McGregor1888 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 When heskey was 32 he was still scoring goals at international level. It's a meaningless and utterly pointless debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 When heskey was 32 he was still scoring goals at international level. It's a meaningless and utterly pointless debate. Yeah he was on fire, how many goals did he score then? If anything it just shows how bad the options were for English strikers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggy_333 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 When heskey was 32 he was still scoring goals at international level. It's a meaningless and utterly pointless debate. Yeah he was on fire, how many goals did he score then? If anything it just shows how bad the options were for English strikers. His last goal for England was against Kazakhstan...not sure that even counts to be honest lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side? Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool?Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side? Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances. So Holt offers us something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool?Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header.He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side?Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances. So Holt offers us something different? Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Gabby created two goals and was a threat that Liverpool feared. Holt ran around and did what we expected him to do and Liverpool also knew what to expect and dealt with him comfortably. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool?Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header.He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side?Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances.So Holt offers us something different? Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers? Some games it will be better, some games it won't, its different. He didn't plan to bring him on for gabby yesterday, injury forced it. He'll win us more points than he'll lose us. I really don't see anything to be negative about the signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool?Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header.He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side?Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances.So Holt offers us something different?Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers? Some games it will be better, some games it won't, its different. He didn't plan to bring him on for gabby yesterday, injury forced it. He'll win us more points than he'll lose us. I really don't see anything to be negative about the signing. Not sure how you can say that. The fact we replaced gabby with such an inferior player played a part in us not getting all 3 points. Whichever of our attackers holt replaces he is an inferior option to them and we are weaker having him on the pitch over any of them. So how can you confidently predict he'll win more points than lose? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomaspg Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Im not a fan of Holt, didnt really want him here, and i dont think he will be useful. But passing judgement on him after such short time against an opposition like Liverpool is pretty steep. I dont think he will but i hope he proves me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Holt ran around and did what we expected him to do and Liverpool also knew what to expect and dealt with him comfortably. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas_Mike Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 There has been times this season when Gabby has been shit, there has been times when Andi has been shit and there has been times when Benteke has been shit. Bringing Holt on under such circumstances may actually boost the team and not make it weaker as had been suggested. I can also see a battering ram final 20 minutes of Benteke and Holt as being quite a useful weapon because lets face it our tiki taka play at home sucks (is non existent) and we need to try something different or the boos and poor form will continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side? Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances. So Holt offers us something different? Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers? Some games it will be better, some games it won't, its different. He didn't plan to bring him on for gabby yesterday, injury forced it. He'll win us more points than he'll lose us. I really don't see anything to be negative about the signing. Not sure how you can say that. The fact we replaced gabby with such an inferior player played a part in us not getting all 3 points. Whichever of our attackers holt replaces he is an inferior option to them and we are weaker having him on the pitch over any of them. So how can you confidently predict he'll win more points than lose? Oh! so now he was indirectly the cause that cost us all three points - funny I thought you and many others were confident we wouldn't get a point against Liverpool seeing we are shite. I am glad that some of you lot re not managing our team and have gained your indepth knowledge from many a computer game that is Championship Manager and the like. He was not 'fat', 'lazy' blah blah blah. If you lot (not aimed at any individual) seem to know so much - how do you know bringing on someone else would have resulted in a different result? Oh! I forget - we are all experts in this field - we know how to man manage and motivate - I can see that from where I sit in the upper holte. One of our own make a sloppy pass and the moans go up and the slagging off starts - and don't say it doesn't or you have a right to do so. The players (manager included) have a duty to perform and we as SUPPORTERS have a duty to encourage support and breed confidence in the players - not moan at every mistake. Jeez - the positivity didn't last long and reasoned debate for that matter too. Ready for the flaming because I dared to criticise the fans ( I won't call them supporters because support has a totally different meaning in my dictionary). Iv'e not been a fan personally - I have been a supporter for 53 years 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Well done Naz, every single lazy cliché blaming the fans in one single post. Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazvfc Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Well done Naz, every single lazy cliché blaming the fans in one single post. Brilliant. Yeah - I know - So the fans have not played a part? All I read is that if the team gave us something to cheer about then we'd get behind them. I get fed up of reading the holier than thou attitude of some fans (and I'm NOT saying one fan is better than another) - some already have made their minds up about Grant even before he put the shirt on - just like some made up their minds about Benteke when he first came here. At least I'm never a negative so and so - I am an optimist when it comes to Villa - no matter who the manager, player or chairman is. The TEAM have always had my unequivocal support - call it blind faith if you wish. I'll never change my stance or opinion no matter if we play shit or well or inconsistently. Ah! **** it - the fans are perfect. I take back every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa-revolution Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? & as expected Holt's hold up play was superb. This will be even more important at home when we get midfielder's forward in support of the attack & will also make space for Benteke, Agbonlahor et al to exploit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool?Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header.He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side?Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances.So Holt offers us something different?Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers?Some games it will be better, some games it won't, its different. He didn't plan to bring him on for gabby yesterday, injury forced it. He'll win us more points than he'll lose us. I really don't see anything to be negative about the signing. Not sure how you can say that. The fact we replaced gabby with such an inferior player played a part in us not getting all 3 points. Whichever of our attackers holt replaces he is an inferior option to them and we are weaker having him on the pitch over any of them. So how can you confidently predict he'll win more points than lose? So if a teams comfortably dealing with gabby, it gives us a different option. What's the point in having 2 strikers exactly the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AntrimBlack Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I've never, ever, ever seen Emile Heskey show any sort of technical ability as per Holt's cute flick against Liverpool. Creating that sort of space for someone to run into alone is valuable enough. I was impressed because I thought he'd be much more immobile. I love the pointless stat quoting by the way. Did you see that Holt had more touches, won more tackles and committed less fouls than Gabby did against Liverpool? Not sure they're pointless stats. He's a striker, we need him to be involved, hold up the ball and be a threat. He kept the ball 5 times and won 1 header. He attempted more passes, had more touches and won more headers than Agbonlahor. Who would you rather have in the side? Gabby isn't in there to win headers and hold the ball up. He's there to provide an outlet, to take players on and try to create chances. So Holt offers us something different? Than gabby? Of course. Did we need something different to gabby? Is that something different better than what gabby offers? Some games it will be better, some games it won't, its different. He didn't plan to bring him on for gabby yesterday, injury forced it. He'll win us more points than he'll lose us. I really don't see anything to be negative about the signing. Not sure how you can say that. The fact we replaced gabby with such an inferior player played a part in us not getting all 3 points. Whichever of our attackers holt replaces he is an inferior option to them and we are weaker having him on the pitch over any of them. So how can you confidently predict he'll win more points than lose? So if a teams comfortably dealing with gabby, it gives us a different option. What's the point in having 2 strikers exactly the same? Surely Benteke and Holt are exactly the same, notwithstanding the difference in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts