Jump to content

Tammy Abraham


nick76
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Made In Aston said:

The other big question is whether Tammy is better than Watkins. I'd say not so think 40m is too much for a squad player for a club in our position. 

40 million is to much for a premier player is it?? He upgrades the squad and he brings a world of difference to Villa for a start.

There is also every chance that I and others have repeated that Tammy and Watkins could be changed tactically. I find this whole idea of having one quality striker and two shit backups for where we're at a risk and a danger to our season that could be even more at risk of Jack does by any chance leave.

The whole idea that we would be down to just one creative player in Buendia and one goal scorer in Watkins is even more dangerous than last seasons risk. We are just asking for trouble by not making sure if Jack leaves that we have another creative player in Bailey and another CF like Tammy or Alavrez to aid Watkins.

It's madness around here lately because people can't seem to think or plan ahead or think outside the box, it's like go with what we have and if the season messes up I'll just get mad then and blame those in charge. Not that we can do anything about who we sign but the fact you guys would choose to not attempt to sort dangers out to a team and not have contingency plans is remarkably idiotic.

There is a thing in my line of work called risk assessments and dynamic risk assessments. We put these into practice before situations arise or as they're ongoing, it makes sure were prepared as best we can be so that risks are reduced. If I were to apply that system here which I have been doing it tells me that if we stop scoring from our CF position for whatever reason that we have to rely on two very unreliable backups and that we need to update this before the window shuts. We need to bring Bailey in or another player like him because if Jack goes and Buendia is isolated like Jack was last season and season before, we then have the same situations again, even worse if Buendia is injured.

I see our priorities at the moment of another Winger and CF and a midfielder, but the window is so close to closing now I'm not so sure 3 players will be brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Xela said:

It's called an opinion. Do you want me to preface every post with a 'IMO"?.

They're good mates, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the (potential) lure of moving from your home city of London would be that one of your pals, who happens to be one of the best players in the country, is here. If he's not, then I think that would make it massively more difficult, assuming we are in for him, which sadly, I don't think we are. 

If only guaranteed situations are posted about on here, the forum would be a quiet place. 

No I don't want you to do that and I never said you wasn't entitled to an opinion mate.

Yes you are right it would be a quiet place here on VT.

Yeah Tammy may feel he doesn't want to Move from London, there could be many reasons he chooses not to come here.

The point I'm mainly trying to show everyone is that we need to take options because we need better than just Wesley and Davis. Yes I'd like to see Tammy on a loan to buy or we get Alavrez or even let Young and Barry take second and third spot, I just haven't one bit of confidence in Wesley or Davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, Dave-R said:
2 hours ago, Made In Aston said:

The other big question is whether Tammy is better than Watkins. I'd say not so think 40m is too much for a squad player for a club in our position. 

40 million is to much for a premier player is it?? He upgrades the squad and he brings a world of difference to Villa for a start.

If our transfer budget is 200m then no it isn't too much for a bench warmer, if its 40-60m then it is, as we probably need 2-3 more players in by the end of the window. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, a m ole said:

Tried that for a while, but it just keeps popping up.

I don't get why people jump into a thread just to complain. If you don't have anything relevant to say or anything to talk about that's constructive don't step foot in a thread.

This is what happens on forums, people who like talking in them post and I doing so they rise to the front due to popularity. I just do not see what purpose it all serves to go into another thread people are enjoying talking about just to not even participate and to moan in someway.

I'd rather see someone come in a thread and post the opposite of what I'm writing than just say "I can't stand this thread or how do I avoid it or wished I could.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Laughable Chimp said:

Mate, we haven't even had a solid rumour to be in for him yet.

There is now isn't there??

There's a solid link I think some of the others were posting earlier?

Wasn't it Percy that's now Link us..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just posted on FB so needs to go here as well. 

West Ham injury prone striker Antonio scored 10 goals last season equal top scorer and they finished 6th. He's not a striker was RB/RWB/RM previous season. Their only "striker" scored 3 goals. Doesn't matter who scores the goals. Liverpool basically have no striker. Firmino plays false 9. City played with no striker loads last season. Football isn't 442 anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

Just posted on FB so needs to go here as well. 

