Jump to content

Ross Barkley


LondonLax

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Thug said:

That video supports exactly what I’m saying.

The video talks about how the traditional number 10 that is there for the sole purpose of creativity is now defunct. 
it talks about the ‘modern’ number 10 that is expected to join in the midfield for the defensive duties.

It makes a point of using Bruno Fernandes as an example who when I last checked makes 1.7 tackles per game compared to Barkley’s 0.2.

What you watched was NOT the exact opposite of what I said, but in exact agreement with what I said.

Barkley is a traditional no.10 who is defensively useless.  His role is defunct.

4DD2966F-B5C4-4AD7-88EE-42FE3BDCC725.jpeg

I don’t agree the role is defunct it’s just Barkley is defunct

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only a month or so back on here people on here were insisting that we have to sign him, and I remember around the same time seeing fans of other teams moaning that they missed out by not signing him. I feel like people are going over the top with criticism based on a few below performances, it's not as if he's been all bad, as an whole we've done very well so far this season as a team, and Barkley has played no small part in that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, useless said:

It was only a month or so back on here people on here were insisting that we have to sign him, and I remember around the same time seeing fans of other teams moaning that they missed out by not signing him. I feel like people are going over the top with criticism based on a few below performances, it's not as if he's been all bad, as an whole we've done very well so far this season as a team, and Barkley has played no small part in that.

It’s nearly 10 in a row and he only payed a few for us before that.

Hes a flop that no one in their right mind would pay the wages and fee required to Chelsea for his signature. There are far less risky bets elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gurru991 said:

Go to the Fulham forum, they are very unimpressed with Loftus-Cheek. His defensive contribution has been poor & his touch around goal seems to have deserted him.

Personally I would call it quits on loaning Chelsea midfielders, getting done a third time would be really embarrassing .

Loftus cheek is younger and cheaper.

I like the idea of signing him but I would go for someone else personally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paul514 said:

Loftus cheek is younger and cheaper.

I like the idea of signing him but I would go for someone else personally 

He has no interest in the defensive side of the game.! Very few teams can afford to carry that kind of player anymore. Most managers demand defensive responsibility from all players today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we will be going for another box to box type midfielder in the summer, as we already have Ramsey, Sanson, and McGinn that play that role, and few other youngsters coming through as well. If we want an alternative to Barkley, I'd consider Josh DaSilva from Brentford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massively overrated player, been dreadful for a number of games now yet seems invincible, any other villa player putting in these horror shifts wouldn't be near the 1st team now. The way it comes across with him is that he's doing us a major turn being at the club,  he's a problem we just don't need 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thug said:

Here’s the misconception.

He’s still exactly the player he was.  If you go read the posts about him on toffeeweb Everton forums.. they had the exact same criticisms 4 years ago.  Then he moved to chelsea, and the same criticisms there.  And now at villa... 

https://www.toffeeweb.com/season/16-17/comment/fanscomment/33578.html

Has the ability, has no drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Uncle Albert said:

Massively overrated player, been dreadful for a number of games now yet seems invincible, any other villa player putting in these horror shifts wouldn't be near the 1st team now. The way it comes across with him is that he's doing us a major turn being at the club,  he's a problem we just don't need 

It has been said before, if you loan a player from the top clubs you pay a financial penalty if you dont play them

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zatman said:

It has been said before, if you loan a player from the top clubs you pay a financial penalty if you dont play them

What do you mean it has been said before? You only pay a penalty if a clause is in place. It's not a general rule for loaning all players from 'top clubs'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tom13 said:

What do you mean it has been said before? You only pay a penalty if a clause is in place. It's not a general rule for loaning all players from 'top clubs'

Its well known Liverpool and Chelsea put in penalty clauses when you loan players from them, that if you dont play them you have to pay more. Its why we never loaned Woodburn that time

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Financial penalties for not playing loan players is usually for youngsters, because the very reason that they're going on loan is to get experience. I doubt there's such a clause in Barkley's loan agreement, Chelsea wouldn't have felt the need to include one, as he'd be guaranteed to get plenty of game time with us regardless, and we wouldn't have agreed to such a clause.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Zatman said:

Its well known Liverpool and Chelsea put in penalty clauses when you loan players from them, that if you dont play them you have to pay more. Its why we never loaned Woodburn that time

How is it well known? Who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of the criticism here is OTT  however it is clear that he has been poor for several games  and you can't dress it up otherwise.

What i am more interested in is are we going to get a reaction on this, to prove his worth and make us consider signing him in the summer? Or is his time at Villa going to fizzle out before going back to Chelsea with his once  promising career going nowhere? Its up to him as it is clear his has the ability.

What is  a bit worrying is I think I basically said the same about Drinkwater almost exactly 12 months ago which doesn't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.

1 legendary, 1 car crash and 1 yet to be decided loans from Chelsea in the past 3 seasons.

Edited by The Fun Factory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said:

I think some of the criticism here is OTT  however it is clear that he has been poor for several games  and you can't dress it up otherwise.

What i am more interested in is are we going to get a reaction on this, to prove his worth and make us consider signing him in the summer? Or is his time at Villa going to fizzle out before going back to Chelsea with his once  promising career going nowhere? Its up to him as it is clear his has the ability.

What is  a bit worrying is I think I basically said the same about Drinkwater almost exactly 12 months ago which doesn't fill me with a huge amount of confidence.

1 legendary, 1 car crash and 1 yet to be decided loans from Chelsea in the past 3 seasons.

If I could send him back tomorrow and not have to pay his wages for the next few months I would, that is his worth in my eyes based on his performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

It has been said before, if you loan a player from the top clubs you pay a financial penalty if you dont play them

I don't believe that "play" clause was in place but I but I understand a return clause was in place. If you don't keep him you pay double.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, useless said:

It was only a month or so back on here people on here were insisting that we have to sign him, and I remember around the same time seeing fans of other teams moaning that they missed out by not signing him. I feel like people are going over the top with criticism based on a few below performances, it's not as if he's been all bad, as an whole we've done very well so far this season as a team, and Barkley has played no small part in that.

I’m about to rant, but don’t take it personally. What you said I think is a very fair point.

Barkley has shown he has quality going forward when he is among other quality (Jack). He’s also shown that he is not a talisman. Being around talented players makes you look better, no shock to anyone with half a brain.

What bugs the f****** s*** out of me is that he doesn’t care if we concede. It shows when he “defends.” He’s the benefactor of quality play elsewhere.

When things are going well for Aston Villa, they’re going well for Ross Barkley. When things are going bad for Aston Villa, they’re going bad for Ross Barkley.

When we’re in a difficult position, hoping for Ross to bail us out is a fool’s errand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â