Woodytom Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 The only problem with Heskey for Bent substitution is that it didn't come sooner. Was our worst player and was quite rightly taken off. Bollocks Good point well made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted December 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'm with woodytom - on the day Bent was not performing - he wasn't holding the ball up, failed to hit the aforemention Cow with his banjo and was winning zilch in the air (not that we should have been aiming at his noggin' but sadly they were doing). I don't much rate Heskey, but it was right to bring him on when he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villaboy69 Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Re the Bent substitution - call it negative if you want but at least it was the first time I actually agreed with our manager being 'negative' Correct call by the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2011 Bringing him on for Bent was an attempt to protect the game, and a signal that we had given up trying to score goals. Show me a manager that doesn't try and do this apart from the complete nut job that is Kevin Keegan, though I disagree that we'd given up trying to score goals, we were simply giving them a different problem to think about and a player that can lend a hand defensively He replaced someone on the pitch who had missed some great chances, yes. But Bent through his career has missed great chances in matches and then gone on to score, again and again. His record bears this out. The same can not be said for Heskey. This was a single game of football, not a career overview. It was quite clear from 80 mins of play that Bent wasn't going to score on Saturday, substituting him might just be the kick start he needs for the next game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I thought he just bought him on to tighten things up, hopefully win few balls in air, hold it up, better from defending set-pieces and just generally fresh legs. I didn't mind the change personally, I doubt the same substitution would have been made if the game was level or we needed a goal which would make the argument more credible. We didn't need a goalscorer out on the pitch with 10 minutes to go holding a lead against Bolton IMO. To me that's very negative. What happens if they do equalise with 9 minutes to go? You've left yourself on the back foot and with much less chance of going to win the game. Although what if because the lack of all round game that the striker has in Darren Bent, through lack of hard work, not winning an Ariel ball or holding it up to relieve pressure allows Bolton to attack even more continuously before forcing an equalizer in the 90th minute. I want McLeish gone but we are 2-1, taking off Darren Bent at 55-60 minutes is negative, taking him off with 10 minutes to go isn't. Sometimes you have to hold to what you've got, especially someone like Bent who doesn't offer barely anything if you aren't creating chances. Quite frankly, I'd say keeping a player on because you might concede is a negative attitude. I'd rather the manager plan to win the game rather than plan for the worst outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macandally Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Let's not get carried away with a narrow win against the team that are bottom of the league. Let's wait and see what happens against Liverplop, Arsehole, Chelski and Stoke. The first half was okay today but the second half we almost reverted to type. One swallow does not a summer make. And on the other side of the coin we shouldn't get too upset if we do badly against 3 teams who are way above our station and a notorious bogey side. What? In fact why bother turning up. I mean we only beat Arsenal 2-1 and Liverplop 1-0, how very dare we. Stop making excuses for the man and the team and actually what we could do if we had someone to install some belief. I was on a FA course yesterday so only saw the highlights, but it didnt appear to be a romp against what is arguably one of the poorest teams in the league on current form. We have only beaten: Bolton Wigan Blackburn Norwich Hardly a whos who of quality is it? Against everyone else we have run and hid and I expect us to revert back to 5-4-1 as an "attacking" formation despite the obvious balance a 4-4-2 brings us. I'm not making excuses . I'm simply saying that just as you shouldn't get too excited about beating a poor team , you shouldn't get too upset about not beating teams who are better than us if it were to happen . .....and the Americans call the French "Cheese eating surrender monkeys!" Talk about an inferiority complex, I bet Stoke had that mentalitiy going into the game against Spurs. They sat back and tried to keep the score down didnt they? They knew who was the better side didnt they? Defeatist rubbish! That mentality sees you beat before a ball is kicked. If you dotn believe you can win, why play? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walesavfc Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 maybe a little off topic but am glad to see that when Heskey has come on for last 2 games, villa fans gave him a really good reception. There as been times when he has got very mixed ones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Not a Mcleish fan but bringing on Heskey makes sense for a number of reasons including adding another body in the box for the last 10 when we usually leak late goals and especially from set pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Substituting an out of sorts 'out and out' striker for a player who at the very least 'throws himself about a bit' in a game we still won is not a suitable stick to beat any manager with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houllierout Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 He's still crap http://tinyurl.com/avfcpremcomparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super-Villan Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's not a suitable stick to beat him with on its own, certainly. I'm arguing with because I disagree, not because I think this alone means McLeish should be sacked. I guess my main problem is that I see nothing in Heskey, and I'm not even sure he brings the stability to the side others think he does, while providing little going forward. As I've also said, I would be loathe to ever take off Bent unless he was injured, as even when he looks out of form he can come up with a goal, and I would not want to take off our best chance of scoring unless a game was actually won (i.e. up by a few goals.