as a disappointment, not because we struggled but because we never fought.

I had a Scirocco R that was stolen last week. Only had a week left til it was due to be returned too... But anyway, not point of this post exactly... I'm in the process of ordering the Toyota CHR Orange Edition. Change of pace (literally - its much slower!) and with hybrid and various safety features it's a much more sensible choice. However, with what happened, I'm paranoid about theft now. Anyone got any experience with Autowatch Ghost systems? They are apparently now approved by insurance companies as of 1st March and the idea of preventing a theft appeals far more than just being able to track it once it's gone.

I wouldn't entirely discount Brighton yet - 33pts but with Man Utd, (Norwich), Liverpool, Man City, Southampton, Newcastle and Burnley to play. Fail to get a win against Norwich and they could easily be in the mix come the last game of the season.

I do think a few people could put their ratings on before the match kicks off, they clearly have preconceived ideas that won't change whatever happens on the pitch! To suggest either Luiz or Hourihane were anonymous is ridiculous. And as important as he is, Grealish was not great today. Let's also be honest in saying that's probably on the better side of how we generally play and we still didn't really look like taking three points against a very underperforming Sheffield United. You'll probably not see GLT/VAR miss such an obvious goal ever again either! Nyland disappointed me, had high hopes that he was turning a corner but today was back to the flappable unreliable keeper we are used to. Defensively a little better but Hause and Konsa aren't good enough at this level, or certainly not yet if we're being charitable. Midfield was solid if unspectacular, McGinn rusty, Grealish not at his best, Hourihane effective, Luiz reliable. El Ghazi comfortably the worst player on the pitch. Nakamba and Trezeguet both reasonable when on. Davis works his socks off but the closest he will regularly get to scoring goals is pushing his own goalkeeper across the line! Samatta didn't do much when he came on. Elmo hit the first defender 90% of the time. Much better application today but we don't have quality. And that relegates us.

Not sure if there is a more suitable place for this but I found it kind of interesting. I was looking at the eBay Shirts for Heroes raffle and it was interesting to see our 'league table of popularity' to some degree. We often hear who's top name on shirt sales etc but this is a pretty good guage of the squad popularity I'd say... Grealish 659 McGinn 359 Mings 297 Hourihane 124 Luiz 104 Reina 98 Samatta 92 Heaton 90 Wesley 85 Guilbert 84 El Ghazi 79 Nakamba 72 Nyland 72 Konsa 70 Chester 67 Steer 64 Davis 62 Trezeguet 61 Targett 59 Engels 58 Elmo 54 Drinkwater 52 Jota 52 Lansbury 52 Hause 51 Taylor 48 Baston 47 Two data points spring out - one that Hourihane is 4th despite no one ever seeming to put him in their squads or even like him on here and, secondly, that Drinkwater is above anyone! Reina might be getting some fans from prior career as can't work out who'd prefer him to Heaton in a Villa shirt...

Once you filled the form in did you get any type of emailed confirmation or anything?

Well in the grand league table we're only three places above them so probably not a massive leap to suggest there's not a huge amount of difference between the quality of the two teams. Also have no idea how the 3 x 30min sessions worked, who played and whether our best was ever up against their best. They say results don't matter in friendlies but that's even more the case in this glorified training session. Still think we'll be relegated mind!

I feel it's kind of a no lose situation now. Before the lockdown we were going down. It's hard to argue otherwise. We had just been thrashed by Leicester which was our fourth loss in a row, we hadn't actually gained a point in the league since our last minute winner against Watford in mid-January and our injury list was only getting worse. Now we return refreshed, with more to fight for than many (are midtable teams training as hard right now?), with a few more players back and a mini-preseason to further bed in the likes of Samatta. I suspect we may still go down, quite likely in fact, but at least we have a better chance than we did.

I'm not saying this will happen but what they should do is base next years prices based on your action; 1. Donate the refund to the Foundation - You get a percentage discount on next seasons (or which ever season!) price. 2. Have a credit note so Villa hold money - Price freeze whatever league we're in. 3. Get your cash refund - Seat held but no guarantee on price increases.

Surely that should be 1 BC? So because I'm pedantic; not funny.

I feel like I'm being attacked for having a viewpoint that doesn't fit the masses! At no point have I suggested we all ignore it and end the lockdown and we're being deceived in big conspiracy! I have suggested we need to look more closely at measured responses. I have asked questions that make no sense to me. I have no vested interest in this. I go and teach (babysit if honest!) kids regularly to help others do their job. I recognise every life is valid but if each individual life is important we should isolate forever - crime down, infections down, car accidents down, pollution down etc etc. But that's not how life works. I have a thirst for knowledge, I question everything. To me, there are a number of things that don't make sense. I have not abused or attacked anyone in this thread or advocated for defiance of current resrrictions. I have asked questions. That really annoys some people so I shall leave this thread for their sake and mine!

