Carles Gil

[VillanousOne]

It's "Reo-Coker's Law" whereby their reputation grows exponentially bigger than their time sat on the bench.

 

R=B squared, where R = reputation and B = time out of the team.

I really don't think it is.

 

no-one is/should be saying Gil should replace anyone starting in the side

 

no-one is/should be saying Gil has really proved anything in the shirt, yet

 

everyone should acknowledge has had some time on the pitch where his close control, dribbling and technical qualities made him look like he had the potential to be quite some player for us.

 

also worth acknowledging he got forward and retained possession at a time most of the rest of the team weren't doing that as we were struggling

 

we have waited years for a creative midfielder, Ireland was the last to fail in the shirt, so maybe our need for Gil to succeed means some of us are overstating his talent or ability.

 

But most just want him to be given a fair chance to impress, which in my opinion he hasn't yet had under Sherwood.

 

He should make the bench at least.

[StefanAVFC]

 

 

 

 

 

So for the first time in years we get a product of the youth scheme who looks to have genuine potential, who may get to be as good as, say, Brian Little, and who is already combining excitingly with players like Delph and Benteke, and people are wanting hiim to be dropped in favour of Gil.

Don't really understand.

People don't want Grealish dropped for Gil.

You've literally made that up.

I think it's a bit bizarre to claim I have "literally" made that up, when I was responding to this post:

Basically at this point TS prefers Grealish over him

I hope he gets a look in at some point as he did look pretty decent

Now, let's try & work this out. Poster notes TS prefers Grealish to Gil but hopes Gil will get a look in. How would Gil therefore get a look in?

Oh, by dropping Grealish. #simplelogic.

I see nothing there to show you didn't make up your statement that people want Grealish dropped.

 

In that case, you either haven't read - or have read, but haven't understood - what I said and there is no more discussion to be had.

 

 

Considering you made the point that people wanted Grealish to be dropped for Gil, isn't it up to you to prove it? Not post ONE quote that only supports your argument when you interpret it a very, very specific way.

 

Nobody wants Grealish dropped for Gil. As Ben said, you're arguing with yourself.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

It's "Reo-Coker's Law" whereby their reputation grows exponentially bigger than their time sat on the bench.

R=B squared, where R = reputation and B = time out of the team.

I really don't think it is.

no-one is/should be saying Gil should replace anyone starting in the side

no-one is/should be saying Gil has really proved anything in the shirt, yet

everyone should acknowledge has had some time on the pitch where his close control, dribbling and technical qualities made him look like he had the potential to be quite some player for us.

also worth acknowledging he got forward and retained possession at a time most of the rest of the team weren't doing that as we were struggling

we have waited years for a creative midfielder, Ireland was the last to fail in the shirt, so maybe our need for Gil to succeed means some of us are overstating his talent or ability.

But most just want him to be given a fair chance to impress, which in my opinion he hasn't yet had under Sherwood.

He should make the bench at least.

He does make the bench.

[kurtsimonw]

I'd definitely agree with Risso that his reputation seems to have been enhanced by not playing. Hie most recent performances were pretty poor (Hull and Stoke), so it's not like he was tearing things up exactly.

As for the "Why does he prefer Weimann", maybe it's because he has more Premier League experience, that he prefers his style of play. To try and turn this whole thing in to a conspiracy is laughable. Benteke had been playing awful, judging by VT Gabby, N'Zogbia and Cleverley were nowhere near good enough for us, Delph didn't care anymore after his new contract. They've turned it around. I personally wouldn't have Gil in my starting XI and Sherwood obviously prefers the Premier League experience that Weimann/Cole have over Gil at this point in time.

I'm sure once we're safe, whether it be with any games to spare, or next pre-season, we'll see him get more time - but as for now I find it hard to believe he'd be able to improve the way the side is playing of late.

Edited April 30, 2015 by kurtsimonw

[bose]

It's "Reo-Coker's Law" whereby their reputation grows exponentially bigger than their time sat on the bench.

 

R=B squared, where R = reputation and B = time out of the team.

 

Maybe for a small minority. For most I think it's just a case of rating a player from what you've seen and hoping to see him play more. 

 

I'm loving watching Villa these days under Sherwood, hopefully Gil will get a chance to show us the form he showed in his first few games.

[Stevo985]

I'd definitely agree with Risso that his reputation seems to have been enhanced by not playing. Hie most recent performances were pretty poor (Hull and Stoke), so it's not like he was tearing things up exactly

I actually think the opposite has happened.

 

Since he's been out of the team a lot of people have started saying "well he wasn't that good anyway", again seemingly in defence of the manager even though I don't think that is necessary as only a small minority have actually seriously criticised the manager over this.

 

Go back and read this thread after the liverpool game, or the arsenal game, or the bournemouth game, or the chelsea game and tell me his reputation has enhanced since then.

 

Yep, against Stoke and Hull he wasn't great (although nowhere near as bad as some people make out). But neither was the whole team.

Everyone else on the team has improved since then, and have been afforded some wiggle room in so much as Lambert was apparently holding them back. Is it crazy to assume that was why Gil performed poorly in those matches?

Edited April 30, 2015 by Stevo985

[kurtsimonw]

Maybe enhanced was the wrong word, but this thread has been full of "Why isn't Gil playing" since Sherwood has taken over. Aside from the fact he's played so little for us to really judge the guy, we've been pretty good under Sherwood so can't really understand it.

[Stevo985]

What does being good under Sherwood have to do with it though?

 

Why can't people separate the two things?

 

Again, by that logic, we're playing well under Sherwood, therefore should we never make any signings ever again? We should never change any of the starting lineup ever again?

 

People aren't moaning about Sherwood. All they're doing is wondering why a seemingly very good player isn't getting any game time.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Stevo985

[DCJonah]

People made daft comments when Sherwood first joined so don't be surprised those stick in peoples minds.

For what its worth I hope Gil is still here next year and I think he will have a big part in our team next season.

I hope your right. The guardian seem to think he wants to stay and fight if Sherwood wants him.

I would think so. I can't see why he wouldn't want a quality player next season. He might not start much, depending on the system, but can't see why Sherwood wouldn't have him in the squad.

[kurtsimonw]

What does being good under Sherwood have to do with it though?

Come on Stevo, you're better than that. Being good under Sherwood means the team is playing well. Obviously changing that team is a risk.

 

Again, by that logic, we're playing well under Sherwood, therefore should we never make any signings ever again? We should never change any of the starting lineup ever again?

Why go to that extreme? Or are you assuming every player in the World has not been bought up in English football, has no Premier League experience and that we'll forever be in a relegation battle?

We're playing well, in a relegation battle. I don't see the point in making a change to bring in a kid who has been bought up with Spanish football in a pressure situation. Yet there's many, many posts complaining about it in this very thread and regularly in match threads/Sherwood thread.

Edited April 30, 2015 by kurtsimonw

[StefanAVFC]

What does being good under Sherwood have to do with it though?

 

Why can't people separate the two things?

 

Again, by that logic, we're playing well under Sherwood, therefore should we never make any signings ever again? We should never change any of the starting lineup ever again?

 

People aren't moaning about Sherwood. All they're doing is wondering why a seemingly very good player isn't getting any game time.

 

This oh my god this.

 

EDIT: @ Kurt. It IS that extreme because people are clearly having issues separating the two. People aren't allowed to wonder why Gil isn't getting any time (or even making the bench in some instances) because we're playing well. That's absolutely nonsense imo. The two aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.

Edited April 30, 2015 by StefanAVFC

[kurtsimonw]

There's a huge difference between wondering why someone isn't playing and complaining that someone isn't playing. It's the latter I am talking about.

[StefanAVFC]

Again your idea of a complaint is subjective.

 

All I see is people wondering and people PFE (complaining/making conspiracy theories)

 

The latter are certainly in the minority so I don't get why it's banged on about so much.

[Stevo985]

 

What does being good under Sherwood have to do with it though?

Come on Stevo, you're better than that. Being good under Sherwood means the team is playing well. Obviously changing that team is a risk.

 

Again, by that logic, we're playing well under Sherwood, therefore should we never make any signings ever again? We should never change any of the starting lineup ever again?

Why go to that extreme? Or are you assuming every player in the World has not been bought up in English football, has no Premier League experience and that we'll forever be in a relegation battle?

We're playing well, in a relegation battle. I don't see the point in making a change to bring in a kid who has been bought up with Spanish football in a pressure situation. Yet there's many, many posts complaining about it in this very thread and regularly in match threads/Sherwood thread.

 

Because the point is we have changed the lineup, and the personnel, and the formation, and the system.

And Gil still hasn't featured.

 

Those changes happen all the time.

 

So using the line "yeah but we're playing well so why change anything" is, quite frankly, nonsense. Things always change. Us playing well doesn't explain why a player has had zero minutes since his first game under Sherwood.

Because if playing well meant nothing changed then we'd never change the starting lineup, or make a sub, or make a signing.

 

That's my point. Nobody is saying Gil should be starting, or featuring loads or anything. People are just wondering why a player who looked like one of our est players is suddenly getting ZERO game time.

 

How we're performing bears no relevance.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Stevo985

[kurtsimonw]

Again your idea of a complaint is subjective.

As is yours, you see one thing as a minority while I see it as a majority.

[StefanAVFC]

Find some complaints then.

 

The people complaining is such a tiny minority and yet people are banging on about it like everyone is doing it.

 

Stevo sums it up perfectly above.

Edited April 30, 2015 by StefanAVFC

[DCJonah]

I think if the discussion had started sane it would have continued to do so.

The fact it started at such a stupid level is making it hard for it to equal out.

[StefanAVFC]

The main issue appears to be that comment.

 

If that was made now, it would have been ridiculed and forgotten.

 

It was made at a time when we aren't great under Sherwood. Certainly better than under Lambert.

 

Context is important.

[kurtsimonw]

People are just wondering why a player who looked like one of our est players is suddenly getting ZERO game time.

 

How we're performing bears no relevance.

Well, it does. Do you think if we were losing every week Gil would've not featured at all? How we are performing has had an impact on Gil not featuring IMO. Him not really being a Sherwood type player always plays a role. I think he likes players with good running and players with pace. I don't think Gil is all that quick, nor does he have that midfield running of a Delph/Cleverley.

 

And as I said before, there's a difference between wondering why and people complaining that he should be getting game time.

[Stevo985]

 

People are just wondering why a player who looked like one of our est players is suddenly getting ZERO game time.

 

How we're performing bears no relevance.

Well, it does. Do you think if we were losing every week Gil would've not featured at all? How we are performing has had an impact on Gil not featuring IMO. Him not really being a Sherwood type player always plays a role. I think he likes players with good running and players with pace. I don't think Gil is all that quick, nor does he have that midfield running of a Delph/Cleverley.

 

And as I said before, there's a difference between wondering why and people complaining that he should be getting game time.

 

Yes he would have featured more.

 

What I'm saying is us playing well doesn't explain ZERO game time. That's the important bit.

 

It's not like he's making sub appearances here and there. I don't think anyone would question anything if that was the case.

 

It's the fact that he isn't featuring whatsoever.