Ashley Westwood

[lexicon]

One thing I noticed ( I watched the game) cleverleys set pieces/corners are much better than AW. We can't base how much we missed him on that game as half the team were ill and not up to scratch.

 

Despite the fact that Ceverley's set pieces were decent... Westwood's have always been pretty bad. His corners especially are usually atrocious. 

[Stevo985]

One thing I noticed ( I watched the game) cleverleys set pieces/corners are much better than AW. We can't base how much we missed him on that game as half the team were ill and not up to scratch.

To be fair, AW's were much better against Liverpool too than they were last season.

 

You have to wonder if the rumours that Benteke was asking him to float them in the way he used to is true.

 

Cleverley or Westwood, as long as they carry on whipping them in rather than floating them then I'm happy.

[DCJonah]

The benteke rumour must be true. Westwood is clearly capable of whipping in a decent corner. I hope either Lambert or Westwood make the decision to tell benteke he can't get his own way on this one.

[HanoiVillan]

Wow how can people think that it's possible to have a proper opinion of a game without seeing it?  If you listen on radio or read an article then your opinion is based on what someone else sees.  This is a new low imo, like seriously?    Westwood is pure class, it's plain for anyone to see(not read or listen!).  The guy has been improving constantly and is our most consistent player.   

 

The notion that it's impossible to understand what's happening in a game by listening to the radio is fatuous. If that were true, nobody before the 1950s would have known anything at all about any games except those they attended in person. 

[DelboyVilla]

 

Wow how can people think that it's possible to have a proper opinion of a game without seeing it?  If you listen on radio or read an article then your opinion is based on what someone else sees.  This is a new low imo, like seriously?    Westwood is pure class, it's plain for anyone to see(not read or listen!).  The guy has been improving constantly and is our most consistent player.   

 

The notion that it's impossible to understand what's happening in a game by listening to the radio is fatuous. If that were true, nobody before the 1950s would have known anything at all about any games except those they attended in person. 

 

 

 

There are plenty of people who attend VP week in week out for years and still appear to know sweet Fanny Adams about football?

[HanoiVillan]

Indeed. 

[blandy]

The notion that it's impossible to understand what's happening in a game by listening to the radio is fatuous...

Depends if Allan green is "commentating" or not. It depends, basically on the ability of the commentator to set aside their own opinions and describe accurately what's happening. A heck of a lot of them can't do that.

I think, at least for me, a lot of listening to a game on the radio is made up of my imagination/memory filling in the gaps from impressions or memories of the ground, of previous games there, of all kinds of things, including my own prejudices, about players and managers and crowds and referees.

I'm not sure that I've ever really felt (perhaps on viewing highlights later, for example) that the radio gives the level of detail to form impressions of a players performance of the 90 minutes.

They'll pick a man of the match, and perhaps that's reflect how it seems to me on later viewing, but they don't let me "see" how the left back has played overall, for example.

[Bunnski]

 

Wow how can people think that it's possible to have a proper opinion of a game without seeing it?  If you listen on radio or read an article then your opinion is based on what someone else sees.  This is a new low imo, like seriously?    Westwood is pure class, it's plain for anyone to see(not read or listen!).  The guy has been improving constantly and is our most consistent player.   

 

The notion that it's impossible to understand what's happening in a game by listening to the radio is fatuous. If that were true, nobody before the 1950s would have known anything at all about any games except those they attended in person. 

 

Have you ever listened to Captain Jack commentating on a Villa game?  Would you feel like you're gonna be able to form a decent opinion of the game based on his ramblings?   You are reliant on how someone else sees things unless you watch the game yourself. 

[Woodytom]

Wow how can people think that it's possible to have a proper opinion of a game without seeing it? If you listen on radio or read an article then your opinion is based on what someone else sees. This is a new low imo, like seriously? Westwood is pure class, it's plain for anyone to see(not read or listen!). The guy has been improving constantly and is our most consistent player.

