Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Trent, to me his threat seems a bit imaginary and embellished. Along the lines of......a cross comes in, just avoids everybody and people think in their heads 'Argh, if Carew was there, he would have nodded that in'.....and before you know it, there are 5 headers a game that Carew supposedly would have put away. When you look at it based on results, we look a much better side without him. There was another run either last season or the season before where we played our best football/got our best results when he was out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rc_villa1972 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 There have been loads of balls pumped into the box in recent weeks where there has been nobody there. Just the sort of place I can see Carew being to bury the ball in the net. or at other times, it has been sidwell or Barry on the end of it, and whilst reasonable, they are no John Carew. The problem I have is that if he was to come back, who makes way and if it is somebody like Sidwell, we lose that solid Midfield 3 that allows Petrov to and Barry to flourish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Rocafella.... We lost to Stoke, Newcastle and Boro with him.... ...got 8 points from Everton, Arsenal x 2 and Man Utd without him.... ...you do your little predictions things, I don't think it will come out in Carew's favour... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocafella Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Young's FK's are much more dangerous when Carew is in the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 There have been loads of balls pumped into the box in recent weeks where there has been nobody there. Just the sort of place I can see Carew being to bury the ball in the net. or at other times, it has been sidwell or Barry on the end of it, and whilst reasonable, they are no John Carew. Look at my post above yours. As I said, he is an imaginary and embellished threat. Cross comes in, people think 'Carew would have had that'......but the Carew I know wasn't burying 6 goals a game from crosses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Yeah we are coping well without him, but I still think we miss him in terms of we can only play one way now. Carew is very good at holding up the ball and I think then, we don't have to rely on our pace and counter attacking power. So we miss this imaginary thing called a 'plan b' Plan A has got us 27 points from 12, which is title winning form....I'll stick with that, thanks. no there is no plan A and plan B, it's about being a dynamic 11 where you can craft many different opportunities in many different ways. We cannot hold the ball up well at all at the moment, and if we do, it's Gabby that is doing it, who is the main player you want running onto the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 11, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 11, 2009 Trent, to me his threat seems a bit imaginary and embellished. Along the lines of......a cross comes in, just avoids everybody and people think in their heads 'Argh, if Carew was there, he would have nodded that in'.....and before you know it, there are 5 headers a game that Carew supposedly would have put away. When you look at it based on results, we look a much better side without him. There was another run either last season or the season before where we played our best football/got our best results when he was out. There is nothing you can say or stat you can quote that will convince me that we are better off without having the option of Carew. Nothing. If you think the threat Carew poses is imaginary and embellished take a look at opposition message boards and see what their fans were saying about him when we played them earlier in the season, I suggest you start with WBA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Even if he wasn’t in the starting eleven; would he be a better bet for changing it round than say Harewood or Nathan? I would say yes. I think we have adapted well without him, but some games he would have made the win more comfortable or turned a draw to a win if he’d come off the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rc_villa1972 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 There have been loads of balls pumped into the box in recent weeks where there has been nobody there. Just the sort of place I can see Carew being to bury the ball in the net. or at other times, it has been sidwell or Barry on the end of it, and whilst reasonable, they are no John Carew. Look at my post above yours. As I said, he is an imaginary and embellished threat. Cross comes in, people think 'Carew would have had that'......but the Carew I know wasn't burying 6 goals a game from crosses. I read your post after I had posted mine. I know what you are saying. I still think that he is somebody who just scares defenders with his power, bit like Bednar yesterday for Albion. I don't think Gabby and Carew play well together because Gabby doesn't seem to know what to do. When he is on his own, he has no choice but to find space and get the ball - its almost like he doesn't have to try as hard. That is why we score more I think - Gabby is better on his own than with him. We are more balanced without him in the team and don't leak as many goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 11, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 11, 2009 P.S - if the mods were to stick a poll on this I rather suspect laursen1977 you would be out voted about 20 to 1 on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 kidlewis, but it's about what you perceive we should be doing vs actual results. It's a bit like Mowbray. 'We play football the right way....Villa don't.......we're going to finish bottom, they're going to finish in the top 4' Villa SHOULD be holding the ball up, but when they have somebody who does that, they get 14 points from 9.......when they DON'T hold the ball up, they get 27 points from 12. I'd rather not hold the ball up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamparius Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 We definitely miss him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaztonVilla Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Its looks like you're on a nice little crusade here.. What did Big John ever do to you? The stats you put forward do show an improved run of form without Carew. However, the period in which Carew has been injured has not included games vs Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool (the 3 superpowers in the Premier League). This same period has, in my opinion, seen Milner begin to settle into the team following his move. Has co-incided with Gareth Barry putting the summer shenanigans to the back of his head. Also, MON has taken to playing Luke Young at left back and Cuellar at right back. Brad Friedel has also stopped spilling his saves, and that always helps. So, in the time that Carew has been injured, our midfield has settled and is working as a unit much better than it was at the start of the season. Our back 5 is also looking a lot less pourous than it was previously. In summation, the statistics you quote give the impression of a team playing better without Carew. I agree that they are playing better, but I believe that is happening in spite of the absence of Big John, not because of it. In fact, I'm quite excited about the prospect of Carew rejoining the team in it's current vein of form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishjay Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 We lost to Stoke, Newcastle and Boro with him.... Laursen was skinned by Fuller on Stokes last goal not Carews fault, Boro were gifted a goal by Sidders nothing to do with big JC, and for Newcastle iirc we had Cuellar and Laursen as centrebacks marking the very fast Martins when Davies should have been marking him - once again nothing to do with Carew a MON error that last one. Young's FK's are much more dangerous when Carew is in the box. Young's free kicks have been shite this year in comparison to last years, something for Ashley to work on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 11, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 11, 2009 kidlewis, but it's about what you perceive we should be doing vs actual results. It's a bit like Mowbray. 'We play football the right way....Villa don't.......we're going to finish bottom, they're going to finish in the top 4' Villa SHOULD be holding the ball up, but when they have somebody who does that, they get 14 points from 9.......when they DON'T hold the ball up, they get 27 points from 12. I'd rather not hold the ball up. Your arguement is so so simplistic. So your saying our results this season can simply be devided into with and without Carew and the difference in points tally can be put down purely to this? I'm sorry but that is just daft. You need to take form, confidence, other players fitness and form into account. You need to take into account opposition, home and away fixtires and plenty of other things. You are just taking a statistic and trying to use it to support a conclusion you have already reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Your theory is flawed, in that it doesn't take other variables into account. For example, I would've loved to have Carew available for the second half against West Brom. Yet we still won and scored two goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Trent, to me his threat seems a bit imaginary and embellished. Along the lines of......a cross comes in, just avoids everybody and people think in their heads 'Argh, if Carew was there, he would have nodded that in'.....and before you know it, there are 5 headers a game that Carew supposedly would have put away. When you look at it based on results, we look a much better side without him. There was another run either last season or the season before where we played our best football/got our best results when he was out. There is nothing you can say or stat you can quote that will convince me that we are better off without having the option of Carew. Nothing. If you think the threat Carew poses is imaginary and embellished take a look at opposition message boards and see what their fans were saying about him when we played them earlier in the season, I suggest you start with WBA's. I wouldn't mind the option of Carew on the bench. I'm referring to people who would put him back in the first XI when everything shows we're better without him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 11, 2009 Moderator Share Posted January 11, 2009 Well I'd rather have Carew in the side over Sidwell at the moment and play 442 especially at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o'malley Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 We lost to Stoke, Newcastle and Boro with him.... Laursen was skinned by Fuller on Stokes last goal not Carews fault, Boro were gifted a goal by Sidders nothing to do with big JC, and for Newcastle iirc we had Cuellar and Laursen as centrebacks marking the very fast Martins when Davies should have been marking him - once again nothing to do with Carew a MON error that last one. Carew wasn't even playing vs Boro, far as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laursen1977 Posted January 11, 2009 Author Share Posted January 11, 2009 Well I'd rather have Carew in the side over Sidwell at the moment and play 442 especially at home. That just flies in the face of what we've done this season though. It's like me saying Mike Tyson and Ashley Young are going to punch you. Then explaining to you with stats that despite what you actually think, Young's punch will break your jaw, whereas Tyson's will have no effect.....and you still choosing to be punched by Young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts