The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread

[villalad21]

9 hours ago, Keyblade said:

One thing that baffles me is the fact that Southgate clearly values set pieces, but doesn't seem to want to use the single most fouled player in Europe, by some distance. Doesn't compute. I'd be inclined to think there's something deeper than just incompetence there but then I remember he also didn't bring JWP to the tournament, even after one of his 4 RB's pulled out, who is possibly the best set piece taker in Europe.

I hear this a lot. Most fouled player etc. 

But I'd be genuinely interested where these fouls are mostly occuring. Because to my memory most of them are in non threatening areas. 

I can't really recall us getting an abnormal amount of free kicks right outside the penalty box. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong though. 

[thabucks]

A heavily caveated IF Chelsea are interested in Grealish then I want us to drive a hard bargain with hard cash and insist on Billy Gilmour ( poss Hudson-Odoi) be included. Not interested in Tammy or RLC or players they want to move on and we can sign if we wanted to. I’m looking for a sacrifice ams It Will be on our terms if/when Jack leaves. 

[WallisFrizz]

4 minutes ago, thabucks said:

A heavily caveated IF Chelsea are interested in Grealish then I want us to drive a hard bargain with hard cash and insist on Billy Gilmour ( poss Hudson-Odoi) be included. Not interested in Tammy or RLC or players they want to move on and we can sign if we wanted to. I’m looking for a sacrifice ams It Will be on our terms if/when Jack leaves. 

I’m fed up of Chelsea rejects. If he goes, whenever that may be and to whoever that may be, I want it to purely money in the bank to be reinvested as we see fit.

[thabucks]

10 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said:

I’m fed up of Chelsea rejects. If he goes, whenever that may be and to whoever that may be, I want it to purely money in the bank to be reinvested as we see fit.

The point I was clumsily trying to make was it would have to be a player they don’t want to lose, someone they wouldn’t normally sell us. Hence Billy Gilmour being named as the type of player- they would rather give us RLC for sure or Tammy - wouldn’t call them rejects but they are players we could buy if we wanted to. 

[barry'sboots]

3 hours ago, weedman said:

Ugh this thread has descended into madness. There's no vendetta for gods sake, he was about to come on before we scored! 

The problem is Harry Kanes newfound love of effectively playing as a 10. To accommodate him you need more pacey "forwards" either side of him who will occupy that space he leaves and score goals, that role suits a Rashford or Sterling more than Grealish. (of course you could get around that by actually playing Kane as a 10, with another striker ahead of him then creators out wide like Jack and Foden, basically 4-4-2 but knowing Kane will spend most of his time as a 10 making it a 4-2-3-1)

Southgate has a choice, build the team around Kane, or build the team around Jack. He's picked Kane - and honestly after the season he's had who can blame him?! Jacks also not even 100% fit either, but is there for if the system isn't working it allows him to change it up a bit. 

The way Kane plays I think suits the likes of Sterling and Rashford - as straightforward as Sterling's goal was last week, do you think Jack makes that run? I don't. I think he comes short and picks the ball up to feet, drives towards the box but has no options because the striker is loitering on the half way line for some reason. 

The part I don't get, is he's playing Foden, Foden is basically Jack 2 years ago with a left foot. Foden who once again completely failed to get involved as soon as he's in a team that doesn't completely dominate the ball, Foden who's main skill is quick 1 touch pass and move football, which none of the other player in the team do because they're all runners. 

Jack should be ahead of Foden in the pecking order, Foden is not good enough to replicate his Man City form in a worse team, Jack demands the ball and is always involved against everyone, he hasn't had as quiet a game as Foden had last time out in about 5 years. Jack left, Sterling/Rashford/Sancho right. The only issue really is that there's not really an option there on the bench to mix things up if it's not working 

Unless you are Gareth, and I see no evidence of a waistcoat or a big conk, you cannot say that for certain?!  I think most on here would concede that he certainly has had a grudge historically?  I am not sure why people are so adamant that that grudge or dislike has now gone? 

However, as I have said before, only Southgate himself will know the real reason that he didn't start or play Grealish in the Croatia game and we can all only speculate.

 

[MrBlack]

4 hours ago, weedman said:

Ugh this thread has descended into madness. There's no vendetta for gods sake, he was about to come on before we scored! 

The problem is Harry Kanes newfound love of effectively playing as a 10. To accommodate him you need more pacey "forwards" either side of him who will occupy that space he leaves and score goals, that role suits a Rashford or Sterling more than Grealish. (of course you could get around that by actually playing Kane as a 10, with another striker ahead of him then creators out wide like Jack and Foden, basically 4-4-2 but knowing Kane will spend most of his time as a 10 making it a 4-2-3-1)

Southgate has a choice, build the team around Kane, or build the team around Jack. He's picked Kane - and honestly after the season he's had who can blame him?! Jacks also not even 100% fit either, but is there for if the system isn't working it allows him to change it up a bit. 

The way Kane plays I think suits the likes of Sterling and Rashford - as straightforward as Sterling's goal was last week, do you think Jack makes that run? I don't. I think he comes short and picks the ball up to feet, drives towards the box but has no options because the striker is loitering on the half way line for some reason. 

The part I don't get, is he's playing Foden, Foden is basically Jack 2 years ago with a left foot. Foden who once again completely failed to get involved as soon as he's in a team that doesn't completely dominate the ball, Foden who's main skill is quick 1 touch pass and move football, which none of the other player in the team do because they're all runners. 

Jack should be ahead of Foden in the pecking order, Foden is not good enough to replicate his Man City form in a worse team, Jack demands the ball and is always involved against everyone, he hasn't had as quiet a game as Foden had last time out in about 5 years. Jack left, Sterling/Rashford/Sancho right. The only issue really is that there's not really an option there on the bench to mix things up if it's not working 

And yet Kane has said himself he loves playing with Jack and thinks he's an exceptional player. Refer to his interview walking around golf course with Gary Neville. Basically said he loves Jack and they have a real connection when playing together. He doesn't need to build it round one or the other... as you go on to say, he can and should be using both. 

And that would leave 3 of Sancho, Rashford, Sterling and DCL to change it up. Its a total no brainer,  except for managing his injury. Whether Southgate is looking after him,  or ignoring him...  We'll find out which it is as the tournament progresses

[KentVillan]

4 hours ago, weedman said:

The problem is Harry Kanes newfound love of effectively playing as a 10. To accommodate him you need more pacey "forwards" either side of him who will occupy that space he leaves and score goals, that role suits a Rashford or Sterling more than Grealish.

Btw, am I the only one who thinks Kane's new role is a bit of an indulgence? It's good for his own goal/assist stats, but Spurs finished 7th last season.

As I see it there are 3 players in top level football who are allowed to play this completely free striker role (Kane, Messi and Ronaldo) and despite all having great seasons individually, none of their teams did well (Spurs finished 7th, Barca 3rd, Juve 4th).

The problem is when the 9 drops into the 10 position, you need runners either side. That really stretches the midfield. Some teams (e.g. Liverpool) are set up for this kind of attacking system, and have workhorses with amazing stamina in the middle to cover the gaps. Southgate's approach is to just stack the midfield + defence, and leave Kane with only 1 runner. Either way, you end up being too attacking or too defensive.

Don't get me wrong, Kane is first name on team sheet for me, and to some extent you have to indulge the star player. But I'm not sure this system actually works (especially if it means you have to pick inferior players like Sterling and Rashford).

Leave Kane high as a conventional 9, and you have much more flexibility behind him to put out a balanced side featuring Grealish / Foden / Sancho.

[Tom13]

2 hours ago, OxfordVillan said:

I have to assume that a number of folk posting here are pre pubescent, as some of the things being said about the England manager/Jack Grealish is the stuff of the school playground. It’s embarrassing to even just read it. 

I mean is there any need for this shit?

There's plenty of evidence that people have posted about the Southgate/Jack theory. I'd say the people that choose to plainly ignore it must be very naive.

[Villa94]

i think that jack will be kept for when the team are behind or drawing a game they should win and i dont know what to make of that ? 

[rubberman]

30 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Btw, am I the only one who thinks Kane's new role is a bit of an indulgence? It's good for his own goal/assist stats, but Spurs finished 7th last season.

As I see it there are 3 players in top level football who are allowed to play this completely free striker role (Kane, Messi and Ronaldo) and despite all having great seasons individually, none of their teams did well (Spurs finished 7th, Barca 3rd, Juve 4th).

The problem is when the 9 drops into the 10 position, you need runners either side. That really stretches the midfield. Some teams (e.g. Liverpool) are set up for this kind of attacking system, and have workhorses with amazing stamina in the middle to cover the gaps. Southgate's approach is to just stack the midfield + defence, and leave Kane with only 1 runner. Either way, you end up being too attacking or too defensive.

Don't get me wrong, Kane is first name on team sheet for me, and to some extent you have to indulge the star player. But I'm not sure this system actually works (especially if it means you have to pick inferior players like Sterling and Rashford).

Leave Kane high as a conventional 9, and you have much more flexibility behind him to put out a balanced side featuring Grealish / Foden / Sancho.

Yep. If he wasn't undroppable captain, England would be much better set up as a team, using the creators we have, with another centre forward - DCL or Ollie.  The way Kane plays now means compromises elsewhere. He was also shit in the Croatia game.

[VillaJ100]

If Chelsea want Jack I want the cash (minimum 140 million) up front there and then, not over 5 years or some shit, with a massive sell on clause and international appearances clause. No rejects coming the other way. If they want him I want them to feel pain to get

[Tom13]

9 minutes ago, rubberman said:

Yep. If he wasn't undroppable captain, England would be much better set up as a team, using the creators we have, with another centre forward - DCL or Ollie.  The way Kane plays now means compromises elsewhere. He was also shit in the Croatia game.

IIRC Kane wasn't exactly great at the World Cup either, remembering him stinking out the Croatia Semi-Final game, might have even missed a sitter or two.

[MotoMkali]

It doesn't matter what the reasoning for Southgate not to play grealish. It was a stupid decision. Everyone should be able to see that. 

People from other countries are mocking him and us. This dude is portuguese so he has no bias except for supporting United but he can see what a donkey Southgate is. Why can't some of you? 

[Mazrim]

Makes me laugh people saying Grealish was about to come on before we scored as a defence of Southgate, or Safegate, Cocknose.. etc. I don't really care what people call him. This guy was a workmanlike central defensive midfielder before Villa made him an international, Cup winning defender, who then disrespected us a few years later. Anyway, I digress...

- Grealish should have been on already. The vast majority of football fans would agree with that I think?

- If he thinks bringing Grealish on helps us score, why not just play him? Goals are good, right? Entertaining? Kind of the whole point of the game?

- Why change your mind because we scored? More goals means more chance of winning, Jack keeps the ball better than any other player. Suggests he only wants to play him if he has to to me. I hope not but... 

So it's either Jack is carrying a knock  - in which case why consider bringing him on at all? Or he's holding him back to rotate players. Or there's a personal issue.

Time will tell. In the meantime, I highly suspect Southgate is a bollix and I don't like or trust him.

[osmark86]

7 minutes ago, MotoMkali said:

It doesn't matter what the reasoning for Southgate not to play grealish. It was a stupid decision. Everyone should be able to see that. 

People from other countries are mocking him and us. This dude is portuguese so he has no bias except for supporting United but he can see what a donkey Southgate is. Why can't some of you? 

People can see he's not the manager of the century. It's been reiterated ad infinitum on here ffs.

What some of us can't subscribe to is that there is some tabloid level vendetta drama in the workings.

"Subtle" difference.

Incredible what a shitshow this thread has turned into. Can the mods please move this into other football under "totally true theories about Grealish and Southgate" or something?

In other news, Jack is still the shit.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said:

If Chelsea want Jack I want the cash

You can ask the club but I'm pretty sure they'd want it themselves to buy other players and stuff

[fightoffyour]

13 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

People can see he's not the manager of the century.

Oh but he is. The worst manager of the century.

14 minutes ago, osmark86 said:

In other news, Jack is still the shit.

Agreed. Let's have some of those The Manor lyrics:

Quote

Jack Grealish, king of the free men
Man of the match throw a party in the evening
Twitter might tell you that I'm underachieving
What they gonna do when I go and win the league then?
Unstoppable, on or off the ball
Mugs wanna put me in a box but I got it all
Birds think I'm tropical, so I've got a few
Lone wolf scored a brace down at Molineux
Frontpage antics, team full of bandits
What I did there, that's a story for your grandkids
I ain't even fussed, I ain't even planned it
Do it every week I'm the best on the planet
Brum town Baggio or Di Canio
Got your ex blowing up balloons on my patio
Don't talk P coz you all know my wages
**** what you're worth, bruv, I already made it

 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, VillaJ100 said:

If Chelsea want Jack I want the cash (minimum 140 million) up front there and then, not over 5 years or some shit, with a massive sell on clause and international appearances clause. No rejects coming the other way. If they want him I want them to feel pain to get

Me too (dragged in to talking about him being sold again...) 

I would take gilmour off their hands but you have to think what game Chelsea would play, we would value grealish at £100m+ which is his value to us rather than his market value, gilmour is maybe what a £30m to £40m player? In a part exchange deal he becomes a £60m player, Hudson Odoi becomes a £40m player... **** that, they'd never get that value on the open market 

We'd do incredibly well to get anything positive out of any exchange deal with any of these clubs 

I don't even want us sniffing round those players regardless of Jack, Chelsea will fleece some clubs with their cast offs if they get the chance this summer 

Edited June 16, 2021 by villa4europe

[OxfordVillan]

1 hour ago, Tom13 said:

I mean is there any need for this shit?

There's plenty of evidence that people have posted about the Southgate/Jack theory. I'd say the people that choose to plainly ignore it must be very naive.

Here’s the only actual evidence that matters; England 1-0 Croatia 

On that particular day the England manager got it right. He didn’t luck out, Croatia weren’t unfortunate to lose. Anyone arguing anything else is, well, a bit naive! 

[MaVilla]

lol, a vid showing all Grealish's assists that werent actually scored