West Ham injury prone striker Antonio scored 10 goals last season equal top scorer and they finished 6th. He's not a striker was RB/RWB/RM previous season. Their only "striker" scored 3 goals. Doesn't matter who scores the goals. Liverpool basically have no striker. Firmino plays false 9. City played with no striker loads last season. Football isn't 442 anymore

And no one said it's a 442 game anymore. You are trying to look at this from inside a box, like a club should follow a certain path that other clubs stick to and follow one and other. Football is about evolving as well and teams are trying different approaches. Just because we are not playing 442 we still make use of two strikers during a match for a start. I have repeatedly wrote this many times why a second quality striker would be great for us but it's like it falls on deaf ears with a couple and won't listen to the reasons. Now again Kiwi it could be that we have better quality with Watkins and Tammy that Smith feels more confidence or trust to use two CFs compared to two backups that fill very little trust or confidence. Tammy and Watkins would both be used or Watkins and Alavrez because Smith would feel he'd be able to bring them on to change games and not have to worry one bit. There is no reason why two CFs can't be in the same match at the same time after half time, they may not start together but we have been known to change that to aid us in changing flow of a game.

Tammy and Watkins (let's stick to that because this is what this threads about). If we had both who's to say Smith won't decide that one is better for one selection of opponents while the other is better for another selection, either way that alone makes us far less predictable. It all really does give teams more work, homework and more training to do against us.

Watkins shouldn't be and there is no need to burn the lad out for a while season because we would have Tammy or a quality striker. You can bet assured Smith will burn Watkins out because he can't rely on Wesley and Davis to jump in. With Davis we seen last season how once we brought him on we were basically admitting defeat and we're losing games because we had no one of note to bring on once Watkins was subbed.

Changing Watkins around for Tammy gives us valid tactical advantages and just because other teams dont utilise a second quality CF, it doesn't mean we won't or can't. We should by all means buck that trend, with the other clubs it's a case that they had decent players who could jump in and make something happen. Sure we now have Bailey and Traore, I would sooner use them than Wesley and Davis, in fact I'd sooner utilise Young or Barry.

The fact that both Tammy and Watkins are of a similar level yet both different in way they approach and have different pros and cons is something we should take on board.

You also have competition, with Watkins and Tammy they are both closely tied to one and other, they can keep eachother on there toes and maybe even learn techniques from the other. Tammy and Watkins may even compete that much that they up there game, may even take it in turns to have better spells and out each other and in doing so in turn keeps both fresh. Yes if Smith utilises both which he would no doubt of that, he would without a doubt have always two fresh strikers on his hand unless one gets injured of course then see the bit below.

There are so many reasons to support having a second quality backup which makes sense. Another reason being that if anything happens to Watkins and he cant play for whatever reason then we have someone who can jump in without hassle. That means the work gets carried on without loss and downtime in that area. We went through Grealish being out last season and just out of curiosity were you one of the ones shouting fora creative player reinforcement??? If so why is that acceptable and bringing in another quality CF isn't, this is about upgraded the squad and it's depth with quality. It really is a danger to happen and a risk to our season and I can believe how you'd all just risk it like that. See if something happens to Watkins and Wesley and Davis can't score then you will soon beblaming management for not sorting it out when we had the chance. The few of you who keep coming up with these lame reasons not to have abit more quality in that position need to start thinking outside the box abit more.

I've detailed reasons in case Watkins is out and I've wrote reasons that suggests while Watkins is fit why it'd be a good idea for another quality CF to be at the club. It's not rocket science but it sure as hell is being made by a few to look like rocket science.

I feel as though some want Watkins as our main guy and that no one could ever replace him. For one Tammy doesn't have to be replace he can live and breath the same amount of football as Watkins, they can both play football and be utilised affectively. Its all down to using both and utilising them as tactically as we can, now if that means for rotating purposes, for a tactical change, even for more firepower and more the options are there but we can not keep looking at our backups and think they are good enough when in all honest they are not. , this is football and despite the game it's also business. If Tammy came in then it's upto Ollie to keep up with Tammy or Tammy to keep up with Ollie and I am more than confident they would.

