Barry Bannan

[Kingfisher]

I won't be averse to his selection, I think he has some potential but he really needs to provide more of an attacking edge in the form of assists and goals. 

[villa-revolution]

 

 

 

 

Who know's in time he may develop & prove us all wrong (except for Con ofcourse) & if he remains a Villa player then I hope he does, but as things stand right now he is rubbish! Absolutely dire!

 

 

Disagree entirely. The evidence is in. Aspects of his play (movement) and the statistics.

 

The thing that prevents a lot of people realising earlier is they have such high expectations. Out of the current outfielders only Benteke has been consistently praised.

 

Weimann has been since the start of the year. I was promoting Weimann before he was in the team last autumn.

 

 

I know what will happen. When Bannan finally does something you notice you're going to say it was impossible to tell he was going to "come good" before that point, so I'm going to be portrayed as a nutter who got lucky with a guess even when you decide he's alright.

 

 

Con, your certainly not a nutter. If you see the potential in Barry Bannan via your statistics then good for you. At least there will be one Villa fan happy next time Bannan gets picked. Yes! I know that means 34,543 will be groaning their nuts off but we can't all be right or wrong all of the time.

 

As stated before I really hope you are right & would happily be the first person to shake your hand in such an event.

 

That said, if time proves you wrong ( & so far you are) then lets hope the movement aspect of his play results in exactly that, a move.

 

 

That's not true. There have been a number of regulars posting to this thread with a different view to yours.  They're just not bothering right now because it is so hard to get a reasoned point across, because some of the criticism is blanket "don't want to listen to anything good, because nothing is good." That's impossible to argue against.

 

 

The point is though Con, that in reality, every single poster on this site has their own opinion about all things Aston Villa & it would be a boring world if every single one of us agreed totally about the controversial abilities of Barry Bannan.

 

As I see it, & I concede I could be wrong, but I believe that the vast majority of Villa fans see Barry Bannan as a total liability. I hope for your sake, his sake & all our sakes that there comes a point in the nearest future whereby his potential ability really does come to fruition.

 

Also, I would welcome that to happen because it would mean that we have a talented player on our books. If you believe your statistics suggest he is a top player that's your prerogative. However, my eyes tell me, & his inept performances tell me, that currently, Bannan is nowhere near Premiership level & as such I do not wish him to be any where near the 1st team squad thank you very much because quite simply he just isn't upto it & especially so in a relegation battle.

 

The best solution to this debate in my opinion is to perhaps to run a poll.

 

You say via your statistics that Bannan is a class player & I say via common sense that unless my eyes decieve me he ain't.

 

That's 1-1 for now, so let's see how it goes.with other posters opinions or a poll if the mods decide it is appropriate.

 

Also, if the majority back my judgement on this, that still doesn't mean that you are wrong either, but at least that way we have a democratic decision.

 

It is a game of opinions & paradoxically I would much rather that you were right on this one because I only want class players at Villa Park as I am pretty much certain too that we all do.

[Papillon]

Stats are truly worthless when it comes to certain players. If one looks at Michael Carrick, Yaya Youre, Xavi, Xabi Alonso and David Silva you know that their stats are going to be great because they are insanely accurate passers. All of these are players at the highest level that make other players better, made sure by the fact that they all play for top clubs.

 

My impression of Barry Bannan is that he is afraid of keeping the ball and constantly passes it on to a player, no matter if he is in a good position or not. Which means, if Bannan makes a short pass to a team-mate that is virtually certain to lose control of the ball, doesn't that count as a successful pass? In other words, he passes to a player that is covered by the opposition who is then tackled and the ball is lost. That is positive to his stats but certainly not positive to our game-plan. Looking at Bannan's contribution in terms of assists we know he is not a vital player when we score goals, especially as he tries so many crosses, terrible lumps into the box, hopeless shots from distance and often takes set-pieces. 

 

We all know Xavi makes great passes, I have huge doubts towards Bannan and I am sure most people do as well. Stats are oftentimes worthless for certain players.

[Con]

Here's the funny thing.

 

The phrase "total liability" keeps being used, which would make a reader of Sunderland who popped into this thread, who doesn't know anything about Villa, think we must always lose when Bannan plays.

 

His actual record - when he starts - is 8 losses, six wins, 4 draws. 33% win rate.

 

Delph has 8 losses, 2 wins and 5 draws. 13.3% win rate.

 

Westwood has 10 losses, 7 wins and 7 draws. 29.2% win rate.

 

When Delph plays we have only 13% chance of winning the game, and Bannan's the "total liability"? Insanity.

 

 

When I mention these statistics I get the same response: Bannan must only play the easy opposition. They don't try to look up the facts for themselves, he's played the all the top sides and was in the win over Liverpool - arguably the best team we've beaten this season.

[villa-revolution]

Here's the funny thing.

