Jump to content

The RJW63 Official Jack Grealish Appreciation Thread


kevangrealish

Recommended Posts

Played really well today. I am really fond of Jack, for a few reasons I thjnk, but principally among these it's because he feels like he's 'ours', because he's a local lad and a villa fan. I've been trying to separate the sentimentality of how fond I am of him, from the real quality he undoubtably has.

I was trying to think; if he was 20/21, and signed from a league 1 side, would I still think he was as good? And I have to say, yes, I think I would. He's very good, and not just because I like him; he's objectively good. I, along with most of us, and seemingly the players, seem to be rooting for him too.

I even like the 'super, super jack' song, even if it is a bit memorable of marc albrighton. Marc had a song and threw it all away!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe it took a new manager a short while to figure out his best team. And once he did and chose Jack to start a huge game for the club he stepped up.

When was he meant to show Lambert? All those 10 minutes at the end of a game or one start? Real opportunities to show what he can do.

Its a myth that all he got was 10 minute cameos under Lambert.

In fact, I don't think any of his appearances were that short. 20 minutes, half an hour, a half, a start. Plenty.

That's what fringe players have to go through. They get appearances here and there and if they show they're good enough to play more then they play more.

Jack didn't show that under Lambert. He did under Sherwood. Credit to Sherwood for that.

But the myth that jack didn't get a chance under Lambert is exactly that. A myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think he did. He looked very useful a few times and considering how awful we were, I think he should have been given a chance to start. But he wasn't and that was one of many poor decisions made by Lambert.

Sherwood saw him differently and is reaping the rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, he did start. And he was crap, which I blame on Lambert, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good.

If Lambert gets criticism for not starting him then Sherwood should get the same criticism for taking so long to start him.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.

He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.

Only the odd cameos, if lambert played him, he'd probably still be in the job, he really is that good but hey i'm not complaining

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, he did start. And he was crap, which I blame on Lambert, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good.

If Lambert gets criticism for not starting him then Sherwood should get the same criticism for taking so long to start him.

Why did Sherwood work with him and know about him for two and a half years?

I find it pretty funny that you think not being brilliant on your first senior start for the club means you dont get another chance. He's a young kid, Lambert should have given him a run and put faith in him. He didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.
Only the odd cameos, if lambert played him, he'd probably still be in the job, he really is that good but hey i'm not complaining
Myth.

But I'm not going round in circles.

I'm thrilled he's playing now, I just find it weird that people seem to think Lambert didn't like him or refused to play him.

He clearly rated him because he tried to bed him in and gave him a new contract.

He just didn't play well enough to justify being a regular first teamer. Again I blame that on Lambert but its not because he wasn't given a chance.

All credit to Tim for getting him performing to a level where he does justify that place in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, he did start. And he was crap, which I blame on Lambert, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good.

If Lambert gets criticism for not starting him then Sherwood should get the same criticism for taking so long to start him.

Why did Sherwood work with him and know about him for two and a half years?

I find it pretty funny that you think not being brilliant on your first senior start for the club means you dont get another chance. He's a young kid, Lambert should have given him a run and put faith in him. He didn't.

I agree with you wholeheartedly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, he did start. And he was crap, which I blame on Lambert, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't good.

If Lambert gets criticism for not starting him then Sherwood should get the same criticism for taking so long to start him.

Why did Sherwood work with him and know about him for two and a half years?

I find it pretty funny that you think not being brilliant on your first senior start for the club means you dont get another chance. He's a young kid, Lambert should have given him a run and put faith in him. He didn't.

That IS funny. Luckily I didn't say that. Not even close.

He most likely would have gotten another chance. But Lambert was rightly sacked before we got that far.

Sherwood continued the approach Lambert had made until Grealish was good enough to start. The difference was Tim raised Jack's performance, directly or indirectly, to make that happen.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wonder why Sherwood didn't start him vs Stoke if that was all it would take.

Maybe because he'd only seen him for a few days. I think he's been told he's a key player for us, he's been trusted to start in big games and he's repaying the faith put into him.
What about the other 8 games before the spurs game? Why didn't he start him in any of those?

He did, Vs QPR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.
Only the odd cameos, if lambert played him, he'd probably still be in the job, he really is that good but hey i'm not complaining
Myth.

But I'm not going round in circles.

I'm thrilled he's playing now, I just find it weird that people seem to think Lambert didn't like him or refused to play him.

He clearly rated him because he tried to bed him in and gave him a new contract.

He just didn't play well enough to justify being a regular first teamer. Again I blame that on Lambert but its not because he wasn't given a chance.

All credit to Tim for getting him performing to a level where he does justify that place in the team.

He wasn't given enough opportunities by lambert for whatever reason, i have no idea why not, if he was given more opportunities by lambert, we'd probably be in the top half, he is that good, you mimicked me back in 2010 when i first posted about this fabulous player, it's nice to get my own back :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't given enough opportunities by lambert for whatever reason

That's not it at all. Lambert was a manager that would've been wholly unable to get anything close to the best out of Grealish. Just like he failed with Delph, Westwood and Cleverley.

 

Nothing to do with opportunities, everything to do with a manager not understanding how to set up a team to play to players' strengths

 

It's a good thing PL didn't try to pick Jack more in retrospect, god only knows the damaged he'd have done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.
Only the odd cameos, if lambert played him, he'd probably still be in the job, he really is that good but hey i'm not complaining
Myth.

But I'm not going round in circles.

I'm thrilled he's playing now, I just find it weird that people seem to think Lambert didn't like him or refused to play him.

He clearly rated him because he tried to bed him in and gave him a new contract.

He just didn't play well enough to justify being a regular first teamer. Again I blame that on Lambert but its not because he wasn't given a chance.

All credit to Tim for getting him performing to a level where he does justify that place in the team.

He wasn't given enough opportunities by lambert for whatever reason, i have no idea why not, if he was given more opportunities by lambert, we'd probably be in the top half, he is that good, you mimicked me back in 2010 when i first posted about this fabulous player, it's nice to get my own back :)
He played in nearly half of the games under Lambert this season.

How is that not enough opportunities for a fringe player?

I don't see why people can't grasp this? Look at Cleverley. He was utter shit under Lambert, and many people didn't want to see him in the side. Under Sherwood he's amazing.

The same thing has happened with jack. He wasn't very good when he played under Lambert. Go back in this thread and you'll find plenty of fans who. Whilst recognising his potential, didn't think he should be starting.

Under Sherwood he's raised his game, as has most of the team, and he's good enough to start.

Its not rocket science. Stop believing this myth that Lambert never played him.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasn't given enough opportunities by lambert for whatever reason

That's not it at all. Lambert was a manager that would've been wholly unable to get anything close to the best out of Grealish. Just like he failed with Delph, Westwood and Cleverley.

Nothing to do with opportunities, everything to do with a manager not understanding how to set up a team to play to players' strengths

It's a good thing PL didn't try to pick Jack more in retrospect, god only knows the damaged he'd have done

Thank god for that. I was beginning to think I was going insane.

"This"

The problem wasn't that he wasn't playing. He was playing.

The problem was that the manager couldn't get the kind of performances out of him that justified him being a first choice player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's a class act. Yes there's a few things he needs to tighten up on, but some of his play today was absolutely exceptional, and that assist was just top quality. His ability to turn on the ball, balance and centre of gravity are all exceptional, a joy to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What pleases me the most about our Grealish is that he is probably the first of many young players that Sherwood will nurture into becoming first team starters.  He proved with Harry Kane and a few others at Spurs and now with Jack.  He has already sadi he is sorry for the loss of Daniel Johnson but I'm sure there will be more young lads coming through our Academy system that have the potential to be gems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know i'm not the manager.

It's crazy, but it could be that he wasn't given a start until he'd shown he was good enough to warrant it. Something he rarely showed when Lambert was in charge.
He wasn't given enough chances under lambert, the fact that he was given a new contract by lambert showed that he was rated by him though, i can't understand why lambert didn't play him, he's a fabulous player, almost a xavi/iniesta hybrid :)
He did play him.
Only the odd cameos, if lambert played him, he'd probably still be in the job, he really is that good but hey i'm not complaining
Myth.

But I'm not going round in circles.

I'm thrilled he's playing now, I just find it weird that people seem to think Lambert didn't like him or refused to play him.

He clearly rated him because he tried to bed him in and gave him a new contract.

He just didn't play well enough to justify being a regular first teamer. Again I blame that on Lambert but its not because he wasn't given a chance.

All credit to Tim for getting him performing to a level where he does justify that place in the team.

He wasn't given enough opportunities by lambert for whatever reason, i have no idea why not, if he was given more opportunities by lambert, we'd probably be in the top half, he is that good, you mimicked me back in 2010 when i first posted about this fabulous player, it's nice to get my own back :)
He played in nearly half of the games under Lambert this season.

How is that not enough opportunities for a fringe player?

I don't see why people can't grasp this? Look at Cleverley. He was utter shit under Lambert, and many people didn't want to see him in the side. Under Sherwood he's amazing.

The same thing has happened with jack. He wasn't very good when he played under Lambert. Go back in this thread and you'll find plenty of fans who. Whilst recognising his potential, didn't think he should be starting.

Under Sherwood he's raised his game, as has most of the team, and he's good enough to start.

Its not rocket science. Stop believing this myth that Lambert never played him.

:) they were nearly all sub appearances, he made one start v leyton orient in the cup, he was not given enough opportunities by lambert, why give him a new 4 year contract and keep him on the bench? Just pointless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â