First of all - what constitutes a proper opinion?

My post that started the debate off actually highlighted that I hadn't seen the game straight off, and then asked a question? When we were playing well for 30 mins did we miss Westwood? That was it.

I didn't say I didn't see the game but nevertheless I know we didn't miss Westwood.

What I said was, that on the back of numerous media/social interactions including radio, highlights, reports etc I had come to the conclusion that the main reason for the defeat was due to the teams capitulation after the first goal. I don't believe I need to watch the game to come to that conclusion. Crikey, the goal times would tell you that.

Now, with that in mind, along with having watched Westwood for the last 2 years, I don't see any reason why Westwood would have made much difference to the capitulation that ultimately lead to the defeat. Hence why I disagree that he was badly missed as some made out.

Now there is the shouts that we may have grabbed a goal if Westwood had played or not conceded had he played. They are fair enough shouts but are no less if/buts than me saying we might have gone behind earlier had he played.

I have just come home from work and listening to the radio, Adrian Durham highlighted that he was badly missed. Now, we all know what Adrian durham's like and I would never form an opinion based on his wind up tendencies.

However, I doubt many people would have found much issue with me forming the opinion that I believe we had missed him, whether I had seen the game or not.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Woodytom

[Woodytom]

Wow how can people think that it's possible to have a proper opinion of a game without seeing it? If you listen on radio or read an article then your opinion is based on what someone else sees. This is a new low imo, like seriously? Westwood is pure class, it's plain for anyone to see(not read or listen!). The guy has been improving constantly and is our most consistent player.

The notion that it's impossible to understand what's happening in a game by listening to the radio is fatuous. If that were true, nobody before the 1950s would have known anything at all about any games except those they attended in person.

Have you ever listened to Captain Jack commentating on a Villa game? Would you feel like you're gonna be able to form a decent opinion of the game based on his ramblings? You are reliant on how someone else sees things unless you watch the game yourself.

No, that's why in addition to the radio, I read reports, watched the highlights, talked to friends, listened to experts etc. Edited September 22, 2014 by Woodytom

[HanoiVillan]

I'm aware that we're straying off topic, so I shall make this my last comment on this, and then stand down. 

 

I just don't believe that everyone at the game, or watching on TV, is capable of, or is even trying to, make completely accurate judgments about the overall quality of more than 22 players and 3 officials. Some people are, but I think if people are honest with themselves, your attention can easily wander during the game. Meanwhile, while I believe what I write on this website to be true, and I don't troll, I also don't pretend that I'm an 'expert' about football. I miss plenty of things when I go to the stadium to watch a game, sometimes due to a lack of concentration, but just as often it's down to not spotting a run, missing defenders playing an offside trap or whatever. There are people out there who know a lot more than me, and it's arrogant for me to assume that I would know more than a good quality summariser on Five Live or whatever. 

 

I do agree, absolutely, about the person doing the commentating or the summarising needing to be knowledgeable. There are some people I don't enjoy listening to, or find valuable, and Alan Green, for example, is definitely on that list. But plenty of people are knowledgeable. I've never listened to 'Captain Jack', I don't believe I would be able to have the pleasure as I'm not a member of the club website and don't have access to AVTV. I've been on here long enough to know he's something of a running joke, so I guess he isn't any good, but I wasn't talking about a PR man on a club website. 

 

Anyway, as I've said before, people managed to know about football for decades before the television was popularised. Maybe they didn't know quite as much or in quite as much depth, but it was perfectly adequate to make broad comments about the progress of players. Obviously filtering opinion through 'experts' leads to the passing on of groupthink, but the terraces aren't always full of independent-minded freethinkers either. 

[Rob182]

It's shocking how many people put Sanchez in over Westwood in the "Our strongest lineup" thread .

Why? Just because Sanchez has been average in his first few games in the Premier League? People put Benteke in their 'strongest 11' too, but I'm sure they don't mean the currently injured and not match fit version.