I'm checking out of this thread! Only time will tell what was what, what was right and what was wrong. What could have been done and what was unnecessary. I don't quite understand the vitriol towards people asking questions that don't follow the masses but it's kind of society I suppose. None of us are experts.

We can all go to nth degree. Why do we remain open during flu season? According to Public Health England 17,00 people die annually from Flu. Are these lives not important? There is always a calculation as to what warrants intervention and what doesn't. Clearly if we were talking about saving 20,000+ healthy people years on their life it is a different calculation to saving 20,000 people a few extra months. It's naïve to suggest that isn't how the world works. It also works on a microlevel when you consider quality of life. And before anyone suggests I am likening flu to covid, that is not the case. Clearly it is far more contagious and far more deadly with a lot more unknown. What I'm saying is there has to be calculations. What is your calculation? You're happpy with 17000 dying from flu as you don't shout for lockdown over winter. So what's the number you find acceptable?

Again, funny or not, there is another school of thought that this is largely bringing forward deaths that would happen anyway. By and large. So all these deaths are being robbed of their extra 3 months. And that is a horrible. But if you look at even 100,000 people losing three months of their life due to Covid the above statement suggestions EVERYONE loses 3 months, millions. It is far more complex than most are willing to think about.

I'm going to get in trouble for this as I can never get my tablet to link properly (!) but the BBC article says this; "Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip. And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash. It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors such declining living standards and poorer health care." I believe we're talking a decline far bigger than that now? But I'm not an expert and more than willing to be questioned on stuff and be happy to say I don't know and am not qualified to answer. My issue is many aren't. Some on here are so steadfast in their view they get almost insulted by being questioned

Funnily enough I practice what I preach and don't dismiss anyine who has a different view or is worried. I am am a teacher and reguarly go in to care for children of keyworkers if this means ines who are vulnerable or simply worried about it all don't have to. I'm not going around licking door handles but I happily 'put myself on the line' because I think the risk to me/my family is tiny compared to the help I give those children.

I thank those who are willing to discuss but, funnily enough, I'm loving the lockdown on a personal level so even if this was forever it wouldn't bother me personally! I still believe there is a lack of critical thinking taking place and we are making judgements out of fear. I hope I'm right (as mine is a more optimistic view) but can accept that I may not be. However i encourage all to look more closely at data - there's a good article that is updated on the BBC that tries to explain figures which broadly aligns to my thinking. We won't know, and possibly never will definitively, the right or wrong way to deal with this. However I believe Sweden are approaching this in a more measured way and we'll get an indication of how succesful or not that is only months/years after this has largely passed.

If I made allergies a notifiable disease, every year 600,000 people would die of hayfever. Covid is currently a notifiable disease, it won't remain so. If you're argument is the lockdown is saving lives fullstop then you must also be saying we shouldn't reopen until it is fully safe to do so. That could be years or, if it mutates at all to render vaccines practically useless like the flu, forever. So what is your calculation? How many people are you prepared to let die in YOUR maths? Because we all must have it. When do you open the lockdown? Why is 5000 extra deaths acceptable? Why don't you insist on closing down during flu outbreaks? There HAS to be a calculation but no one is willing to talk about it.

I'm not going to keep debating this as I know I'm either not making myself clear or there is a lack of understanding from either side. 15,000 + 4,000 people = 19,500 who have died WITH Coronavirus. My argument is neither you or I actually know how many died BECAUSE of Coronavirus. Is that a statement I am not making clear? I am not suggesting the deaths are lies, I am suggesting the means of recording are deeply flawed. Clearly, if 1 person had died because of Covid out of those numbers, this whole situation would be a spectacular over-reaction. If 19,000 died because of it then the argument would be this is up there with plague in terms of death rate! The only way to try and get an inkling of the real deaths from Covid is to look at excess deaths which has only upturned in the last week or two. Even then you've got to ask are those deaths due to Coronvirus or lockdown (fear of hospitals not getting treatment etc). I've read replies with a mixture of, 'ok, I didn't know that' to 'that's a complete misunderstanding of statistics' but what I don't see from all the people who think this full lockdown is needed is the possibility they don't know all the answers. No-one does.

I'm not going to get into an argument as no one knows any definitive figures but what I can guarantee is that there has NOT been 20,000 extra deaths in this country. No scientist will tell you that because it is simply untrue. 20,000 people have not died BECAUSE of Covid19. The figures, regardless of whether you believe government numbers or add on ones outside hospitals do not differentiate between it being a direct reason for a death or simply a factor (or possibly even just present). If 20,000 extra people had died I would definitely understand! I don't know the number who have died because of the virus and neither do you - that is guess work on our parts. That is a failure on transparent data collection. Overall death rates have increased marginally since early April but we equally have to guess how many are caused by Covid and how many are caused by not seeking treatment for fear of Covid or cancelled operations etc. I am not for one second suggesting it's a lie or a hoax but there are QUESTIONS and we should ask them and dig in to information more deeply. And, cold as it is, those numbers do matter as they impact decisions and how you save more lives. The extreme is we stay locked down forever and very few ever die of anything contagious - there will always be a balance. The same applies to the joke of Schrödinger's Lockdown. If you are suggesting the lockdown itself doesn't contribute to deaths both short term and long term you are simplifying a very complex calculation. For example, most experts (which I am definitely not) can clearly correlate an economic dip/recession with increasing mortality rates - this has been proven historically and makes sense, a unemployed, poorer country can not maintain healthy individuals. So yes, inevitably a lockdown will have a positive impact on ALL contagious diseases but equally it will have a negative impact on many other diseases (heart, mental or delayed treatments) as well as increased national poverty. The only way to ever look at this properly will be after the event. The only thing that worries me is people's unwillingness to really think about uncomfortable calculations. And each calculation is somebody's life. I'm not of this view point because I worry of money, I have a question because I currently believe this will result in more deaths. But I'm also more than happy for someone to suggest valid reasons for why I could be wrong. The most dangerous person in any situation is the one who is steadfast in the belief their viewpoint is beyond reproach. But I know I'm in a minority because it's not in people's nature to question or look at data and evidence anymore - otherwise we wouldn't have a Tory party leading us out of Europe! People have become sheep. To question is a good thing, even if you're completely wrong. Addition; My view as regards lockdown is in relation to full lockdown. I think, based on the data, some actions are required that are not required in a normal situation. In this instance, schools should be open, shops should reopen following same guidelines as supermarkets but mass events should still remain off the agenda til even more data is available. Clearly there should be extra protection around vulnerable (primarily older) groups. I don't think a full lockdown is beneficial and think it may cause more problems and deaths both short and long term.

I feel like I'm in a tiny minority here but I still don't get it. Every decision we make in life involves an element of risk. We don't ban cars because people die in crashes. We don't close down over Xmas because flu kills loads of extra people. Initially we were dealing with an unknown virus and I have no issue with caution at all, but now it feels like people are scared to question if we're on the right path. Questioning in itself is not the same as Trumpism stupidity. It is not a case of lockdown or deaths. It's not that simple as much as some would like it to be. Lockdown causes deaths. Economy collapses cause deaths. Sheer amounts of money being spent mean that investment in the NHS in future will be cut causing deaths. We could be in a situation where the lockdown causes more deaths than coronavirus. I know for sure that 20,000 people have not died OF coronavirus, 20,000 people have died WITH coronavirus. I don't know what that percentage break down is but rudimentary stats seem to suggest that, only very recently, the total death rate in this country is now above the five year average. However, even that has only slightly been attributed to Covid. The fear of Covid is possibly causing more deaths - people holding off calling ambulances for strokes, people with mental health issues struggling, crucial operations being called off, individuals drinking more than they would etc etc. Testing and hindsight will only ever paint a clearer picture. I consider myself quite left wing. I personally have no direct job/wage worries caused by this. I also don't think there is any great conspiracy from anyone to particularly manipulate this situation for their own gain. What I do think is we are increasingly becoming a society that is afraid to challenge, afraid to ask difficult questions for fear of upsetting anyone and a society that is afraid to admit mistakes. I don't know the answers but I think it is wrong to shut down anyone who questions the path. Nothing improves without challenge. The lockdown is killing people and the longer it goes on the more people it will kill directly and indirectly. This isn't a direct economic discussion, this is balancing x lives vs x lives and is a calculation that needs openly discussing. I don't think a full lockdown is necessary personally based on what I know. However I also, as anybody of any intelligence should, don't think I am definitely right! But questioning it is an important part of scientific thinking. Hospitals are at 80% capacity, private hospitals far more, Nightingale in London apparently has fewer than 20 people in it and the others aren't currently in use. The death rate seems to be around 1-2% in countries that have tested large numbers and quite possibly even lower. Most countries (and certainly the UK) have a biased selection of testing aimed at those who are clearly risk categories or already significantly ill. I don't for one second advocate stubborn denial but we're in a very different place than we were when we were dealing with lots of mixed information. There clearly are risk categories, outlying cases will happen with all diseases but are being highlighted by the press as another sign of the apocalypse. The NHS have said they can now cope with any surge even if I suspect it will never be needed. There are clearly things we can do and caution should always be taken when considering lives but lockdown causes deaths and may cause more deaths in the short term and long term than covid does. My only conspiracy belief is that I strongly suspect no government would ever admit to mistakes and no opposition would ever want to be seen to be making difficult conversations. But the majority seem to just be happy clapping rather than questioning everything. Even if the right decisions are being made then it is still right to question. There will come a time, as cold as it may be, that we will have a much better idea of how many people this virus actually killed. If it was 1000 excess deaths and we destroyed the livelihoods of millions of people and indirectly killed 100,000 due to poverty, unemployment or simply avoiding hospitals or delayed operations it clearly wouldn't have been worth it. As cynical as it is those are the calculations that need making. It is not economy vs lives. It is lives vs lives.