 

The phrase "total liability" keeps being used, which would make a reader of Sunderland who popped into this thread, who doesn't know anything about Villa, think we must always lose when Bannan plays.

 

His actual record - when he starts - is 8 losses, six wins, 4 draws. 33% win rate.

 

Delph has 8 losses, 2 wins and 5 draws. 13.3% win rate.

 

Westwood has 10 losses, 7 wins and 7 draws. 29.2% win rate.

 

When Delph plays we have only 13% chance of winning the game, and Bannan's the "total liability"? Insanity.

 

 

When I mention these statistics I get the same response: Bannan must only play the easy opposition. They don't try to look up the facts for themselves, he's played the all the top sides and was in the win over Liverpool - arguably the best team we've beaten this season.

 

Con, for what it is worth I don't rate Delph either. Bannan is the better footballer but Delph is a better overall  player. By that I mean Bannan is better on the ball ( that's not saying a lot) but Delph is more athletic, a better tackler & all round team player.

 

Sadly, Central Midfield is where we are extremely weak this season & I only really feel more comfortable when we play with 3 in the middle but that's another story.

 

The problem as I see it here oncemore is that your statistics are blinding you to reality.

 

eg. Emile Heskey scuffs & miss kicks 10 shots towards goal. According to the way your stats pan out thab would be 10n shots on target making Heskey look like a world beater. One goal all last season tells me Heskey was a total liability. That to me is the reality of how you are misinterpreting the stats reference Barry Bannan.

 

Am off to VP now so good luck Villa & please, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE win this game hook or by crook.

 

We love you Villa etc etc etc

 

To be continued..................................... 

[Papillon]

Him being in a side that won does not mean he played well in that match, in fact he could have been crap in all of them and we still could have won. Sure he is prone to play decent every once in a while, but trying to say we win more matches because of him is not accurate given such few games. If he plays badly and we are slaughtered and Benteke scores a lucky goal in the 90th minute for us to win, even though the other team misses three penalties and five sitters, we still won the game. Bannan has not bossed or made a huge impression in ANY game I can think of this season, and he does not deserve to play because he lacks many vital aspects in his game. This is also why Lambert decides he is not going to play, even though the rest of our midfielders are pretty dire.

 

Would we win the same games if he did NOT play in them? Most likely. Would we win more if he played more? Most unlikely.

[Con]

Better overall player? You must be imagining it. This is why statistics are needed to help correct bias.

 

Each of us can be lead astray by what we think the team needs. What if what we think the team needs is wrong? Ever consider that?

 

13% win rate is not the "better overall player" if that = "worse overall results."

 

I'd always take the worse overall player if that meant we would win more. 

[Papillon]

If you think your little statistical project "proves" we will win more games with Bannan on the pitch you are desperately mistaken. This is football, it is a game that is won during the match, not before it is even played. Stats only say so much about a team. Liverpool won 6-0 without Luis Suarez, should they not play him the next time then can? Ji-Sung Park always played for Man Utd against the toughest teams because he served a purpose. Would they win more games with Park if he played 38 games a season as opposed to Michael Carrick? Same with Wenger when he often took out Henry against the best teams to confuse them before introducing him at half-time. Javier Hernandez probably has better stats than Van Persie and Rooney when it comes to putting chances away, still he will play a lot less than them for obvious reasons, same with Solskjær back in the days. Football are filled with different games, scenarios and equations - managers adapt every single game. What is certain however is that if you are not good enough you do not play. Your minimal range of stats prove absolutely nothing in terms of Bannan's ability.

[AndyM3000]

Ok the statistic stuff is just getting out of hand now. It can be used to prove a point if someone is obviously wrong but you cant use it for everything.

[Con]

If you think your little statistical project "proves" we will win more games with Bannan on the pitch you are desperately mistaken. This is football, it is a game that is won during the match, not before it is even played. Stats only say so much about a team. Liverpool won 6-0 without Luis Suarez, should they not play him the next time then can? 

 

No! Not if they are on ridiculously good form. He'd have a spot on the subs bench.

 

Don't let reputations get in the way of opinion.

 

 

Ji-Sung Park always played for Man Utd against the toughest teams because he served a purpose. Would they win more games with Park if he played 38 games a season as opposed to Michael Carrick?  

 

That's tactics. Which is another discussion. I'm not arguing the same XI should play every game.

 

 

 

Same with Wenger when he often took out Henry against the best teams to confuse them before introducing him at half-time.

 

To confuse? It was to take better advantage of his pace. 

 

 

 

Javier Hernandez probably has better stats than Van Persie and Rooney when it comes to putting chances away, still he will play a lot less than them for obvious reasons, same with Solskjær back in the days. 

 

 

For "obvious" reasons - those being the reason why he doesn't play as much. That reason being Hernandez is a finisher, not a creative player. If you play Van Persie and Rooney you create more chances.

 

 

Football are filled with different games, scenarios and equations - managers adapt every single game. What is certain however is that if you are not good enough you do not play. Your minimal range of stats prove absolutely nothing in terms of Bannan's ability.

 

 

Managers also get it wrong, as do some fans.

[Papillon]

Yes - and for obvious reasons Barry Bannan is not good enough for this team. Javier Hernandez offers something to Man Utd and he gives them goals, he plays even though not that much compared to Rooney and Van Persie. You say we are going to win more games with Barry Bannan on the pitch, at least that is what you imply, but the only argument you come up with are statistics that will favour him. You pay no attention to his obvious lack of assists and goals, even though he is often seen high up in the pitch and not 50 yards behind (making it hard for him to contribute).

 

His tackling is bad, his passing leads to nothing, he contributes with no goals and assists, he has a weak shot, he wins no headers because he is 3 feet tall, he is physically weak and lacks pace, he has no technique or flair and he tries overly difficult long-passes which virtually gives away the ball every single time. His fore-checking in midfield is not up to standards and he often seems scared of controlling the ball more than 1 second, it looks like he is just looking for someone else to take the responsibility off his hands. Delph, who has won less games than Bannan as you point out, is far more physical and adds tackling and aggression to our side which we need. That is why he is playing more than Bannan, same with Westwood who I would assume has a good passing %, only difference is that he actually dares to run with the ball a bit more and also distributes it to players who can do something in the next move. Like I mentioned earlier, take Bannan out of those games we won with him and we probably would have won anyway. Put him into the games we lost and we probably would have lost the same or more, because he is a player who offers very little to our side.

 

Come back when Bannan has played 100 games and we clearly see a pattern in his involvement, when we have played all the good and the bad sides over a period of time. We win a game every once in a while, we are more likely to lose and Bannan's involvement in minimal when we do win. The problem is, you cannot come back in a 100 games because he won't have played many and he's far more likely to join a Championship-side on loan in the summer.

[Swerbs]

I thought this thread couldn't get any more delusional 2 weeks ago..

[Villa87]

Delph is a much better player.

[Villa87]

Yes - and for obvious reasons Barry Bannan is not good enough for this team. Javier Hernandez offers something to Man Utd and he gives them goals, he plays even though not that much compared to Rooney and Van Persie. You say we are going to win more games with Barry Bannan on the pitch, at least that is what you imply, but the only argument you come up with are statistics that will favour him. You pay no attention to his obvious lack of assists and goals, even though he is often seen high up in the pitch and not 50 yards behind (making it hard for him to contribute).

 

His tackling is bad, his passing leads to nothing, he contributes with no goals and assists, he has a weak shot, he wins no headers because he is 3 feet tall, he is physically weak and lacks pace, he has no technique or flair and he tries overly difficult long-passes which virtually gives away the ball every single time. His fore-checking in midfield is not up to standards and he often seems scared of controlling the ball more than 1 second, it looks like he is just looking for someone else to take the responsibility off his hands. Delph, who has won less games than Bannan as you point out, is far more physical and adds tackling and aggression to our side which we need. That is why he is playing more than Bannan, same with Westwood who I would assume has a good passing %, only difference is that he actually dares to run with the ball a bit more and also distributes it to players who can do something in the next move. Like I mentioned earlier, take Bannan out of those games we won with him and we probably would have won anyway. Put him into the games we lost and we probably would have lost the same or more, because he is a player who offers very little to our side.

 

Come back when Bannan has played 100 games and we clearly see a pattern in his involvement, when we have played all the good and the bad sides over a period of time. We win a game every once in a while, we are more likely to lose and Bannan's involvement in minimal when we do win. The problem is, you cannot come back in a 100 games because he won't have played many and he's far more likely to join a Championship-side on loan in the summer.

 

Spot on. Great post and representative of my thoughts on the subject too.

[AstonMartin82]

Nice posts Pap... I agree with nearly everything you wrote.

 

This bit made me chuckle though:

 

 Put him into the games we lost and we probably would have lost the same or more.

 

I mean, I know he's bad but even I would struggle to claim that if we played him in the games we lost we would lose more.

[bickster]

...his passing leads to nothing, he contributes with no goals and assists

3 assists in the league this season.

[AstonMartin82]

 

...his passing leads to nothing, he contributes with no goals and assists

3 assists in the league this season.

 

 

Every site quotes 1 assist... I struggle to see where he has claimed 3?

[Nabby]

On the Bench tonight 

[bickster]

...his passing leads to nothing, he contributes with no goals and assists

3 assists in the league this season.

 

Every site quotes 1 assist... I struggle to see where he has claimed 3?

Newcastle and Swansea at beginning of season and Reading not that long ago. That's according to official PL stats that they use for their fantasy league.Me I can't be arsed to remember

[nick76]

On the Bench tonight

sigh of relief!