Summer 2010 Transfer Talk / Unfounded Speculation

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

Or just play our best team and dominate the game and win.

I can see why away from home, we'd need to go against teams like Blackburn, Stoke with Cuellar because you are under more pressue physically but even smaller teams, they don't just play big players. :?

I'm pretty sure Wolves at home, Cuellar was ripped apart by Matt Jarvis, young tricky left winger.

Maybe at home, if we concentrated on playing our best 11, then it wouldn't matter about the opponent. Luke Young is also 5 ft 11 isn't he? when he was in the side, he's hardly getting beat in the air regularly. Most teams when they come to VP if they are a worse team, pack the midfielders rather than "field giants".

[Woodytom]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

[Rob182]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good.

Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins?

Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes.

Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems.

[Woodytom]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good.

Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins?

Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes.

Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems.

It doesnt matter who replaced who, the fact is that defence last year worked! Why? Because we let in less goals. Simple. Ive said before, and Im probably going to get torn to shreads again but the main problem with that defence was Laursen as he tried to do everything - ultimately causing absolute chaos. Leggin it out of the back line time and time again to opposition players with the ball 35/40 yards from goal - MADNESS!!!

Now - dont get me wrong, I liked the guy and his passion was second to none, but we have a far better defence now. And unfortunately for Luke Young, hes not a major part of it. You dont break up a defence that for a long time was the best in the league

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

But it did last year too.

Luke Young come into the side when Collins was injured.

Played in a run of 4 consecutive clean sheet's, including Man United, also Sunderland away who had scored alot of goals at home.

Young Cuellar Dunne Warnock.

With Luke Young right back we played:

Villa 5-1 Bolton.

Burnley 1-1 Villa

Villa 1-1 Spurs

Portsmouth 2-4 Villa (Cup)

Villa 3-0 Hull

Man United 0-1 Villa

Sunderland 0-2 Villa

Villa 1-0 Stoke City

Arsenal 3-0 Villa

Villa 0-1 Liverpool.

So I mean, we were hardly poor in the stage Luke Young played, winning 6 out of 10, drawing 2, losing 2. Even the loss to Liverpool was so, so cruel and they barely had a shot all game.

So to say when Luke Young played, it didn't work is rather daft in my opinion.

[Woodytom]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

But it did last year too.

Luke Young come into the side when Collins was injured.

Played in a run of 4 consecutive clean sheet's, including Man United, also Sunderland away who had scored alot of goals at home.

Young Cuellar Dunne Warnock.

With Luke Young right back we played:

Villa 5-1 Bolton.

Burnley 1-1 Villa

Villa 1-1 Spurs

Portsmouth 2-4 Villa (Cup)

Villa 3-0 Hull

Man United 0-1 Villa

Sunderland 0-2 Villa

Villa 1-0 Stoke City

Arsenal 3-0 Villa

Villa 0-1 Liverpool.

So I mean, we were hardly poor in the stage Luke Young played, winning 6 out of 10, drawing 2, losing 2. Even the loss to Liverpool was so, so cruel and they barely had a shot all game.

So to say when Luke Young played, it didn't work is rather daft in my opinion.

No fair point, but it also worked without him. Its harsh!!

[Rob182]

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good.

Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins?

Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes.

Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems.

It doesnt matter who replaced who, the fact is that defence last year worked! Why? Because we let in less goals. Simple. Ive said before, and Im probably going to get torn to shreads again but the main problem with that defence was Laursen as he tried to do everything - ultimately causing absolute chaos. Leggin it out of the back line time and time again to opposition players with the ball 35/40 yards from goal - MADNESS!!!

Now - dont get me wrong, I liked the guy and his passion was second to none, but we have a far better defence now. And unfortunately for Luke Young, hes not a major part of it. You dont break up a defence that for a long time was the best in the league

"It doesn't matter who replaced who"......

Of course it does!

How can that be your response to every point I made in my post?

I'll admit that Laursen occasionally messed up, but so has Dunne, so has Collins. They've passed to the opposition, they've given away goals and penalties. Collins at Chelsea? Dunne against Man U in the League Cup Final?

If our defence was: L Young, Laursen, Dunne, Warnock. I believe that it would have even better than this years.

You're having such a narrowminded view on this situation it's unreal.

Luke Young was probably our most consistent player in 08/09. Even when he came in last year he was back to doing what he does best - defend, attack down the wing and aid our attacks.

He's been replaced with a guy who can defend but has no pace and sends half of his passes into the stand. How you can justify that with "It doesn't matter who replaced who" I don't know.

[Maradona10]

MON states he must strengthen, he does love repeating the same point over and over again.

[PaulMcGrath_5]

MON states he must strengthen, he does love repeating the same point over and over again.

Ironic!

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

It's always going to be a difficult decision for MON, he drops Cuellar and we become an easier target in the air against big teams, he keeps Cuellar and we limit our threat down the right side to just one player. I would say start Young against the smaller teams, but the smaller teams pack their 11 full of giant players, meaning we need Cuellar in the air.

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

But it did last year too.

Luke Young come into the side when Collins was injured.

Played in a run of 4 consecutive clean sheet's, including Man United, also Sunderland away who had scored alot of goals at home.

Young Cuellar Dunne Warnock.

With Luke Young right back we played:

Villa 5-1 Bolton.

Burnley 1-1 Villa

Villa 1-1 Spurs

Portsmouth 2-4 Villa (Cup)

Villa 3-0 Hull

Man United 0-1 Villa

Sunderland 0-2 Villa

Villa 1-0 Stoke City

Arsenal 3-0 Villa

Villa 0-1 Liverpool.

So I mean, we were hardly poor in the stage Luke Young played, winning 6 out of 10, drawing 2, losing 2. Even the loss to Liverpool was so, so cruel and they barely had a shot all game.

So to say when Luke Young played, it didn't work is rather daft in my opinion.

No fair point, but it also worked without him. Its harsh!!

Yes it does....but I felt we play better football:

Counting the Prem games on that,

Played: 9

Points: 17

Scored: 14

Conceded: 7

Then the previous 9 were:

Played: 9

Points: 15

Scored: 12

Conceded: 8

Then the next 9 when Young was replaced was:

Played: 9

Points: 15

Scored: 12

Conceded: 6

So really, (check stats if you like on official website by looking at last year's results etc...) if anything, during the time in which the defence was with Young Cuellar Dunne Warnock....as a team, we improved. (Just....scored most as well!)

[Woodytom]

I don't see why not having a tall fullback will mean we're an easier target in the air.

Do people look at Barca and think they will win by hoofing the ball over Dani Alves or Chelsea's Ashley Cole or Man Utd's Evra?

Why can MON not just trust his two mountains at centre half to deal with high balls? It worked when Luke Young was at rightback.

It didnt tho did it?

That defence last year was the best weve had for years.

The 1 before with Martin 'I love you, but your a bull in a china shop' Laursen, Davies, Young, and Bouma - seemed ok, but after last year (bar Wolves and Chelsea) you realise what a shambles it was.

Why didn't it? I don't see how the height of one player on the right side of the pitch has become the main reason why our defence was so good.

Could it not be the fact that we replaced Knight, Davies & Shorey with Warnock, Dunne & Collins?

Knight had his moments of insanity, Davies was only good when played next to Laursen & Shorey constantly got beaten due to his pace and sloppy passes.

Luke Young was one of our best performers in the 08/09 season. Yet all of a sudden, him being out of the team has solved our problems.

It doesnt matter who replaced who, the fact is that defence last year worked! Why? Because we let in less goals. Simple. Ive said before, and Im probably going to get torn to shreads again but the main problem with that defence was Laursen as he tried to do everything - ultimately causing absolute chaos. Leggin it out of the back line time and time again to opposition players with the ball 35/40 yards from goal - MADNESS!!!

Now - dont get me wrong, I liked the guy and his passion was second to none, but we have a far better defence now. And unfortunately for Luke Young, hes not a major part of it. You dont break up a defence that for a long time was the best in the league

"It doesn't matter who replaced who"......

Of course it does!

How can that be your response to every point I made in my post?

I'll admit that Laursen occasionally messed up, but so has Dunne, so has Collins. They've passed to the opposition, they've given away goals and penalties. Collins at Chelsea? Dunne against Man U in the League Cup Final?

If our defence was: L Young, Laursen, Dunne, Warnock. I believe that it would have even better than this years.

You're having such a narrowminded view on this situation it's unreal.

Luke Young was probably our most consistent player in 08/09. Even when he came in last year he was back to doing what he does best - defend, attack down the wing and aid our attacks.

He's been replaced with a guy who can defend but has no pace and sends half of his passes into the stand. How you can justify that with "It doesn't matter who replaced who" I don't know.

Narrowminded??

08/09 48 goals conceded

09/10 39 goals conceded

There is no other way of looking at it.

The team was letting in too many goals so MON addressed that pretty well and unfortunately Luke Young has not played a big part in that. Now if you go back to February time - u will see me constantly slatering Carlos Cuellar - along with many Villa fans.

And hes won me over again. Now Luke Young can fight for his place or take his bat home - upto him. Bottom line is - our defence is improved, and if its improving, I dont give two shits about whos in it.

Like I said its marginal with Luke Young and Cuellar. Luke Young was unfortunate with his brothers death, but I wouldnt underestimate how much retiring from INT football influenced MON decision to keep him out. Because to me that shows a lack of hunger - something I can never complain about Carlos.

And its possible that managers think like that. You only have to listen to what Gareth Southgate said about Jamie Carragher - 'In my opinion, England tell you when you stop playing for them, not the other way round'.

And I totally agree with that, and maybe O'Neill does too. He wont hate Luke Young for it, and im sure he respects it, but it might influence that marginal decision.

[Rob182]

Suprisingly, I disagree.

Surely quitting international football will mean he fully focuses on club football? I think MON will fully understand his reasons for quitting.

Though it's a massive honour to play for your national team. It's still just a career. Family and personal life should come first in the long run. Why would he want to go to South Africa and be away from his family in the first summer after the tragedy in his family?

Back to the topic of rightbacks. How can you not consider the fact that playing a defence of "Young, Dunne, Collins, Warnock" could have conceded even fewr goals than having Cuellar in the side did?

You only need to watch Villa to see how we lack a rounded game when Cuellar's on the right. Fast players target him, his passes end up in the stand and our attacks from the right side aren't as effective.

The fact of the matter is that Cuellar is a central defender and has been playing as one for his whole career, until now. If Chelsea have injuries at right back and decide to play Terry on the right, do you think they'd continue playing that way when the rightbacks recover?

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

And its possible that managers think like that. You only have to listen to what Gareth Southgate said about Jamie Carragher - 'In my opinion, England tell you when you stop playing for them, not the other way round'.

And I totally agree with that, and maybe O'Neill does too. He wont hate Luke Young for it, and im sure he respects it, but it might influence that marginal decision.

Which is pretty ridiculous. Paul Scholes, Alan Shearer two fine examples of great player who retired for whatever reasons.

As i've shown with a few stats, it could be argued, during a consistant run of games with Luke Young in the team, we actually improved as a team, so I don't think it's right to say "We improved, it doesn't matter who played" because had Luke Young not been dropped for Collins again, then who knows, we might have gone on and improved further and finisher a place higher for example. I could understand Luke Young not winning his place back because we were doing pretty well defensively but when he did get his chance, we had a great run of games where we were successful and then he was dropped again and it didn't make sense.

[Rob182]

Narrowminded??

08/09 48 goals conceded

09/10 39 goals conceded

Oh, btw.. this made me laugh as these 2 lines exemplify narrowminded-ness.

You can't just quote the 'goals conceded' and have that backup your view.

Each game is different. Goals might not have come down the right side of the pitch. We might have conceded a penalty through no fault of Luke Youngs. Luke Young might have been injured and we might have conceded 3 goals. Cuellar might have been playing at centreback and we conceded goals - yet you'll use that "goals conceded" stat to your advantage for having him play on the right - his unfavoured position!

[Woodytom]

And its possible that managers think like that. You only have to listen to what Gareth Southgate said about Jamie Carragher - 'In my opinion, England tell you when you stop playing for them, not the other way round'.

And I totally agree with that, and maybe O'Neill does too. He wont hate Luke Young for it, and im sure he respects it, but it might influence that marginal decision.

Which is pretty ridiculous. Paul Scholes, Alan Shearer two fine examples of great player who retired for whatever reasons.

As i've shown with a few stats, it could be argued, during a consistant run of games with Luke Young in the team, we actually improved as a team, so I don't think it's right to say "We improved, it doesn't matter who played" because had Luke Young not been dropped for Collins again, then who knows, we might have gone on and improved further and finisher a place higher for example. I could understand Luke Young not winning his place back because we were doing pretty well defensively but when he did get his chance, we had a great run of games where we were successful and then he was dropped again and it didn't make sense.

Yes but were not talking about Alan Shearer, who is arguably Englands vbest ever striker. Im talking about Luke Young and the p[ossible reasons for why MON preferred Carlos. Its so marginal, it could be something like that. You just dont know.

Its just an idea, because when I heard that hed said no to INT football, I was dissapointed.

Now if Luke Young was consistently our best rb by a mile like shearer was striker at Newcastle, then there wouldnt be an issue, but hes not because Carlos defended well - so its down to marginal decisions.

There was no marginal decision needed at NEwcastle regarding Alan Shearer

[Woodytom]

Narrowminded??

08/09 48 goals conceded

09/10 39 goals conceded

Oh, btw.. this made me laugh as these 2 lines exemplify narrowminded-ness.

You can't just quote the 'goals conceded' and have that backup your view.

Each game is different. Goals might not have come down the right side of the pitch. We might have conceded a penalty through no fault of Luke Youngs. Luke Young might have been injured and we might have conceded 3 goals. Cuellar might have been playing at centreback and we conceded goals - yet you'll use that "goals conceded" stat to your advantage for having him play on the right - his unfavoured position!

I am using the goals conceded to highlight that the defence has improved! And if Luke Young or anybody else for that matter comes in and it continues to improve then great. However if we go with the same back 4 next year and it continues to improve then I wont be calling for Luke Young or anyone else. I can only go on what happens and not what might happen

[Rob182]

Okay, fair enough... a good point made with little thought and consideration for what 'could have been' if Luke Young was in the team and we hadn't lost so many chances through Cuellar last year.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

And its possible that managers think like that. You only have to listen to what Gareth Southgate said about Jamie Carragher - 'In my opinion, England tell you when you stop playing for them, not the other way round'.

And I totally agree with that, and maybe O'Neill does too. He wont hate Luke Young for it, and im sure he respects it, but it might influence that marginal decision.

Which is pretty ridiculous. Paul Scholes, Alan Shearer two fine examples of great player who retired for whatever reasons.

As i've shown with a few stats, it could be argued, during a consistant run of games with Luke Young in the team, we actually improved as a team, so I don't think it's right to say "We improved, it doesn't matter who played" because had Luke Young not been dropped for Collins again, then who knows, we might have gone on and improved further and finisher a place higher for example. I could understand Luke Young not winning his place back because we were doing pretty well defensively but when he did get his chance, we had a great run of games where we were successful and then he was dropped again and it didn't make sense.

Yes but were not talking about Alan Shearer, who is arguably Englands vbest ever striker. Im talking about Luke Young and the p[ossible reasons for why MON preferred Carlos. Its so marginal, it could be something like that. You just dont know.

Its just an idea, because when I heard that hed said no to INT football, I was dissapointed.

Now if Luke Young was consistently our best rb by a mile like shearer was striker at Newcastle, then there wouldnt be an issue, but hes not because Carlos defended well - so its down to marginal decisions.

There was no marginal decision needed at NEwcastle regarding Alan Shearer

Okay, I don't even come close to buying that as a decision. Even if you are dissapointed (O'Neill is not English by the way)...I really do doubt he's gone "Well okay, Young might improve the team a tad more but Cuellar hasn't retired from INT football so I'll go with Cuellar"....anyway, from your point of view, you are dissapointed with Young, I still don't get how that makes any sort of sense in why it would affect a decision?

[Woodytom]

And its possible that managers think like that. You only have to listen to what Gareth Southgate said about Jamie Carragher - 'In my opinion, England tell you when you stop playing for them, not the other way round'.

And I totally agree with that, and maybe O'Neill does too. He wont hate Luke Young for it, and im sure he respects it, but it might influence that marginal decision.

Which is pretty ridiculous. Paul Scholes, Alan Shearer two fine examples of great player who retired for whatever reasons.

As i've shown with a few stats, it could be argued, during a consistant run of games with Luke Young in the team, we actually improved as a team, so I don't think it's right to say "We improved, it doesn't matter who played" because had Luke Young not been dropped for Collins again, then who knows, we might have gone on and improved further and finisher a place higher for example. I could understand Luke Young not winning his place back because we were doing pretty well defensively but when he did get his chance, we had a great run of games where we were successful and then he was dropped again and it didn't make sense.

Yes but were not talking about Alan Shearer, who is arguably Englands vbest ever striker. Im talking about Luke Young and the p[ossible reasons for why MON preferred Carlos. Its so marginal, it could be something like that. You just dont know.

Its just an idea, because when I heard that hed said no to INT football, I was dissapointed.

Now if Luke Young was consistently our best rb by a mile like shearer was striker at Newcastle, then there wouldnt be an issue, but hes not because Carlos defended well - so its down to marginal decisions.

There was no marginal decision needed at NEwcastle regarding Alan Shearer

Okay, I don't even come close to buying that as a decision. Even if you are dissapointed (O'Neill is not English by the way)...I really do doubt he's gone "Well okay, Young might improve the team a tad more but Cuellar hasn't retired from INT football so I'll go with Cuellar"....anyway, from your point of view, you are dissapointed with Young, I still don't get how that makes any sort of sense in why it would affect a decision?

Im not saying it definately does.

Lets just imagine

That MON sees Cuellar and Yound as totally equal in terms of ability. He might have to dig deep for reasons to pick 1 over the other. Its not about being English. Its about displaying motivation, hunger and passion for the game. Thats all I am saying

[Zatman]

I prefer Cuellar at centre back with Dunne. Its more solid than Collins and Dunne for me