Jump to content

Nathan Baker


AVFC-Prideofbrum

Recommended Posts

There is a clear distinction in performance in both CB's when Jedinak is missing.The dominant factor is reduced considerably.

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, This Could Be Rotterdam said:

Just to clarify, why was he sent off today even though the penalty was given? 

I think the new rule only applies to goalies?

Could be wrong thou...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, This Could Be Rotterdam said:

Just to clarify, why was he sent off today even though the penalty was given? 

Cos Championship refs are diabolical? Would like to see some clarification on this new 'rule' to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, This Could Be Rotterdam said:

Just to clarify, why was he sent off today even though the penalty was given? 

I haven't seen it. Was it a deliberate foul or a genuine attempt to win the ball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said:

I haven't seen it. Was it a deliberate foul or a genuine attempt to win the ball?

Neither, he kind of stumbled across the back of the striker chasing him into the box.

The striker got his shot away just prior to Baker clipping his heel sending him over.

It was clumsy but not a red.

Edited by theboyangel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

Neither, he kind of stumbled across the back of the striker chasing him into the box.

The striker got his shot away just prior to Baker clipping his heel sending him over.

It was clumsy but not a red.

He pulled him back as though. Previously, as last man, it was a definite sending off. With this new rule I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mikeyp102 said:

He pulled him back as though. Previously, as last man, it was a definite sending off. With this new rule I'm not sure.

Didn't really notice the pull back - that kind of changes it a little.

Still think a penalty and a red card is harsh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ChrisVillan said:

I might be mistaken but if it's a deliberate professional foul, the rule effectively hasn't changed. If it's a genuine attempt, yellow will do.

I don't think it was either. I've seen the replays and I definitely don't see a pull back.

Effectively the striker gets his shot off and Baker sort of runs into his heels, knocking him over.

I can see why it was given but I certainly wouldn't say it was a professional foul, but then again he wasn't really trying to get the ball.

CLumsy is the word.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like Baker defensively. I think he's more than competent in this league.

However, he is the worst offender in the team for hoofing. 

Despite us having 10 men, we clearly hoofed it less when he went off.

As shit as Elphick is, he's fairly calm on the ball. Too calm at times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't think it was either. I've seen the replays and I definitely don't see a pull back.

Effectively the striker gets his shot off and Baker sort of runs into his heels, knocking him over.

I can see why it was given but I certainly wouldn't say it was a professional foul, but then again he wasn't really trying to get the ball.

CLumsy is the word.

Probably very much open to interpretation from the sound of it. From that description it seems like a yellow would have been enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Looks like we are selling Nathan Baker, which is a huge mistake. If the lad wants a move for first team football then fair enough, but if he's happy has backup then there's no wy we should be selling him.

Especially whilst Elphick and Richards are on the books still.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PieFacE said:

Looks like we are selling Nathan Baker, which is a huge mistake. If the lad wants a move for first team football then fair enough, but if he's happy has backup then there's no wy we should be selling him.

Especially whilst Elphick and Richards are on the books still.

To whom and for how much?

Seems a bit odd to sell, unless he's asked to leave due to potentially getting limited playing time behind Terry and Chester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sne said:

To whom and for how much?

Seems a bit odd to sell, unless he's asked to leave due to potentially getting limited playing time behind Terry and Chester.

Bristol City apparently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ridiculous decision to sell, unless he wants out.

I would imagine the chance to train and play with John Terry wouldn't mean that he is asking to leave.

Terry, Chester, Baker, Samba would have been a brilliant choice of CB's for the season. Easily the strongest in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PieFacE said:

Looks like we are selling Nathan Baker, which is a huge mistake. If the lad wants a move for first team football then fair enough, but if he's happy has backup then there's no wy we should be selling him.

Especially whilst Elphick and Richards are on the books still.

Given that he's now 26 and looks to be 4th choice CB behind Terry, Chester and Samba, it wouldn't surprise me if he's asked for a move.

Personally I'll be sad to see him leave, once upon a time I thought he was a Villa legend in the making - but he's no longer a young player and still struggles to remain fit for a full season. 

I'd be angling for Flint coming the other way if I was SB :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would leave us very fragile in the CB department as I have some doubts about Terry's ability to handle a full 46 game season, and even bigger doubts about Samba's ability. Both regarding injuries and actual ability.

The less said about Richards and Elphick the better.

Would definitely mean we won't be playing with a 3 CB formation.

Unless we have someone else on the way in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â