Adama Traore

[Rob182]

Adama Traore has been involved in 10 games this season - we've got 1 point from those games (and he wasn't on the pitch when that point-saving goal was scored).

 

Edit:  Just using the same sort of logic that was applied in the CARLES GIL thread.

Careful, you'll be labelled as anti-Adama.

[gharperr]

i think remi was introducing him just fine before he got injured. He appears to have many mental weaknesses...aka being stupid af and selfish. Think he will be valuable in championship though, quite a bit.

i ddint see the last game he played in because ive stopped watching football recently, because **** villa :(....but before then...so so so so many weakness and teams easily doubled up and nullified him after the first 2 mins he was on the pitch

[Rob182]

I'd imagine Sherwood would be called a many abusive names if he had picked Richardson as an attacking winger. Yet when Garde did it there was logic. I'd love to know what logic, when was the last time Richardson played in that position or last time he played well?

I wouldn't have called Sherwood abusive names. Firstly, I'm a very positive and supportive fan of all our managers, often giving them the benefit of the doubt when others wouldn't. Secondly, if there appeared to be a reason for the selection (ie: picking experience over potential because it's a game against a team who are expected to hammer us, and a tighter, wiser game plan is required) then I wouldn't be calling anyone abusive names.

You talk about Richardson like he's been a starting midfielder all season! He's probably made less than ten appearances all year, and I wonder how many of them were at left back or during a time when Adama was injured!

[DCJonah]

6 hours ago, a m ole said:

What the **** are you talking about? Validated his decision not to start him as when he did come on he didn't do anything remarkable that had he started the result would have been any different.

Let's simplify this: 

• Adama played in BOTH of those games for OVER HALF AN HOUR and we still lost BOTH games with no evidence that had he played for longer or from the start the result would have been in any way different. He got a great assist in one game but we still lost and conceded two goals while he was on the pitch - he was pretty good but not good enough that you can conclusively say that he should have started considering that he was recently injured and not match fit. And thus - it was not crazy or idiotic to try to bring him in slowly.

 

My word that's some amazing logic there.  So we didn't win games that he came on in, when we were already losing when he came on, means that the result would have guaranteed to be the same had he started.  Ridiculous. Not nearly as crazy as claiming losing 2 games validates the decision. Er...we lost. 

You have no idea how match fit he was, his fitness was never an issue when Garde was talking about him a month before these games were played. 

 

[DCJonah]

6 hours ago, bobzy said:

There's nothing there.  It's just the usual crap being spouted.

No, I thought your comparison to the Carles Gil thread was very good. 

[a m ole]

6 hours ago, DCJonah said:

My word that's some amazing logic there.  So we didn't win games that he came on in, when we were already losing when he came on, means that the result would have guaranteed to be the same had he started.  Ridiculous. Not nearly as crazy as claiming losing 2 games validates the decision. Er...we lost. 

You have no idea how match fit he was, his fitness was never an issue when Garde was talking about him a month before these games were played. 

 

You actually don't read posts do you? you just pick a few words out you can make a straw man argument against and run with it.

I said 'somewhat validated', as in obviously you could never know the final result, I even used words to the effect of 'we might have won had Adama started however unlikely'. Where in that do I suggest it was 'guaranteed'? 

And then I write a whole post correcting your insinuation that I said 'losing 2 games validates the decision', only for you to repeat it again. ADAMAS PERFORMANCE, AS IN WHAT HAPPENED ON THE PITCH WHILE HE WAS ON THERE, SOMEHWAT VALIDATED THE DECISION. He didn't show anywhere near enough that anyone could seriously argue the result would likely have been different had he started the game. and yeah, we were losing both games, and had they started at nil-nil when he came on... er... we'd have lost both games too.

I'm not going to respond after this because it's going round in circles and you seem to have a knack for not quite get the point and arguing against something I didn't say or has nothing to do with the original point - maybe that's my fault for not explaining clearly enough.

Important lesson to take from this and back to the original sentiment - just because someone makes a different decision to the one you would make doesn't mean it's 'ridiculous' or 'crazy', it's good to try to understand the logic of why they made that decision and accept that regardless of the result, there were legitimate reasons for taking that option.

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by a m ole

[bobzy]

9 hours ago, DCJonah said:

No, I thought your comparison to the Carles Gil thread was very good. 

Compared to this endless drivel about whether or not he was fit, I completely agree.

[DCJonah]

3 hours ago, a m ole said:

You actually don't read posts do you? you just pick a few words out you can make a straw man argument against and run with it.

I said 'somewhat validated', as in obviously you could never know the final result, I even used words to the effect of 'we might have won had Adama started however unlikely'. Where in that do I suggest it was 'guaranteed'? 

And then I write a whole post correcting your insinuation that I said 'losing 2 games validates the decision', only for you to repeat it again. ADAMAS PERFORMANCE, AS IN WHAT HAPPENED ON THE PITCH WHILE HE WAS ON THERE, SOMEHWAT VALIDATED THE DECISION. He didn't show anywhere near enough that anyone could seriously argue the result would likely have been different had he started the game. and yeah, we were losing both games, and had they started at nil-nil when he came on... er... we'd have lost both games too.

I'm not going to respond after this because it's going round in circles and you seem to have a knack for not quite get the point and arguing against something I didn't say or has nothing to do with the original point - maybe that's my fault for not explaining clearly enough.

Important lesson to take from this and back to the original sentiment - just because someone makes a different decision to the one you would make doesn't mean it's 'ridiculous' or 'crazy', it's good to try to understand the logic of why they made that decision and accept that regardless of the result, there were legitimate reasons for taking that option.

 

Of course it's good to try and see the logic, that doesn't mean that you then can't deem them crazy or ridiculous.  I could see logic in giving Mcleish the job but it was still crazy and ridiculous to do. 

 

[sexbelowsound]

[sexbelowsound]

Sorry, Couldn't help myself.

I think Garde was justified in the way he was slowly introducing Adama. Add into that that he seems to be slightly weak mentally and physically it was probably the right choice.

Now though I think he should be playing. Why not?

The only logical reason I can think of would be either money owed for meeting a certain criteria or as @HanoiVillan said, not wanting to put him in the shop window.

[sne]

Waited forever for Lambert to play Grealish, when Sherwood he finally did he was one of few highlights that season (he then wen't on to piss his career away acting like and idiot)

Waiting forever for Garde to play Adama, fed up with Gabby, Sinclair, Richardson, Bacuna... Think when Black finally does we'll see him have a few moments of brilliance during the final games giving us hope of things to come. Only to have him leave in the summer...

[TheAuthority]

7 minutes ago, sne said:

Think when Black finally does we'll see him have a few moments of brilliance during the final games giving us hope of things to come. Only to have him leave in the summer...

True Villa fan optimism there. I like it 

[HanoiVillan]

He might be Swedish, but he talks like a true Brummie!

[DCJonah]

Not on the bench.  Oh well Richardson and Bacuna to keep up the good work. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Ridiculous (unless he's injured). He simply has to start, he's the only player in our first team who offers a genuine threat. We've really had some utterly shite 'managers' this season, in fact all of them were/are a useless sack of shite. 

Edited April 16, 2016 by Dr_Pangloss

[Zatman]

31 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Not on the bench.  Oh well Richardson and Bacuna to keep up the good work. 

sure they ripped Bournemouth apart last weekend

[VillaChris]

Where is he?

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Scott did great today didn't he?

[sidcow]

7 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Ridiculous (unless he's injured). He simply has to start, he's the only player in our first team who offers a genuine threat. We've really had some utterly shite 'managers' this season, in fact all of them were/are a useless sack of shite. 

I want to see him play every game from now on. He is the only player we have except possibly Ayew who can make things happen. To leave him out is criminal.  Black is a charlatan 

[dudevillaisnice]

Just had a look on Wikipedia and transfermarkt and he has made around 9 - 10 appearances.

I'm pretty sure Percy said his wages could double if he makes a certain amount of appearances this season (Pretty sure he was on about Adama although I could be wrong), I think the piece did mention over 10 appearances. If that is the case i'm not surprised he isn't playing.

If he is indeed on £40,000 a week that is unsustainable, if that were to almost double to £75,000 it certainly isn't sustainable.

I suspect we will loan/sell this summer. That's of course if the piece is true which after the clowns we have running the club isn't that far fetched.