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadoftrinity Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's not a suitable stick to beat him with on its own, certainly. I'm arguing with because I disagree, not because I think this alone means McLeish should be sacked. I guess my main problem is that I see nothing in Heskey, and I'm not even sure he brings the stability to the side others think he does, while providing little going forward. As I've also said, I would be loathe to ever take off Bent unless he was injured, as even when he looks out of form he can come up with a goal, and I would not want to take off our best chance of scoring unless a game was actually won (i.e. up by a few goals.) The thing is, with Bent's lack of ability to hold the ball up, and also his poor defending at set pieces, he could actually lose the game as well. I was pleased to see him brought off, even though I do like Bent. We have always ended up hoofing the ball a bit at the end of a game if we are winning, a lot of teams will so with Gabby or Heskey as the front man, it's less likely to come back you like it does with Bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taxahunter Posted December 14, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2011 Substituting an out of sorts 'out and out' striker for a player who at the very least 'falls a bit' in a game we still won is not a suitable stick to beat any manager with. Fixed it for you ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2011 It's not a suitable stick to beat him with on its own, certainly. I'm arguing with because I disagree, not because I think this alone means McLeish should be sacked. I guess my main problem is that I see nothing in Heskey, and I'm not even sure he brings the stability to the side others think he does, while providing little going forward. As I've also said, I would be loathe to ever take off Bent unless he was injured, as even when he looks out of form he can come up with a goal, and I would not want to take off our best chance of scoring unless a game was actually won (i.e. up by a few goals.) The thing is, with Bent's lack of ability to hold the ball up, and also his poor defending at set pieces, he could actually lose the game as well. I was pleased to see him brought off, even though I do like Bent. We have always ended up hoofing the ball a bit at the end of a game if we are winning, a lot of teams will so with Gabby or Heskey as the front man, it's less likely to come back you like it does with Bent. The problem is that the idea that Heskey holds the ball up is a complete and utter myth, it is simply not true. Everyone seems to think this is one of his few attributes but in reality it just isn't there. I emplor anyone who believes it to be true to make a point of watching him closely the next time he is up front and study just how much he holds the ball up there. Heskey normally does one of two things when the ball is played up to him with his back to goal. 1) Fall over on his knees from the slightest touch from behind or 2) Flick it on. Neither of these things retain the ball or reduce the pressure the team is under. I agree that Heskey can offer and element of defensive cover from his pure size when defending set pieces although he isn't actually all that good in the air. That though is about it as far as I'm concerned, he offers next to nothing else. He would have been gone this summer but he realised he was going to get game time and stayed, he will be gone soon though and will be Leicester bound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 It's not a suitable stick to beat him with on its own, certainly. I'm arguing with because I disagree, not because I think this alone means McLeish should be sacked. I guess my main problem is that I see nothing in Heskey, and I'm not even sure he brings the stability to the side others think he does, while providing little going forward. As I've also said, I would be loathe to ever take off Bent unless he was injured, as even when he looks out of form he can come up with a goal, and I would not want to take off our best chance of scoring unless a game was actually won (i.e. up by a few goals.) The thing is, with Bent's lack of ability to hold the ball up, and also his poor defending at set pieces, he could actually lose the game as well. I was pleased to see him brought off, even though I do like Bent. We have always ended up hoofing the ball a bit at the end of a game if we are winning, a lot of teams will so with Gabby or Heskey as the front man, it's less likely to come back you like it does with Bent. The problem is that the idea that Heskey holds the ball up is a complete and utter myth, it is simply not true. Everyone seems to think this is one of his few attributes but in reality it just isn't there. I emplor anyone who believes it to be true to make a point of watching him closely the next time he is up front and study just how much he holds the ball up there. Heskey normally does one of two things when the ball is played up to him with his back to goal. 1) Fall over on his knees from the slightest touch from behind or 2) Flick it on. Neither of these things retain the ball or reduce the pressure the team is under. I agree that Heskey can offer and element of defensive cover from his pure size when defending set pieces although he isn't actually all that good in the air. That though is about it as far as I'm concerned, he offers next to nothing else. He would have been gone this summer but he realised he was going to get game time and stayed, he will be gone soon though and will be Leicester bound. Agreed Ash. I am now of the opinion that Emile as a top flight player is finished. Gabby is better at holding the ball up IMO. Even The Wee Man would be a better bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted December 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2011 Agreed Ash. I am now of the opinion that Emile as a top flight player is finished. Gabby is better at holding the ball up IMO. Even The Wee Man would be a better bet. Without a doubt and I think he knows it but I can't really blame him for hanging on in there as long as he can especially on the wages he is on. He will go though either in January or the summer and will go back to Leicester to finish his career. Edit - I also agree regarding Gabby and Bannan. I hate the idea that the only way to hold a ball up or retain it is through a 'big man' it might have been true in the 1980's when defenders could do as they liked but it isn't true now and hasn't been for years. Players like Gabby and Bannan are far better at retaining the ball and holding it up than Heskey or for that matter just about any big target man striker who is isolated and gets the ball lumped up to them. It isn't the 1980's any more other than in McLeish's head and certain parts of the North East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briny_ear Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Must say that Heskey this season is looking like a shadow of the player we bought - and even when we bought him he was on the way to becoming a shadow of the player he was in his prime. Given that he often gets put in midfield these days, I would much rather see a concerted effort to get Bannan settled in the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Must say that Heskey this season is looking like a shadow of the player we bought - and even when we bought him he was on the way to becoming a shadow of the player he was in his prime. And even in his prime he was a shadow of the player he was made out to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 And he's always been made out to be a pretty poor player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 By fans, that is. Not by team mates and managers who always hails him for some reason. Funny that. You'd think that those who has football for a living should know better than those who pays to watch it. Having said that, I don't really want Heskey as a starter right now either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts