Jump to content

Nathan Delfouneso


Ulver

Recommended Posts

I am sure at times he has been arrogant, but when I met him, he seemed pretty down to earth.

I think it probably is inevitable that he won’t live up to his potential, but I am saddened rather than elated. I want our kids to be successful, because then Villa are successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan is going to Blackpool for game time. He has a full season ahead with an attack minded championship side who should be pushing for promotion.

He has been crying out for game time. He’s a big lad, skillfull and has some pace and power. He is just lacking the sharpness (mental and physical) that he can only get on the pitch.

This loan spell could be the making of him. At the very least it gives him to chance to shine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's like that rare Wotsit that you find that is thickly coated & covered in more cheese flavouring than normal.

You think it's going to be the best Wotsit in the pack but it just makes you feel sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he does do well at Blackpool, he's going to find it tough to break into the team. He's now behind Bent, Gabby, Benteke and Weimann. Bowery should also get chances this season so when he comes back he could be 6th in the pecking order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if he does do well at Blackpool, he's going to find it tough to break into the team. He's now behind Bent, Gabby, Benteke and Weimann. Bowery should also get chances this season so when he comes back he could be 6th in the pecking order.

This is very true and could be the factor that makes him leave. He's had the chance for a number of seasons to keep or improve his place in that pecking order but he just didn't do it. And football can be cut-throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it even if he does leave us and goes onto bigger and better things I don't think any of could sit here and accuse any of our managers of not giving him a chance, and that is an indication of his impact here.

A frustrating player when I've seen him on the pitch he's looked to have that nautral ability to put the ball in the back of the net. But I remember a game at Pompey when MoN was in charge and although he did well, MoN was literally constantly shouting at him about where to be, who to mark, when to make a run etc. Seems for al his natural ability he isn't switched on enough to make it work.

Compare him to Andy Weiman, who isn't as technically sound but will run through brick walls trying to get the ball, and you can see why us fans and the coaching staff are more inclined to give Weiman the time on the pitch.

Ultimately if he goes I'll be disappointed but only becuase he hasn't fulfilled the obvious potential he displayed when he first broke into the first team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it even if he does leave us and goes onto bigger and better things I don't think any of could sit here and accuse any of our managers of not giving him a chance, and that is an indication of his impact here.

To a lesser extent (I stress), this is exactly what happened with Cahill.

At the time he left, most people accepted that he wasn't quite good enough for us (at the time), and wished him luck.

A couple of years down the line and people blame the manager for letting a champions league winner go.

I know the sums of money involved are massively different, but there are parralels between Benteke / Delfouneso and Davies / Cahill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can kind of see what you're saying but imo the 2 examples are quite different.

Cahill had done a decent job when he covered as CB but at the time, despite his obvious potential, he was being kept out of the team by our then 1st choice pairing. He wanted 1st team football and wasn't prepared to wait so forced a move.

The Fonz hasn't shown that quality and despite a few loans to lower opposition hasn't tried to force the club's hand by demanding a transfer to another PL club. Probably because there isn't the interest from other PL clubs.

My initial response was trying to take into account the anger directed at that manager about Cahill (hindsight is a marvellous thing) in a way it could be argued Cahill wasn't given the chance he deserved, but then at the time he was deservedly being kept out of the team. Whereas with the fonz I think he has been given enough chances to prove his worth he just hasn't taken them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it even if he does leave us and goes onto bigger and better things I don't think any of could sit here and accuse any of our managers of not giving him a chance, and that is an indication of his impact here.

To a lesser extent (I stress), this is exactly what happened with Cahill.

I really don't remember it like that at all. Many people at the time saw that the only reason Cahill wasn't getting his game was because MON had spunked over 3 mil on Zat Knight because at the time we didn't know whether Laursen would come back. Laursen did come back which meant Knight wasn't needed, but in order to justify paying the money, MON used him over Cahill who many thought was the better defender. Even though we got good money for him as a reserve from Bolton we knew we'd sold a good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, I'd agree with that.

The only point I was trying to make is that logic and sense won't necessarily dictate that Lambert wouldn't get unfairly criticised at a future point in time if he were to sell Delfouneso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/article/delfouneso-striving-for-success-356030.aspx

well if the lads good to his word there and gets his head down and he gets in to the team and scores regularly then he's on the right road for me. i'll deffo wait till next summer before calling for him to get the boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it even if he does leave us and goes onto bigger and better things I don't think any of could sit here and accuse any of our managers of not giving him a chance, and that is an indication of his impact here.

To a lesser extent (I stress), this is exactly what happened with Cahill.

I really don't remember it like that at all. Many people at the time saw that the only reason Cahill wasn't getting his game was because MON had spunked over 3 mil on Zat Knight because at the time we didn't know whether Laursen would come back. Laursen did come back which meant Knight wasn't needed, but in order to justify paying the money, MON used him over Cahill who many thought was the better defender. Even though we got good money for him as a reserve from Bolton we knew we'd sold a good one.

Don't recall it ever being that black and white, even with Laursen out injured Davies and Melberg were playing well (That was pre my villa talk days but a few fans on 606 making favourable comparisons between davies and a young rio).

Zat Knight was signed as back up, which probably did push Cahill a little further back in the pecking order, but we were a club who at the time had serious designs on a top 4 finish. It would have been foolish to rely on Cahill alone as cover at that time.

And as it was Bolton he went to for 1st team football it would seem to indicate that he was not quite ready to play regularly for a top 6 team (as we were then).

Like I say hindsight is a marvellous thing but it's hard to apportion blame in the Cahill instance, it's just one of those things in football. See Barca and Fabregas as another example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â