It's not crazy to think that Sanchez could become a much better player, once he gets a few more appearances under his belt.

I just find it shocking that's all. Sanchez has done nothing of note in his entire career . He is 28 and has played for nobody , won very little (if anything?) and seems to be living off the fact that he is foreign and played at a world cup !

Westwood is 24 and has shown that he is more than capable of playing in this league . If anyone is going to get better it will be him.

I don't find it shocking. Sanchez has played (well) in a World Cup. Before Westwood made 2 seasons worth of appearances with us, he was a nobody in League 1. Given time, Sanchez could be an excellent player. People might just be thinking/hoping that he lives up to his price tag (which, for the Villa of latd, was big).

[Swerbs]

Not saying he will turn out like (before I get jumped on) but didn't Salifou have a decent world cup.. 

[Pelle]

One of Swedens most highly regarded football journalists and pundits called Westwood the most underrated player in the league. Well, that's his opinion and I don't expect it to sway anyone's opinion. Just nice to hear something positive about Villa from swedish media once in a while. And fwiw, I think he do have a point. Could a fully fit Westwood in the team have meant that we would've got a point or 3? Maybe, but not likely. But you never know. He would've played instead of Sanchez who really isn't up for it yet. Maybe we wouldn't had lost the ball at once for them to score a second right after their first. Or a third right after their second. Small details like that. And the chaos theory I think tells us that the game would've been totally different if he'd been on the pitch. For good or bad.

In the end, we lost and didn't really deserve to win, but I do think that there is a point in saying that Westwood is a player that we'll notice more when he's absent than when he's in the team. I think he's that kind of player. I just hope he's back fully fit for the chelsea game.

[heid3ster]

My post that started the debate off actually highlighted that I hadn't seen the game straight off, and then asked a question? When we were playing well for 30 mins did we miss Westwood? That was it.

I didn't say I didn't see the game but nevertheless I know we didn't miss Westwood.

What I said was, that on the back of numerous media/social interactions including radio, highlights, reports etc I had come to the conclusion that the main reason for the defeat was due to the teams capitulation after the first goal. I don't believe I need to watch the game to come to that conclusion. Crikey, the goal times would tell you that.

Now, with that in mind, along with having watched Westwood for the last 2 years, I don't see any reason why Westwood would have made much difference to the capitulation that ultimately lead to the defeat. Hence why I disagree that he was badly missed as some made out.

 

I think that your line of reasoning is built on a false supposition but I'll bite anyway. Your original post said that you hadn't seen the game, but that you've seen Villa capitulate after going behind in the past two years, therefore your conclusion was that having Westwood and Vlaar on the pitch would not have made any difference in the final result of the game.

 

I am summarizing because I don't feel like trawling back to quote the original post, so please correct me if I have the basic gist of your original post incorrect, or if I have missed any subtle nuances.

 

The false supposition is in the question "Did we miss Westwood [and Vlaar] during the first 30 minutes when we played well?" My answer to this question would be yes, we missed them both. In the same way that we have missed Benteke for the last several months, even though we have started the season off picking up good results without him. You yourself said earlier in this thread that you wouldn't have to watch our matches to know that we miss Benteke -- one look at our shots-on-target stats can tell you that. It's very true. We're getting along all right without him, for now, but that doesn't mean we don't miss him, of course we do.

 

Similarly, we played well in that 30 minute spell, but that doesn't mean we didn't miss our best defender and our calmest possessor of the ball (or our most clinical striker). It doesn't mean we couldn't have played better if they were there and fit. And obviously, we missed them a lot more after going behind. I will say again that although no one was particularly good on Saturday, our two poorest players were Sanchez and Clark. Clark, in particular, seemed to panic and completely forget how to play football. Sanchez was not yet ready for a start and out of necessity was thrown into the deep end, but he dwelt on the ball far too long and had it stolen away from him countless times. He also misplaced passes all over the place. I believe we would have been a lot stronger with Westwood and Vlaar in their places.

 

Here's a question for you. You said that because you've seen Villa capitulate in a similar manner in the past two years, it led you to the conclusion that things would not have been different had Westwood and Vlaar played. But have you not also seen Villa come from behind and win in the past two years? Vs. Arsenal on the first day last season, for example, or vs. City at home last season, or vs. West Brom. For a while there last season, we were actually second in the league in gaining points from a losing position (then came that horrible spell late in the season). Anyway, those wins did not seem to factor in to your opinion-forming process, so I'm curious how you choose what factors in and what doesn't.

[Brumerican]

It's shocking how many people put Sanchez in over Westwood in the "Our strongest lineup" thread .

Why? Just because Sanchez has been average in his first few games in the Premier League? People put Benteke in their 'strongest 11' too, but I'm sure they don't mean the currently injured and not match fit version.

It's not crazy to think that Sanchez could become a much better player, once he gets a few more appearances under his belt.

I just find it shocking that's all. Sanchez has done nothing of note in his entire career . He is 28 and has played for nobody , won very little (if anything?) and seems to be living off the fact that he is foreign and played at a world cup !

Westwood is 24 and has shown that he is more than capable of playing in this league . If anyone is going to get better it will be him.

I don't find it shocking. Sanchez has played (well) in a World Cup. Before Westwood made 2 seasons worth of appearances with us, he was a nobody in League 1. Given time, Sanchez could be an excellent player. People might just be thinking/hoping that he lives up to his price tag (which, for the Villa of latd, was big).

I have seen enough of Sanchez to think he could very well prove to be decent for us when up to speed but it will be along side Westwood not instead of him IMO. That is the part I find shocking.

[villan_007]

I've lost track of the pundits both ex pro's and sports journalists, the players he plays with and other teams fans that have praised westwood and said what a cracking little player he is.

 

So using that info and my own eyes I can comfortably say that woody doesn't know what he is talking about, plus he doesn't even watch games and then comments? bizarre. Catch you in this thread when he plays for England. I'll even bring the custard to smoother all over your massive slice of humble pie.

[Woodytom]

I've lost track of the pundits both ex pro's and sports journalists, the players he plays with and other teams fans that have praised westwood and said what a cracking little player he is.

So using that info and my own eyes I can comfortably say that woody doesn't know what he is talking about, plus he doesn't even watch games and then comments? bizarre. Catch you in this thread when he plays for England. I'll even bring the custard to smoother all over your massive slice of humble pie.

I lost count of all the ex pros/pundits who praised Emile Heskey. Did everyone think he was a good player? Those that didn't, did they not know what they were talking about?

He also played for England. Did that make everyone think he was a good player?

Do you think every England player is good and worthy of their place? Is that how we conclude if somebody is a player that we all have to like.

Your remark regarding me is kind of invalid anyway given that I have come on here, and praised Westwood when I believed he's played well. In the last few weeks in fact. Yet, I repeat, this happens without acknowledgement. That's ok of course, but I've kind of inherited this reputation that I hate Westwood, when in actual fact it's more that I disagree with what I believe to be over the top praise in this thread.

So il be more than happy to keep coming in here and highlighting that he didn't put a foot wrong as I did after the plop match.

I assume you are referring to my overal opinion of Westwood as I don't see how an England call up would prove that we missed him v arsenal.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Woodytom

[Woodytom]

My post that started the debate off actually highlighted that I hadn't seen the game straight off, and then asked a question? When we were playing well for 30 mins did we miss Westwood? That was it.

I didn't say I didn't see the game but nevertheless I know we didn't miss Westwood.

What I said was, that on the back of numerous media/social interactions including radio, highlights, reports etc I had come to the conclusion that the main reason for the defeat was due to the teams capitulation after the first goal. I don't believe I need to watch the game to come to that conclusion. Crikey, the goal times would tell you that.

Now, with that in mind, along with having watched Westwood for the last 2 years, I don't see any reason why Westwood would have made much difference to the capitulation that ultimately lead to the defeat. Hence why I disagree that he was badly missed as some made out.

I think that your line of reasoning is built on a false supposition but I'll bite anyway. Your original post said that you hadn't seen the game, but that you've seen Villa capitulate after going behind in the past two years, therefore your conclusion was that having Westwood and Vlaar on the pitch would not have made any difference in the final result of the game.

I am summarizing because I don't feel like trawling back to quote the original post, so please correct me if I have the basic gist of your original post incorrect, or if I have missed any subtle nuances.

The false supposition is in the question "Did we miss Westwood [and Vlaar] during the first 30 minutes when we played well?" My answer to this question would be yes, we missed them both. In the same way that we have missed Benteke for the last several months, even though we have started the season off picking up good results without him. You yourself said earlier in this thread that you wouldn't have to watch our matches to know that we miss Benteke -- one look at our shots-on-target stats can tell you that. It's very true. We're getting along all right without him, for now, but that doesn't mean we don't miss him, of course we do.

Similarly, we played well in that 30 minute spell, but that doesn't mean we didn't miss our best defender and our calmest possessor of the ball (or our most clinical striker). It doesn't mean we couldn't have played better if they were there and fit. And obviously, we missed them a lot more after going behind. I will say again that although no one was particularly good on Saturday, our two poorest players were Sanchez and Clark. Clark, in particular, seemed to panic and completely forget how to play football. Sanchez was not yet ready for a start and out of necessity was thrown into the deep end, but he dwelt on the ball far too long and had it stolen away from him countless times. He also misplaced passes all over the place. I believe we would have been a lot stronger with Westwood and Vlaar in their places.

Here's a question for you. You said that because you've seen Villa capitulate in a similar manner in the past two years, it led you to the conclusion that things would not have been different had Westwood and Vlaar played. But have you not also seen Villa come from behind and win in the past two years? Vs. Arsenal on the first day last season, for example, or vs. City at home last season, or vs. West Brom. For a while there last season, we were actually second in the league in gaining points from a losing position (then came that horrible spell late in the season). Anyway, those wins did not seem to factor in to your opinion-forming process, so I'm curious how you choose what factors in and what doesn't.

First of all - good post.

I don't disagree with anything you've said really, however you haven't really said anything that makes me believe the result would have been different - though I appreciate that perhaps wasn't your motive.

To answer your question - yes of course I consider those wins/comebacks. I consider everything: the form, where we are playing, who we are playing etc.

The wins/comebacks are far fewer than capitulations recently.

We were playing a better team

We also had a virus going through camp

We were at home where we are awful really

Form well, we were in good form but my next point discusses that a bit further:

I also consider,(and this is where I perhaps get pessimistic) the chances of our form continuing.

Before I go on, il just explain that point. This villa team, IMO (based on the averages of the last couple of decades), can/will only win a certain number of games on the bounce. For example, If we win 2/3 on the bounce, I'm automatically thinking, we ain't winning the next one simply based on the recent history of the club. We have very rarely gone 4/5 on the trot.

That example isn't really relevant to this as even a draw Would have improved the result. However, we were due a loss.

Now, that is quite a negative way to look at it, but I have very little faith in this team after the last couple of years. Perhaps I do look on things from a negative slant with an almost 'need to avoid failure' attitude. However, with that attitude towards the team I am very rarely left disappointed with bad results, as they are exactly what I am expecting.

Now that may seem strange, mad or whatever ppl might call it, but my approach is based on what I believe to be a sound interpretation of history. (By that, I mean that people can't really argue that history says we can keep good results going). And whilst, football is a game where villa can beat anyone on their day, recent history shows that we rarely have our day, whether or not Ashley Westwood is playing.

We certainly don't have our day against the big clubs, two games on the bounce.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Woodytom

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Two games on the bounce? We won the first one. Very odd choice of words.