AVFCforever1991 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Ok we have to agree to disagree on Bannan but Bacuna is never a creative midfield player. His main attribute is his pace not his technical ability and passing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 ok and his freekicks but his passing and ball control are not quite good enough yet, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 28, 2013 Share Posted December 28, 2013 Agreed mate. Bacuna is not the creative player we crave (but would still deliver more in Bannans position than Bannan himself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 The complete opposite of Bannan actually, who is pretty to watch and very ineffective... by all means a "Match of the Day" player and anyone who thought he did well against us is basing their opinions on a single clip from MotD and not his all round game, which was once again poor. Yes because it's not like we actually watched the full-match is it? It was only a game involving Aston Villa... Keeping Bannan was never an option for Villa. He simply isn't Premier League quality let alone Villa quality. He isn't when played in the wrong position, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 The complete opposite of Bannan actually, who is pretty to watch and very ineffective... by all means a "Match of the Day" player and anyone who thought he did well against us is basing their opinions on a single clip from MotD and not his all round game, which was once again poor. Yes because it's not like we actually watched the full-match is it? It was only a game involving Aston Villa... Keeping Bannan was never an option for Villa. He simply isn't Premier League quality let alone Villa quality. He isn't when played in the wrong position, no. Con never watches Villa though he vomits his opinion on everyone every week. Bannan is not fast enough to be on the wing. Not strong enough to play behind the front. So his best position would be a deep lying midfielder which is exactly where Lambert played him to get the best out of his strength - passing. Unfortunately his strongest attribute is still no where near Premier League quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 The complete opposite of Bannan actually, who is pretty to watch and very ineffective... by all means a "Match of the Day" player and anyone who thought he did well against us is basing their opinions on a single clip from MotD and not his all round game, which was once again poor. Yes because it's not like we actually watched the full-match is it? It was only a game involving Aston Villa... Keeping Bannan was never an option for Villa. He simply isn't Premier League quality let alone Villa quality. He isn't when played in the wrong position, no. Con never watches Villa though he vomits his opinion on everyone every week. Bannan is not fast enough to be on the wing. Not strong enough to play behind the front. So his best position would be a deep lying midfielder which is exactly where Lambert played him to get the best out of his strength - passing. Unfortunately his strongest attribute is still no where near Premier League quality. His passing is still better than Delph, Sylla and KEA'S. Maybe Westwood is a more consistent passer but not this season because without Bannan he's the one that has to play the killer ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Yet he played much better further forward under Houllier and now under Pulis. Obviously though, because Lambert played him in the deeper role that must be his best position. It's not like Lambert to play people in the wrong position is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Yet he played much better further forward under Houllier and now under Pulis. Obviously though, because Lambert played him in the deeper role that must be his best position. It's not like Lambert to play people in the wrong position is it? And he failed under Houllier and is failing under Pulis. Doesn't exactly prove your point does it? I dropped and smashed a glass earlier... should I blame this on Lambert also? It seems to be the in thing at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 The complete opposite of Bannan actually, who is pretty to watch and very ineffective... by all means a "Match of the Day" player and anyone who thought he did well against us is basing their opinions on a single clip from MotD and not his all round game, which was once again poor. Yes because it's not like we actually watched the full-match is it? It was only a game involving Aston Villa... Keeping Bannan was never an option for Villa. He simply isn't Premier League quality let alone Villa quality. He isn't when played in the wrong position, no. Con never watches Villa though he vomits his opinion on everyone every week. Bannan is not fast enough to be on the wing. Not strong enough to play behind the front. So his best position would be a deep lying midfielder which is exactly where Lambert played him to get the best out of his strength - passing. Unfortunately his strongest attribute is still no where near Premier League quality. His passing is still better than Delph, Sylla and KEA'S. Maybe Westwood is a more consistent passer but not this season because without Bannan he's the one that has to play the killer ball. That's highly debatable. He passes the ball sideways as you would expect any professional footballer to do but when it comes to that killer through ball he constantly fails. He hasn't once played a ball like Westwood's assist at Norwich last season for example. Incredibly limited player in every which way you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 His Yet he played much better further forward under Houllier and now under Pulis. Obviously though, because Lambert played him in the deeper role that must be his best position. It's not like Lambert to play people in the wrong position is it? And he failed under Houllier and is failing under Pulis. Doesn't exactly prove your point does it? I dropped and smashed a glass earlier... should I blame this on Lambert also? It seems to be the in thing at the moment. He never failed under Houllier though. It was his breakthrough season and he played a fair few games and finished the season out on loan at Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) and how can you say AstonMarton82 that he his failing under Pullis. He's a regular in the team and results/Performances have picked up. They were unlucky yesterday not to get something at man city. Edited December 29, 2013 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 He is constantly the worst player on the pitch. With Palace being my local team I see, hear and discuss a lot about them. This view point is backed up by whoscored.com also... if you check out Bannan's ratings you will see he is nearly always the worst if not second worst player on the pitch: http://www.whoscored.com/Matches/720347/Live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Plus he is subbed every single game, whether they are winning, losing or drawing. For this to happen Pulis must see him as the weakest link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Plus he is subbed every single game, whether they are winning, losing or drawing. For this to happen Pulis must see him as the weakest link. Not really. It is called protecting the lead. Unlike Lambert, Pulis realises he isn't a defensive player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) Plus he is subbed every single game, whether they are winning, losing or drawing. For this to happen Pulis must see him as the weakest link. Not really. It is called protecting the lead. Unlike Lambert, Pulis realises he isn't a defensive player. As I said, whether they are winning losing or drawing he comes off. In fact when they played Newcastle if I remember correctly he came off at half time when they were 2-0 down. It seems odd that you would take off your match winner and most creative player when you are chasing the game... either that, or he isn't a match winner or creative player. You would do well to not bring Lambert up in your argument as it only significantly weakens it. It only shows you are acting out of emotion rather than sense and reason. Edited December 29, 2013 by AstonMartin82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 (edited) Plus he is subbed every single game, whether they are winning, losing or drawing. For this to happen Pulis must see him as the weakest link. Played over 80 minutes yesterday. If he was that poor he wouldn't start every game. Edited December 29, 2013 by PaulC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstonMartin82 Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 1-0 down and chasing the game and they take off the all creative and all match winning Bannan? Bannan did start most games for Villa last season. Doesn't mean he was good in any of those matches. Just means we had limited options and as soon as that got resolved he got dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Pulis wouldn't keep starting him in the first place if he didn't think he was any good. Especially considering he isn't even a typical physical Pulis sort of player. Funny also that you (as with all Westwood apologists) bring up that pass at Norwich but when Con did the same for Bannan's pass against Fulham he was slaughtered for it. But obviously it is just me making silly emotional comments. Fanatically backing the guy who who has presided over our worst ever home form is the pinnacle of rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted December 29, 2013 Share Posted December 29, 2013 Funny also that you (as with all Westwood apologists) Really? That's what it's come to ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts