WooJung

He has several flaws to his game as we have seen today, but it seems to me that if he gets enough game time (possibly in the same position) he can sort them out, as none of them seem to be down to lack of ability. He is one of the few players at the club that can deliver the "final ball". His defensive contribution is also valuable.

If it's Cleverley on a permanent deal I can almost imagine a pitch invasion - before the game even starts.

That would be interesting...

Benteke is underperforming.

That said, stats do not express is the circumstances in which the shots were taken.  I don't remember him having as many clear chances to score as he did in the previous seasons. He's had a few and missed them. The 2 league goals he did scored on the other hand were 100% his.

Let's see what happens with Gil now.

Just to get some clarity on the loan situation with Cleverley, am I correct in thinking that the loan is only up until the end of January upon which point he will either go back to Man Ure, or we look to complete our purchase of him for £8m?

 

Is that right? So our lack of an announcement on the matter would indicate that we're not taking the option to buy him as he'd just be heading back oop norf?

 

As he has made 1 appearance in the league for Man U, he also wouldn't be able to play for another club this season so, if he does go back, his playing time will effectively be nil for the rest of the league campaign before coming a free agent.

My understanding is that we signed him on a season-long loan with a clause to buy him in Jan (which would terminate his loan and he would be a Villa-owned player). ManU have a clause to get him back. If he does go back to United they could still loan him abroad.

 

 

 

I would give him a rest on Sunday, I think it would do him well. It would also be good for Baker to get another game after being out for a long time.

That would mean playing Clark and Baker that's a very bad idea!! Let Okore renew his partnership with Clark as they need to grow together.

Why would it be a bad idea? They have been bad in the past as a partnership, but I would say that would have more to do witht he fact that they were both worse players individually. They both seem to have improved this season, and if we were to have injuries/suspensions I'd rather have Baker with an extra game under his belt. That, and I think Okore would benefit from a rest.

Neither of them is a right sided CB both play better on the left. Baker needs an experienced head alongside him to help his game that's why when he played with Senderos he looked decent. He looked back to his old self against Liverpool at home yet was MOM in the away one! We need to start our best team and at the minute our 2 best CB are Okore and Clark. If Baker can get some composure in his game he has all the attributes to be a good CB.

 

Clark has already played on the right, and if anything it will be a good experience for him to play there again. Besides, lots of teams play with two right sided CBs (Wasn't it with Dunne and Collins that we had one of the best defenses in the league?).

I think Clark can play the role of the experienced head. After all he's done that brilliantly with Okore.

 

I would give him a rest on Sunday, I think it would do him well. It would also be good for Baker to get another game after being out for a long time.

That would mean playing Clark and Baker that's a very bad idea!! Let Okore renew his partnership with Clark as they need to grow together.

 

Why would it be a bad idea? They have been bad in the past as a partnership, but I would say that would have more to do witht he fact that they were both worse players individually. They both seem to have improved this season, and if we were to have injuries/suspensions I'd rather have Baker with an extra game under his belt. That, and I think Okore would benefit from a rest.

I would give him a rest on Sunday, I think it would do him well. It would also be good for Baker to get another game after being out for a long time.

 

Vlaar might sign another deal through lack of interest, but the club might possibly not now offer a deal because of the emergence of the young guys.

Do not know about the young lads, but if the club think any have potential, they would be cheap and might be an idea to sign then up and get them loaned out.

I would say it might be too soon to get rid of DJ, who has shown he might have potential.

 

I'd let Johnson go, personally.

 

He's looked (almost) decent in the few times we've seen him for the first team, but he was outshone for years in the U21s by Gary Gardner. Gardner is the better of the two players, and even he can't make it in our team yet.

 

Well, Delfouneso was supposed to be outshining Weimann, and this season he scored just as much (or as little, I should say) as Weimann, only in the Championship.

The way they perform at U21 level doesn't always reflect on how they will perform in professional football.

Not that Weimann is great, by any means!

He might not be ready yet, but it's not like he has to replace Robben or Ronaldo. He has to replace Gabby/Weimann ffs.

He might (or more likely, he WILL) be inconsistent, but I'd rather have inconsistency than being consistently poor.

How do I know he will be better than Gabby/Weimann? I don't know, but techincal ability alone makes it much more likely he will make something happen. Might be 3 times a game, might be once every three games. But when was the last time Gabby made something happen?

 

He shouldn't be playing that high up the pitch if he's played wide, well he shouldn't play wide and he shouldn't play that high up the pitch. So that means if he starts he should start centrally. For him to start centrally then 2 of Sanchez, Delph and Westwood need to be unavailable.

I mean that is the problem. Lambert brought in both Sanchez and Cleverley for basically the same positions that Delph and Westwood play. Surely in the summer we required a winger or forward greater than yet another plodding midfielder? 

 

Just like he bought Kozak for around 6 mil when he was always going to be second choice after Benteke, when what we really needed was a different type of player. Lambert is great at spotting good players, he just doesn't seem to know what he and his team actually need!

Guzan

Okore Baker

Sanchez Westwood

Herd Richardson

Cleverley Delph

Gabby Benteke

If this goes on our starting lineup will look something like this

 

You misunterstood me, I'm glad he's here, I just think that given his obvious injury problem it was very unwise to give him a two year deal. In very much the same way it was madness to give Given a 5 year deal (which was obviously a worse mistake).

 

 

Fair enough, but I'd guess even Lambert would rather have signed him up for one year. Older players want long contracts, and he might not have come here otherwise. Don't worry, there's more than enough hysteria about the management without getting worked up over Joe Cole's extra year.

 

I'd guess that as well and I agree with the premise. I just think that it might have been positive to find a compromise. Say, for example, put a clause in the contract with an option for a second year based on appearences.

But yeah, that's hardly one of the major issues right now.

 

 

He had offers from the MLS before he signed for us so can see him ending up there.

 

We did only sign him on a 1 year deal didn't we? I know Senderos and Richardson were two years.

 

No, he is on a two year deal. Brilliant management.

 

 

Oh, please. We needed creativity, and don't have any money. Nobody expects him to be fit for more than half the season, but if he plays ten games, 20k a week is a good deal, and probably not one that Cole would have signed for only one year.

 

Edit: And we already have two points we wouldn't have had without him, so even if he never plays for us again it may be money well spent.

 

You misunterstood me, I'm glad he's here, I just think that given his obvious injury problem it was very unwise to give him a two year deal. In very much the same way it was madness to give Given a 5 year deal (which was obviously a worse mistake).

He had offers from the MLS before he signed for us so can see him ending up there.

 

We did only sign him on a 1 year deal didn't we? I know Senderos and Richardson were two years.

No, he is on a two year deal. Brilliant management.

Apart from being a potential threat (which is rather different from being an actual threat) on the counter, I fail to see what he adds to the team. His finishing is poor and he has a low goal scoring record. He doesn't create chances for himself or for his team mates, his first touch and ball control are dreadful and that results in slowing our attack or us losing posession. He isn't particularly good in the air. He doesn't work as a target man.

People argue that he forces teams to play deeper because of his pace, but given our non-existent ability to create chances that hardly plays to our advantage, does it?

If the only argument in his favour is that he tracks back and helps us defend we might as well play a fullback in his position. At least a fullback would (in theory) provide some crosses, which would at least be a starting point...

 

I think his ability is being overstated somewhat here. He's very hit and miss.

I agree. While I'm a fan he got a chance to state his case with a starting role a few weeks ago following some promising sub appearances. Unfortunately he fluffed it.

 

How is starting ONE game in over half a season being given a chance? He only started due to injuries/suspensions and he was hardly horrible. He wasn't spectacular by any means, but he was the only player delivering dangerous crosses in the box, weather from set pieces or from open play, and his defensive play was good. He did everything Cleverley should be and isn't doing (and yet he has started every single game /United and has been anonymous at best). 

For me it should be Sanchez, Bacuna and Delph (if he stays) in our midfield trio. Each of them offers something different.

Westwood has also been decent, but there's no reason to have him and Sanchez in the same midfield.

Hardly worse than Clark was 2 years ago. He needs games to improve, and I think we will have a good player. Not a world beater, but a reliable, solid CB.

If Vlaar and Clark are both fit I would give Okore a few games in midfield. It would be good for him, because he could still get accustomed to the League and I think he could also do a decent job as a DM, as a CB he know how to tackle and despite his hight he would win some headers in midfield (how often does that happen?). He would also offer some much needed pace, and would allow Delph to get into attacking positions more often.

And people believe Lambert chose not to buy in Jan. Like any manager in the world wouldn't want cover for such an important player who suffers with fitness issues.

We have 3 young and promising CBs in Clark, Baker and Okore (I haven't seen anything from Donacien yet) so it makes sense not to buy another CB.

However it would have been a good idea to try to get an experienced one on loan until the end of the season toreplace Vlaar in case of injuries/suspension and perhaps even  partner (which would've been harsh on Clark, he's done well this season).

Hindsight? No. We started the season with 4 CBs, which is reasonable. But with Okore out until the end of the season (if he recovers from his injury before then, he will still need to get his fitness back) it would have made sense to replace him, as we did with Kozak and Holt (a position in which we were in lesser need of a replacement, by the way).

To that, add that that both Vlaar and Baker seem to be rather injury prone, which could leave us seriously exposed.

So the question is: Were there any Cbs available on loan better than Baker? And if so, wasn't it foolish of Lambert not to intervene?

5 at the back, 3 up front.

We had no midfield, they bossed the game.

We scored partly thanks to an Everton mistake.

 Lambert got the tactics all wrong.

The non existent midfield was to blame for the mulumbu goal

 

Mulumbu of all people was just allowed to make a run through and score

 

We really need a defensive mid

Westwood needs replacing. I have lost count of the goals we have conceded because he didn't track the opposing midfielder's central run.

Why do we ALWAYS lose posession whenever a throw in is in our favour?

Paul Lambert is currently in his fourth transfer window since joining the club. I have lost count of the number of players he's bought, but it's much easier to count those he sold: TWO - Collins and Bannan. All the other players have either been loaned out (Bent, Given), released (Holman, Ireland) or left the club after their contract expired (Warnock, Lichaj).

Although most of these players have/had little or no value, I am starting to wonder if Lambert is responsible and to what degree. Is he not good enough at negotiating, or does he act in a way that makes our players unwanted by other clubs? (I am referring to the Bomb Squad policy, I think it's doing us more harm than good, it makes the players look like they have NOTHING to offer. If Hutton doesn't even make the bench when we have zero right backs avaliable and resort to playing a midfielder in that position nobody will consider buying him, will they? This is just an example)

Any thoughts?

Did well I thought yesterday but he's been fairly hit and miss in this position, although as he has been in other positions too. I like him though.

He's played something like 10 games in that position in his whole carreer, I think he has great potential as a RB.

A Loan to the Championship might do him some good.