Neil Taylor

[tomav84]

15 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

It's only a matter of time before Targett is in the first team and will be starting regardless of opposition. 

yep and after the money spent on him i'd imagine he was as surprised as us to see taylor start ahead of him. it might give him a kick and he ends up smashing training this week...who knows.

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I mentioned a while back (I think on the Dean Smith thread) that DS had said in an interview that Targett would be "pushing Neil Taylor for a starting place", and this was laughed off as DS just being diplomatic.

My Saints supporting fan said he thought Targett was defensively weaker than Taylor, and that was also laughed off on here as him not having seen Taylor play recently.

But looks like it's all true. Wouldn't be surprised if we use Elmo and Taylor in the bigger, tougher games away from home, and Guilbert and Targett get more time in games where we're looking to play on the front foot.

I also think we'll sign two new full backs next summer. None of our current crop are good enough long term for where we want to be.

i was with you until your last paragraph. it's absolutely ludicrous to write off 2 players that have yet to kick a competitive ball for us...one of which had a cracking pre season

[KentVillan]

2 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

i was with you until your last paragraph. it's absolutely ludicrous to write off 2 players that have yet to kick a competitive ball for us...one of which had a cracking pre season

Not writing them off, but I'll be very surprised if they keep pace with the rest of the squad. And given Elmo and Taylor's ages, we'll need to replace them soon anyway. So yes, pretty confident that two new full backs will be at this club in the next 12 months.

[WakefieldVillan]

At the end of the day Taylor playing well on Saturday (which most agree with) can only be a good thing as at least it puts pressure on Targett (and Hause) to perform when they are selected.

In an ideal world we would have two unbelievable left backs and Taylor would have left this summer, but we haven't and he's here so let's just hope when he is selected he can perform as capable as Saturday.

Taylor would obviously be disappointed if he didn't start on Saturday, but I think even he would see the reasoning behind a decision to play a player, in Targett, who is much better going forward.

[villalad21]

Guilbert impressed me much more in pre season than what Targett did.

[KenjiOgiwara]

He played very well on Saturday. Unfortunately he is a player that makes me nervous every single time he gets the ball. It just feels like he is a **** up waiting to happen. 

His forward passing is also very akward. Most of the time he leaves it too late, out of position or similar. Maybe that's why he makes me feel so nervous, I don't know. 

Either way, well played on Saturday Neil, but Targett for me please. 

[Stevo985]

56 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

yep and after the money spent on him i'd imagine he was as surprised as us to see taylor start ahead of him. it might give him a kick and he ends up smashing training this week...who knows.

I doubt it.

I imagine Smith explained his decision to him in advance. He strikes me as the kind of manager to do that.

Especially if, as I suspect, the logic is to not be introducing so many players at once.

 

I'm sure Targett has had it explained that he's rated highly, he's been bought to be in the first team, but that we have a squad and there is competition for places.

[Rob182]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I mentioned a while back (I think on the Dean Smith thread) that DS had said in an interview that Targett would be "pushing Neil Taylor for a starting place", and this was laughed off as DS just being diplomatic.

My Saints supporting fan said he thought Targett was defensively weaker than Taylor, and that was also laughed off on here as him not having seen Taylor play recently.

But looks like it's all true. Wouldn't be surprised if we use Elmo and Taylor in the bigger, tougher games away from home, and Guilbert and Targett get more time in games where we're looking to play on the front foot.

I also think we'll sign two new full backs next summer. None of our current crop are good enough long term for where we want to be.

I love an I told you so one game into the season.

 

I thought Taylor played out of his skin against Spurs. I've honestly never seen him put so many attacking passes together successfully. But, it's surely only a matter of time until he is replaced by Targett for at least 80% of our games.

Guilbert is a strange one, as he looked like one of our best players in pre-season. Again, I think he will replace Elmo for 80% of our games, except maybe the Man City/ Spurs/ Liverpool treble of games that are likely to be our toughest.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, KentVillan said:

I mentioned a while back (I think on the Dean Smith thread) that DS had said in an interview that Targett would be "pushing Neil Taylor for a starting place", and this was laughed off as DS just being diplomatic.

My Saints supporting fan said he thought Targett was defensively weaker than Taylor, and that was also laughed off on here as him not having seen Taylor play recently.

But looks like it's all true. Wouldn't be surprised if we use Elmo and Taylor in the bigger, tougher games away from home, and Guilbert and Targett get more time in games where we're looking to play on the front foot.

I also think we'll sign two new full backs next summer. None of our current crop are good enough long term for where we want to be.

I don't see how you can come to either of the bolded conclusions having seen neither Targett or Guilbert play a single competitive minute in a Villa shirt.

[VILLAMARV]

 I still see Taylor as a solid pro. His limitations on the ball are well documented in here it's not worth going over it again. He's also been in and out of the Wales squad recently. A few premier league minutes under his belt should sort that out. On Saturday Deano went with his experience and it proved a decent shout despite it knocking some of the enthusiasm within me when I saw the team sheet.

As annoying or 'weakest link' as Taylor may be I just think of Cissokho/Bennett/Luna etc. Taylor being 'Solid enough' really isn't all that bad when I think of them.

[avfc1982am]

1 hour ago, Rob182 said:

I love an I told you so one game into the season.

 

I thought Taylor played out of his skin against Spurs. I've honestly never seen him put so many attacking passes together successfully. But, it's surely only a matter of time until he is replaced by Targett for at least 80% of our games.

Guilbert is a strange one, as he looked like one of our best players in pre-season. Again, I think he will replace Elmo for 80% of our games, except maybe the Man City/ Spurs/ Liverpool treble of games that are likely to be our toughest.

This is what concerns me if I'm honest. Yes I can understand the logic in starting Elmo and Taylor Saturday as they are already in the squad and integrated. However neither are likely to ask questions of FB's or opposing wide players. They just don't have the legs to get up and down without massively exposing themselves. Against the better teams we will need to learn to play a higher line otherwise as Saturday showed, they will pin you back and just pummel you unless you have multiple outlets that can break on them. This is what I believe a few of the players alluded to on Saturday after the game when they said they should've been braver. We sat in far to deep expecting to hold on and stopped asking questions. 

[Rob182]

Just now, avfc1982am said:

This is what concerns me if I'm honest. Yes I can understand the logic in starting Elmo and Taylor Saturday as they are already in the squad and integrated. However neither are likely to ask questions of FB's or opposing wide players. They just don't have the legs to get up and down without massively exposing themselves. Against the better teams we will need to learn to play a higher line otherwise as Saturday showed, they will pin you back and just pummel you unless you have multiple outlets that can break on them. This is what I believe a few of the players alluded to on Saturday after the game when they said they should've been braver. We sat in far to deep expecting to hold on and stopped asking questions. 

I agree to an extent, but had we defended in the last 20 minutes, like we had for the first 71, then we'd have been over the moon with 3 points played with a deep defensive line and a 'backs to the wall' smash and grab win against a top side.

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't see how you can come to either of the bolded conclusions having seen neither Targett or Guilbert play a single competitive minute in a Villa shirt.

The first conclusion, that Taylor and Targett will be fighting each other for a starting place, is just a fact. Targett has had a full pre-season, and DS has backed Taylor for a start here ahead of him (and been rewarded with a decent performance).

The second conclusion... fair enough we haven't seen the new lads in the PL in a Villa shirt. But their careers at Caen and Southampton don't scream "Champions League potential". It's not like they're completely unknown quantities. DS was happy to risk Engels, Trezeguet, and Wesley, so the fact that he's left Guilbert and Targett out suggests he has doubts.

It's not like we're totally judging these players blind. They're old enough that we have enough evidence on which to judge their ability. I mean I've never seen my mum play a competitive game in a Villa shirt, but I'd be doubtful about her prospects as well.

Our policy on youth means we'll be moving Elmo and Taylor on in the near future, so is it massively controversial to think a couple of new full backs will be on the shopping list next summer (or even in January)?

[Lerner's Driver]

If I am willing to accept that it made sense to play Taylor against Tottenham for his defensive abilities alone, then can his supporters please explain why they want him to play against Bournemouth, whom we absolutely should be attacking more and having more of the ball against? Before answering, don't forget, he refuses to attack, so by picking him we would necessarily be limiting ourselves... in my opinion.

 

[The Moustache of Teale]

7 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

This is what concerns me if I'm honest. Yes I can understand the logic in starting Elmo and Taylor Saturday as they are already in the squad and integrated. However neither are likely to ask questions of FB's or opposing wide players. They just don't have the legs to get up and down without massively exposing themselves. Against the better teams we will need to learn to play a higher line otherwise as Saturday showed, they will pin you back and just pummel you unless you have multiple outlets that can break on them. This is what I believe a few of the players alluded to on Saturday after the game when they said they should've been braver. We sat in far to deep expecting to hold on and stopped asking questions. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 hours ago, Lerner's Driver said:

If I am willing to accept that it made sense to play Taylor against Tottenham for his defensive abilities alone, then can his supporters please explain why they want him to play against Bournemouth, whom we absolutely should be attacking more and having more of the ball against? Before answering, don't forget, he refuses to attack, so by picking him we would necessarily be limiting ourselves... in my opinion.

 

"His supporters" is an unusual turn of phrase. I'm not sure there are any rabid Neil Taylor supporters. 

I agree that I would be starting Targett against Bournemouth. I'd rather see how this plays out before casting judgement. 

[tomav84]

 

14 hours ago, Lerner's Driver said:

If I am willing to accept that it made sense to play Taylor against Tottenham for his defensive abilities alone, then can his supporters please explain why they want him to play against Bournemouth, whom we absolutely should be attacking more and having more of the ball against? Before answering, don't forget, he refuses to attack, so by picking him we would necessarily be limiting ourselves... in my opinion.

 

 

10 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

"His supporters" is an unusual turn of phrase. I'm not sure there are any rabid Neil Taylor supporters. 

I agree that I would be starting Targett against Bournemouth. I'd rather see how this plays out before casting judgement. 

it is an unusual turn of phrase but not because there aren't many, it's because we should all be neil taylor supporters, because he walks out onto the pitch in a villa shirt.

so i am not rising to the suggestion of being in a 'taylor in' or a 'taylor out' camp. but i do think he should play saturday based on not putting a foot wrong vs spurs. from what i saw in pre season targett also doesn't get forward much so i believe we're basing his attacking ability on a few saints fans on a forum saying he could whip a good ball in

please dont feel this is a bash against targett...i would put real money on him playing more games than taylor this season. i trust that the powers that be would not have shelled out multi millions if he wasn't better than our current options. but the back 5 looked really settled vs spurs for the majority of the game and i wouldn't change any of them.

bournemouth struggled saturday but they have goals in them. 56 last season, more than anyone outside of the top 6. they're not plucky little bournemouth anymore...they're a threat and i for one don't want to play a LB who many saints fans have said has limited defensive attributes

[Zatman]

I thought his passing was quite good on Saturday, nothing spectacular but was crisp and kept it moving. His attacking play was still dire

[Jimmyg]

Whilst I was shocked to see Taylor and Elmo (although not so much) in the starting line up on Saturday, both of them based on that performance should start on Saturday.

DS has tried create 2 players competing for every position! What message does it send when a player gives his all, has a good game, plays for his shirt, to get dropped anyway! I know how I would feel. I know that if a player gives his all and is still not good enough it is different.... but by that game against spurs...Taylor does not deserve to get dropped. The same 11 starts for me. 

[Stevo985]

On 15/08/2019 at 00:12, Jimmyg said:

DS has tried create 2 players competing for every position! What message does it send when a player gives his all, has a good game, plays for his shirt, to get dropped anyway! I know how I would feel. I know that if a player gives his all and is still not good enough it is different.... but by that game against spurs...Taylor does not deserve to get dropped. The same 11 starts for me. 

I take your point but you have to take into account what happens behind the scenes.

If Taylor is dropped, I'm sure it will be explained by Smith and will be because Targett will be impressing in training.

 

But fwiw I think Taylor will start. 

[DCJonah]

Taylor did absolutely nothing wrong against spurs. It was a really good performance. 

However for me I'd be starting Targett tomorrow. A home game against Bournemouth is a game where the emphasis to attack should be on us and i think Targett improves us with that. 

We have to use our squad sensibly over these 37 games and i'm sure all players are aware and accept this.