Jump to content

Birkir Bjarnason


Barney_avfc

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

Honestly think he is one of the worst midfielders I've seen for this club the last 30 years. 

I agree.

He isn't technically or pacey enough to play on the wing.

He is a poor passer of the ball so he can't play in midfield.

He's main attribute is work rate, but we already have McGinn and McGinn is also much more technical and skillful than Birkir. At best Birkir is backup for McGinn, but let's hope it won't come to that and we sign Marvelous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

I agree.

He isn't technically or pacey enough to play on the wing.

He is a poor passer of the ball so he can't play in midfield.

He's main attribute is work rate, but we already have McGinn and McGinn is also much more technical and skillful than Birkir. At best Birkir is backup for McGinn, but let's hope it won't come to that and we sign Marvelous.

I know you love Iceland my norwegian friend. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jonsi77 said:

There are lots of scandinavian people living in san frans.

its a good city, if you have heart trouble.

Tony Bennett...... left his there😀

Edited by TRO
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Thor > Taylor > Hogan

Workings:

Thor isn't very good. But he's managed to perform well on occasion for Aston Villa, he has a good attitude and workrate and showed at least some value. I just think he's been poor for most of his time here and he's nowhere near good enough for the Prem.

Taylor is basically the same as Thor. Not very good, but attitude and workrate is fine. I just think he's slightly worse than Thor.

Hogan is similar, nothing wrong with his attitude and workrate, he just lacks ability. The difference with him is that he has never done anything of value in an Aston Villa shirt and he was far more expensive. He's by far the biggest flop of the three.

It's expectations. Hogan cost more than the other two combined and has done very little at this time here. It increasingly looks like he had one good season at Brentford and is a mid range champioship striker at best. Not one of our better signings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

It's expectations. Hogan cost more than the other two combined and has done very little at this time here. It increasingly looks like he had one good season at Brentford and is a mid range champioship striker at best. Not one of our better signings.

bit like Vydra at Burnley.....it happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Thor > Taylor > Hogan

Workings:

Thor isn't very good. But he's managed to perform well on occasion for Aston Villa, he has a good attitude and workrate and showed at least some value. I just think he's been poor for most of his time here and he's nowhere near good enough for the Prem.

Taylor is basically the same as Thor. Not very good, but attitude and workrate is fine. I just think he's slightly worse than Thor.

Hogan is similar, nothing wrong with his attitude and workrate, he just lacks ability. The difference with him is that he has never done anything of value in an Aston Villa shirt and he was far more expensive. He's by far the biggest flop of the three.

That's not really true IMO. He was 'valuable' around about the same time as Thor, when winning 7 in a row under Bruce. At which point he was unceremoniously binned off for Grabban, who is undoubtedly a better striker at that level but yanno. 

I agree with your order though. Absolutely none of them are Premier League quality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

That's not really true IMO. He was 'valuable' around about the same time as Thor, when winning 7 in a row under Bruce. At which point he was unceremoniously binned off for Grabban, who is undoubtedly a better striker at that level but yanno. 

I agree with your order though. Absolutely none of them are Premier League quality. 

Neil Taylor played 131 games for Swansea in PL with avarage rating around 7. At least good squad player - not surprise if he will be starter for a 15 - 20 games. Targett has to show me lot more to change my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is like the Kozak one, where one fan who was the same nationality consistently defended an awful player. 

Thor is garbage. You saw it straight away on his debut and it hasn't changed much since. 

No chance he features this season

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

This thread is like the Kozak one, where one fan who was the same nationality consistently defended an awful player. 

Thor is garbage. You saw it straight away on his debut and it hasn't changed much since. 

No chance he features this season

 

yea but....didnt u listen to @Jonsi77?, he's got experience at something or something which makes him good or something?

u need to rethink, ur not considering the stuff that Jonsi said, if something like that cant change ur mind, then.....well.......maybe something cant change ur mind after all, u mad or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

That's not really true IMO. He was 'valuable' around about the same time as Thor, when winning 7 in a row under Bruce. At which point he was unceremoniously binned off for Grabban, who is undoubtedly a better striker at that level but yanno. 

 

I think time has clouded your memory. That’s not what happened. 

He scored a couple of goals and earned a run in the team, and then did nothing in that run and was gradually phased out for a far superior striker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jonsi77 said:

Neil Taylor played 131 games for Swansea in PL with avarage rating around 7. At least good squad player - not surprise if he will be starter for a 15 - 20 games. Targett has to show me lot more to change my opinion.

Neil Taylor is shitter than Bjarnason. And that’s saying something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I think time has clouded your memory. That’s not what happened. 

He scored a couple of goals and earned a run in the team, and then did nothing in that run and was gradually phased out for a far superior striker. 

Yep

I'd struggle to call his contribution valuable. Maybe in 1 or 2 games at a push. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His goal/assist output is actually pretty reasonable considering he isn't a regular starter. A goal or assist every 6 appearances despite only averaging 50 minutes or so per game & plenty of sub appearances in just about every position other than keeper. We have had our share of more attacking players with worse records than that. Is he shit, no, Is he good enough to be a regular starter in the prem, no, Is he good enough to be an occasional sub when you need someone to run around and potentially create something for 15 minutes. Probably.

Edited by LakotaDakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â