Something has to be done, Davis sold and Wesley to go on loan to championship and prove himself would be a test there but we shouldn't go with those two as back ups next season.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


9 minutes ago, Dave-R said:

And no one said it's a 442 game anymore. You are trying to look at this from inside a box, like a club should follow a certain path that other clubs stick to and follow one and other. Football is about evolving as well and teams are trying different approaches. Just because we are not playing 442 we still make use of two strikers during a match for a start. I have repeatedly wrote this many times why a second quality striker would be great for us but it's like it falls on deaf ears with a couple and won't listen to the reasons. Now again Kiwi it could be that we have better quality with Watkins and Tammy that Smith feels more confidence or trust to use two CFs compared to two backups that fill very little trust or confidence. Tammy and Watkins would both be used or Watkins and Alavrez because Smith would feel he'd be able to bring them on to change games and not have to worry one bit. There is no reason why two CFs can't be in the same match at the same time after half time, they may not start together but we have been known to change that to aid us in changing flow of a game.

Tammy and Watkins (let's stick to that because this is what this threads about). If we had both who's to say Smith won't decide that one is better for one selection of opponents while the other is better for another selection, either way that alone makes us far less predictable. It all really does give teams more work, homework and more training to do against us.

Watkins shouldn't be and there is no need to burn the lad out for a while season because we would have Tammy or a quality striker. You can bet assured Smith will burn Watkins out because he can't rely on Wesley and Davis to jump in. With Davis we seen last season how once we brought him on we were basically admitting defeat and we're losing games because we had no one of note to bring on once Watkins was subbed.

Changing Watkins around for Tammy gives us valid tactical advantages and just because other teams dont utilise a second quality CF, it doesn't mean we won't or can't. We should by all means buck that trend, with the other clubs it's a case that they had decent players who could jump in and make something happen. Sure we now have Bailey and Traore, I would sooner use them than Wesley and Davis, in fact I'd sooner utilise Young or Barry.

The fact that both Tammy and Watkins are of a similar level yet both different in way they approach and have different pros and cons is something we should take on board.

You also have competition, with Watkins and Tammy they are both closely tied to one and other, they can keep eachother on there toes and maybe even learn techniques from the other. Tammy and Watkins may even compete that much that they up there game, may even take it in turns to have better spells and out each other and in doing so in turn keeps both fresh. Yes if Smith utilises both which he would no doubt of that, he would without a doubt have always two fresh strikers on his hand unless one gets injured of course then see the bit below.

There are so many reasons to support having a second quality backup which makes sense. Another reason being that if anything happens to Watkins and he cant play for whatever reason then we have someone who can jump in without hassle. That means the work gets carried on without loss and downtime in that area. We went through Grealish being out last season and just out of curiosity were you one of the ones shouting fora creative player reinforcement??? If so why is that acceptable and bringing in another quality CF isn't, this is about upgraded the squad and it's depth with quality. It really is a danger to happen and a risk to our season and I can believe how you'd all just risk it like that. See if something happens to Watkins and Wesley and Davis can't score then you will soon beblaming management for not sorting it out when we had the chance. The few of you who keep coming up with these lame reasons not to have abit more quality in that position need to start thinking outside the box abit more.

I've detailed reasons in case Watkins is out and I've wrote reasons that suggests while Watkins is fit why it'd be a good idea for another quality CF to be at the club. It's not rocket science but it sure as hell is being made by a few to look like rocket science.

I feel as though some want Watkins as our main guy and that no one could ever replace him. For one Tammy doesn't have to be replace he can live and breath the same amount of football as Watkins, they can both play football and be utilised affectively. Its all down to using both and utilising them as tactically as we can, now if that means for rotating purposes, for a tactical change, even for more firepower and more the options are there but we can not keep looking at our backups and think they are good enough when in all honest they are not. , this is football and despite the game it's also business. If Tammy came in then it's upto Ollie to keep up with Tammy or Tammy to keep up with Ollie and I am more than confident they would.

Something has to be done, Davis sold and Wesley to go on loan to championship and prove himself would be a test there but we shouldn't go with those two as back ups next season.

 

Can you do bullet points please.I'm not reading 200 lines on a mobile phone

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kiwivillan said:

Can you do bullet points please.I'm not reading 200 lines on a mobile phone

I'll have ago when I wake up mate lol sorry about the long text, I get carried away when I'm tired 🤣

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else not remotely excited by the prospect of getting of Tammy back? Don’t get me wrong he was great for us in our promotion season. But despite being on loan he was pushing for a move to Wolves when Grealish was injured and only stayed with us after Grealish lied to him about how imminent his return from injury was. 

Add to that we’d have to spank another £40m for a striker in a position where we spent £33m only a year ago in Oli Watkins, and who was a top performer for us, and I just can’t see how this makes sense. 

 

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

40 minutes ago, roonst83 said:

Anyone else not remotely excited by the prospect of getting of Tammy back? Don’t get me wrong he was great for us in our promotion season. But despite being on loan he was pushing for a move to Wolves when Grealish was injured and only stayed with us after Grealish lied to him about how imminent his return from injury was. 

Add to that we’d have to spank another £40m for a striker in a position where we spent £33m only a year ago in Oli Watkins, and who was a top performer for us, and I just can’t see how this makes sense. 

 

Tammy would barely play if we signed him.

Watkins is twice the player really

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

34 minutes ago, villalad21 said:

Tammy would barely play if we signed him.

Watkins is twice the player really

Your crazy if you think he's twice the player. They are both on each others level but do things differently and in different ways. 

Did you ever ask yourself why Smith ended up signing Tammy and then Watkins?? Because they both remind him of a similar player. Without Smith having Watkins under his belt back at Brentford I doubt we would of had Tammy in the championship and without Tammy in the championship I doubt we would of gone and got Watkins down the line.

It's hard to even say what you say about Tammy VillaLad because none of it's true. Both of them are roughly around the same type of player and broth bring the same type of goods to a team. They do have differences but for some reason you can't see them, you need those eyes checking. Don't know why its easy for you to slate Tammy. I tell you what it'd be a different story if he were here and you may just end up eating your words if he does join. I so wished he'd be bought just to shut you up slating him so much, if it isn't Smith it's someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roonst83 said:

Anyone else not remotely excited by the prospect of getting of Tammy back? Don’t get me wrong he was great for us in our promotion season. But despite being on loan he was pushing for a move to Wolves when Grealish was injured and only stayed with us after Grealish lied to him about how imminent his return from injury was. 

Add to that we’d have to spank another £40m for a striker in a position where we spent £33m only a year ago in Oli Watkins, and who was a top performer for us, and I just can’t see how this makes sense. 

 

Do you understand the concept of rotating, refreshing, having depth in a position that isn't just anyone but quality. I take it you understand the whole word tactics because you must see a world of it having Watkins Wesley and Davis compared to Watkins and Tammy lol. 

I see here we go again labeling Tammy as a 40 million pound striker and that we somehow believe that is the price he would cost. Somehow I feel though you guys like to believe little bits of media articles but also disregard the rest, ie price you believe then him possibly joining us you disregard. Also have you not see how much we signed Buendia for and now Bailey, both 30 million correct? What make you think Lange couldn't pull off a similar type move???

Then there's the fact what if Tammy was bought he on a loan to buy and he work out, what then about the price he becomes totally worth it to any nay sayer.

I could go on and on debating why Tammy would benefit the club and I see one or two constant reasons why you think he shouldn't join, it's absolutely daft. The daft justifications you guys keep saying is the same, either it's 40 million or Tammy is shit or Tammy won't play much or we don't need to upgrade our backups, it's all proper madness considering I and many others have countered these reasons of you few time and time again. We give legitimate reasons as to why he'd benefit Villa but it seems to float on over heads 

It all make sense when you want to upgrade you team and have competition in positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It's not my money, and nobody would be forcing him to come, so I'd honestly be thrilled with Tammy joining. We'd have real depth. Ollie gets injured and you have a player close in ability waiting in the wings, all due respect to Davis and Wesley. Or we could even play the two of them together for whatever reason. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â