Ross Barkley

[Thug]

4 hours ago, villaglint said:

I get the pressing is important in the modern day game but we didn’t but Barkley because of his pressing ability. 

If he generally did his job tactically but didn’t “get involved” that much I wouldn’t be bothered IF he was doing what he’s in the team to do which is to contribute going forward, creating chances, getting assists and goals. That’s where he’s disappointing me right now. 

I am disappointed too.

But SHOULD we be disappointed?

He’s current goals/assists rate is exactly what his career average is.  In fact he’s averaging MORE goals per game with us than his career average.

We all just thought he was a better player than what he actually is.  
 

We signed a 27yr old player that throughout his career did no defensive work, and was involved in a goal every 4 games.

We’ve got a player that does no defensive work and is involved in a goal every 4 games.

Why were we actually expecting anything different?

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Thug

[Zatman]

Look at Maddison compared to Barkley not just ability but movement, you would think was about a decade in the age difference 

[bose]

8 minutes ago, TRO said:

I too think workrate is paramount.

So Tom, my question is....

If we drop him and Against Leeds and  I would......will our recent ills, be rectified?

PS Ollie,is just a top man, his tracking back is an add on, he wasn't signed for that, he was signed to score goals.....but he is such a complete player.

No it won't solve our problems, I think most off us realise that. He's not helping though.

But replacing a player that is lacking in confidence, seems lazy (more so than before) and out of form with a player that at least puts in the effort will get us a more even playing field.

[Thug]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

Interesting...so what we are getting from him now, is no surprise in some quarters.

made our early season adulation of him look a bit silly, doesn't it.

Guilty as charged here too.

 

Was really happy with the signing, in fact was annoyed it wasn’t a permanent move.

My god, am I glad it’s a loan now.

I turned my nose up at Lingard and Alli suggestions at the time.  Would swap for either in a heartbeat now.

Hell, I’m sure I’m gonna get a few laughs and confused emojis, but I’d even rather have Hourihane back.  At least our set pieces weren’t dire.  And I’ve actually seen that guy do a slide tackle.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Thug

[TRO]

1 hour ago, PaulC said:

Good point, if he was in the team creating chances, making things happen, providing that little bit of magic and scoring goals nobody would care about his work rate. I didnt when he scored the winner at Southampton. 

I get all that.....so why don't we stick to the point of what really irks us, instead of some folk using him in instances of not closing a player down in a defensive situation.

His problem right now, is not doing the things we brought him in for.....and his workrate is pants.

 

[sne]

The idea that defensive players only defend, attacking players only attack and strikers only score goals seems a couple of decades outdated. Always been a team game but now more than ever players are expected to do all things regardless of where their starting position is. 

[TRO]

1 minute ago, Thug said:

Guilty as charged here too.

 

Was really happy with the signing, in fact was annoyed it wasn’t a permanent move.

My god, am I glad it’s a loan now.

I turned my nose up at Lingard and Alli suggestions at the time.  Would swap for either in a heartbeat now.

 

Not only am I disappointed with him ( mainly his attitude) I am really surprised, it has turned out like this.

Maybe, I Just didn't know enough about his Character......I suspect The Chelsea fans do.

 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

20 minutes ago, TRO said:

I too think workrate is paramount.

So Tom, my question is....

If we drop him and Against Leeds and  I would......will our recent ills, be rectified?

PS Ollie,is just a top man, his tracking back is an add on, he wasn't signed for that, he was signed to score goals.....but he is such a complete player.

I think I get what you are implying.

Basically, he is not our only problem, and perhaps, if the other midfielders were performing at their best, he could " Do what he is good at ".

Thing is, they are not, and in this scenario, he definitely isn't suited to the team. Especially when he , himself is out of form.

When we are out of form, solidity and hard work could probably see us through games, he affects that IMO.

So in essence, I feel even a solid midfield, out of form would perform better without him.

A midfield, IN form, would probably allow him to flourish.

I think most of us would be ok with the prospect of him coming on a sub to try and change a game, instead of starting.

This is perhaps, probably partially Deanos fault, for persisting with him from the start, he would certainly get less stick if this was the case.

He could slowly gain minutes and confidence, until he was perhaps ready for a start again.

Edited February 24, 2021 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, sne said:

The idea that defensive players only defend, attacking players only attack and strikers only score goals seems a couple of decades outdated. Always been a team game but now more than ever players are expected to do all things regardless of where their starting position is. 

I don't think anyone is saying that....I am certainly not.I often refer to the defensive side of his game, talking about an attacking player.....but equally a player has to have a prime function, unless he is a utility player.

I would much prefer myself in appriasing an attacking player on his offensive skills and a defender on his defensive skills.......the added bits are a bonus.

 

[Tomaszk]

18 minutes ago, TRO said:

If we drop him and Against Leeds and  I would......will our recent ills, be rectified?

Maybe, maybe not. It's not an exact science finding the right line-up. You can't guarantee results with any team.

We got thumped at Southampton and won 1-0. Thumped West Ham away and lost 2-1. Funny old game.

You do your best to work towards the performance you want. Ross has played himself out the side for me.

He might start and score a hat-trick, who knows! I doubt we'll look as good as Liverpool 7-2 when Barkley and Grealish played. Hopefully we don't look as bad as West Ham at home where Barkley and Grealish also played.

[TRO]

6 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

I think I get what you are implying.

Basically, he is not our only problem, and perhaps, if the other midfielders were performing at their best, he could " Do what he is good at ".

Thing is, they are not, and in this scenario, he definitely isn't suited to the team. Especially when he , himself is out of form.

When we are out of form, solidity and hard work could probably see us through games, he affects that IMO.

So in essence, I feel even a solid midfield, out of form would perform better without him.

A midfield, IN form, would probably allow him to flourish.

I think most of us would be ok with the prospect of him coming on a sub to try and change a game, instead of starting.

This is perhaps, probably partially Deanos fault, for persisting with him from the start, he would certainly get less stick if this was the case.

He could slowly gain minutes and confidence, until he was perhaps ready for a start again.

I think you put that very well and so close to my line of thinking.

[TRO]

1 minute ago, Tomaszk said:

Maybe, maybe not. It's not an exact science finding the right line-up. You can't guarantee results with any team.

We got thumped at Southampton and won 1-0. Thumped West Ham away and lost 2-1. Funny old game.

You do your best to work towards the performance you want. Ross has played himself out the side for me.

He might start and score a hat-trick, who knows! I doubt we'll look as good as Liverpool 7-2 when Barkley and Grealish played. Hopefully we don't look as bad as West Ham at home where Barkley and Grealish also played.

I concur.

[sne]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

I don't think anyone is saying that....I am certainly not.I often refer to the defensive side of his game, talking about an attacking player.....but equally a player has to have a prime function, unless he is a utility player.

I would much prefer myself in appriasing an attacking player on his offensive skills and a defender on his defensive skills.......the added bits are a bonus.

 

Sure, especially with defenders who are often overrated and scored too high due to them popping up and scoring the odd goal.

As for attacking players a lot of the teams who are or have been successful in the last decade depend on their attackers and attacking midfielders putting in a very disciplined and hard working defensive display for their tactic to work. Barcelona are the obvious example and the prime example to what will happen when their attacking players (mainly Messi) can no longer be bothered to do so.

Every Pep team depends on this, as does Bielsa's, Klopp's and so on, including ours. I don't think it is a happy bonus that Watkins is working so hard. I think it is a huge reason as to why Smith who coached him before choose to sign him. Obviously all strikers will be judged on goals but the fox in the box type is being forced to defend too these days.

As for Barkley it's not that he's not able to defend or track back, it's that he's choosing not to do so. Be it for fear of getting injured or that he hasn't got the stamina for a full game. Doesn't really matter to me.

[Indigo]

I think there's a lot of merit in the idea he would've been best served being eased back in off the bench rather than sticking him straight back into the starting XI seemingly with the hope of playing him back into fitness and form. For all the other doubts about him what there isn't any disputing is that there's quality in there, and if he had've been introduced after an hour or so when games had become stretched there was probably a better chance of seeing that from him, which in turn would be a boost to his confidence too as it seems to be lacking at the moment.

Easy to say in hindsight mind, but still seemed a strange one given he'd apparently not been able to train and it wasn't like we were completely faltering in his absence.

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, sne said:

Sure, especially with defenders who are often overrated and scored too high due to them popping up and scoring the odd goal.

As for attacking players a lot of the teams who are or have been successful in the last decade depend on their attackers and attacking midfielders putting in a very disciplined and hard working defensive display for their tactic to work. Barcelona are the obvious example and the prime example to what will happen when their attacking players (mainly Messi) can no longer be bothered to do so.

Every Pep team depends on this, as does Bielsa's, Klopp's and so on, including ours. I don't think it is a happy bonus that Watkins is working so hard. I think it is a huge reason as to why Smith who coached him before choose to sign him. Obviously all strikers will be judged on goals but the fox in the box type is being forced to defend too these days.

As for Barkley it's not that he's not able to defend or track back, it's that he's choosing not to do so. Be it for fear of getting injured or that he hasn't got the stamina for a full game. Doesn't really matter to me.

Ollie being the second top scorer in the championship, went a long way to settling on his fee and long way for Dean to persuade our powers that be to part with the money.

sure Dean knows Ollies overall game and he will be aware of his out put and his contribution as a team player.....I personally am pleased to see him come back to help out, but its his workrate up front in his own zone, that impresses me the most.

The first pre-requisite of any good footballer is do your own job first.....one of Reo-cokers problems was he was too busy telling everyone how to do their job, before getting his own right.

Edited February 24, 2021 by TRO

[sne]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

Ollie being the second top scorer in the championship, went a long way to settling on his fee and long way for Dean to persuade our powers that be to part with the money.

sure Dean knows Ollies overall game and he will be aware of his out put and his contribution as a team player.....I personally am pleased to see him come back to help out, but its his workrate up front in his own zone, that impresses me the most.

Yeah that's what I mean by his defensive output. The pressing he does up front.

[Vive_La_Villa]

The last time I disliked a player in the team so much it was Drinkwater. Had nothing against the guy, just found it so frustrating Smith kept persisting with him when he weakened the team so much. Feeling the same way about Barkley now. 

[Paul33]

Difference was I felt for Drinkwater because he had the passion for Villa and gave all he had - which wasn't much sadly. There is zero evidence that Ross sees himself as a Villa man now or in the future and that ain't for me !

[jimmygreaves]

9 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

The last time I disliked a player in the team so much it was Drinkwater. Had nothing against the guy, just found it so frustrating Smith kept persisting with him when he weakened the team so much. Feeling the same way about Barkley now. 

Completely my perspective too. It's been so obvious in the past few weeks that the midfield was getting bossed. You sacrifice some attacking edge to stiffen up the middle.... Since Barkley has offered so little in attack it seems such an easy decision....

It's compounded by the fact that we've just gone out an bought a first team midfielder in Sanson and not played him.

Edited February 24, 2021 by jimmygreaves

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 hour ago, sne said:

The idea that defensive players only defend, attacking players only attack and strikers only score goals seems a couple of decades outdated. Always been a team game but now more than ever players are expected to do all things regardless of where their starting position is. 

Every midfield has to also defend. It’s always been that way. Otherwise we may as well be playing a 442 with Barkley up front. In fact that’s what it looks like!