Nicklas Helenius

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

Thought he was purchased to replace the alienated Bent. Not sure now why he was purchased when we could have used the money elsewhere. Strange signing.

 

We signed two of Denmark's hottest prospects, a striker and a centre back, for about £5m combined.

 

Where else would you have used the estimated £1m spent on Helenius?

 

The money we spent on both Helenius and Kozak should have either gone towards a quality DM or AM. With Benteke injured Gabby could have played the loan front role until Benteke was fit again.

 

So who would you have played against Man city, when they were both injured?

 

Maybe your forgetting about Weimann or that other forward who can't seem to get a game in his normal position.

[Morpheus]

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

 

 

 

 

Thought he was purchased to replace the alienated Bent. Not sure now why he was purchased when we could have used the money elsewhere. Strange signing.

 

We signed two of Denmark's hottest prospects, a striker and a centre back, for about £5m combined.

 

Where else would you have used the estimated £1m spent on Helenius?

 

The money we spent on both Helenius and Kozak should have either gone towards a quality DM or AM. With Benteke injured Gabby could have played the loan front role until Benteke was fit again.

 

So who would you have played against Man city, when they were both injured?

 

Maybe your forgetting about Weimann or that other forward who can't seem to get a game in his normal position.

 

 

I'm not forgetting Weimann. You do realise he played against man city?

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

Ultimately we'll all have different opinions on who should be bought, sold, kept, played, given new contracts, never be allowed to wear the shirt again etc but we've got to realise that we are basing our opinions on a very limited knowledge. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes on in the background to produce the finished product on the pitch, none of which we're privvy to.

 

The obvious improvements this season, which include beating Man City with four players injured who would have all been expected to play had they been fit, would indicate that the person who can see the full picture knows what he's doing.

[ChrisVillan]

Is this a serious conversation?

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

Is this a serious conversation?

Is that a serious question?

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

 

Thought he was purchased to replace the alienated Bent. Not sure now why he was purchased when we could have used the money elsewhere. Strange signing.

 

We signed two of Denmark's hottest prospects, a striker and a centre back, for about £5m combined.

 

Where else would you have used the estimated £1m spent on Helenius?

 

The money we spent on both Helenius and Kozak should have either gone towards a quality DM or AM. With Benteke injured Gabby could have played the loan front role until Benteke was fit again.

 

So who would you have played against Man city, when they were both injured?

 

Maybe your forgetting about Weimann or that other forward who can't seem to get a game in his normal position.

 

 

I'm not forgetting Weimann. You do realise he played against man city?

 

And do you realise that managers and football teams can actually play different formations?

Edited October 5, 2013 by Morpheus

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

Ultimately we'll all have different opinions on who should be bought, sold, kept, played, given new contracts, never be allowed to wear the shirt again etc but we've got to realise that we are basing our opinions on a very limited knowledge. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes on in the background to produce the finished product on the pitch, none of which we're privvy to.

 

The obvious improvements this season, which include beating Man City with four players injured who would have all been expected to play had they been fit, would indicate that the person who can see the full picture knows what he's doing.

 

I didn't mention Kiyotake. Didn't we beat Man City last season and yet we still struggled which would suggest would it not that you cannot base improvement on one result alone and then ignore whats gone on before.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Morpheus

[praisedmambo]

OMG Morpheus. Cheer up old chum. 

[Ghost_of_Pongo_Waring]

 

 

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

Ultimately we'll all have different opinions on who should be bought, sold, kept, played, given new contracts, never be allowed to wear the shirt again etc but we've got to realise that we are basing our opinions on a very limited knowledge. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes on in the background to produce the finished product on the pitch, none of which we're privvy to.

 

The obvious improvements this season, which include beating Man City with four players injured who would have all been expected to play had they been fit, would indicate that the person who can see the full picture knows what he's doing.

 

I didn't mention Kiyotake. Didn't we beat Man City last season and yet we still struggled which would suggest would it not that you cannot base improvement on one result alone and then ignore whats gone on before.

 

 

Cup games are not necessarily an indication of league performance and we didn't beat man city in the league last season.

 

I'm not basing the obvious improvement on one match though. We've played six games, four of which have been against sides expected to be challenging for at least Champions league places. Despite an extremely tough set of fixtures we've got nine points and a positive goal difference.

 

"And do you realise that managers and football teams can actually play different formations?"  ..... yes, as we did last week when the team that included Kozak beat Man City.

[VillaChris]

Don't understand why he's behind Bowery in the pecking order.

 

He's looked o.k to me in his little cameos and should've earned us a penalty and red card v Spurs.

[mikeyp102]

Don't understand why he's behind Bowery in the pecking order.

He's looked o.k to me in his little cameos and should've earned us a penalty and red card v Spurs.

Wasn't he ill today?

[VillaChris]

Ah fair enough didn't know that.

[samjp26]

 

 

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

Ultimately we'll all have different opinions on who should be bought, sold, kept, played, given new contracts, never be allowed to wear the shirt again etc but we've got to realise that we are basing our opinions on a very limited knowledge. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes on in the background to produce the finished product on the pitch, none of which we're privvy to.

 

The obvious improvements this season, which include beating Man City with four players injured who would have all been expected to play had they been fit, would indicate that the person who can see the full picture knows what he's doing.

 

I didn't mention Kiyotake. Didn't we beat Man City last season and yet we still struggled which would suggest would it not that you cannot base improvement on one result alone and then ignore whats gone on before.

 

 

Our like-for-like points and GD are improved heavily over the fixtures played so far compared to last season, it isn't just "we improved because we beat City."

 

We did indeed beat City last season, in the cup of course, but it is evident that we have improved (as I said already) over all of our fixtures.

 

It is an actual fact too, so you can't really deny it.

 

I know people love to be negative but when it is obvious that we have improved SO FAR in the columns on the table that matter, I don't really see any benefit coming from complaining. I won't be judging us just yet but so far, so good.

Edited October 5, 2013 by samjp26

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

Ultimately we'll all have different opinions on who should be bought, sold, kept, played, given new contracts, never be allowed to wear the shirt again etc but we've got to realise that we are basing our opinions on a very limited knowledge. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes on in the background to produce the finished product on the pitch, none of which we're privvy to.

 

The obvious improvements this season, which include beating Man City with four players injured who would have all been expected to play had they been fit, would indicate that the person who can see the full picture knows what he's doing.

 

I didn't mention Kiyotake. Didn't we beat Man City last season and yet we still struggled which would suggest would it not that you cannot base improvement on one result alone and then ignore whats gone on before.

 

 

Cup games are not necessarily an indication of league performance and we didn't beat man city in the league last season.

 

I'm not basing the obvious improvement on one match though. We've played six games, four of which have been against sides expected to be challenging for at least Champions league places. Despite an extremely tough set of fixtures we've got nine points and a positive goal difference.

 

"And do you realise that managers and football teams can actually play different formations?"  ..... yes, as we did last week when the team that included Kozak beat Man City.

 

And neither is one game in the Premiership that you originally made reference to.

 

I'd also like you to point out where i've stated that there hasn't been any improvement this season?

 

My reference to change of formation was directed at Weimann when you suggested injury to Gabby and Benteke.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Morpheus

[Morpheus]

 

 

 

Who isn't playing for a first team that badly needed strengthening after a flirtation with relegation on a limited budget.

 

 

Last season we had to play all the new players pretty much straight away. This season we've the opportunity to introduce them more gradually.

 

Just because he's not been thrown in at the deep end from day one does not mean he's not needed or not good enough. A squad needs depth, as last saturdays game shows with Gabby and benteke both out injured.

 

I didn't say he wasn't good enough and i may be mistaken but haven't we sent two strikers out on loan.

 

Delfouneso has done nothing to show he's good enough at this level and Bent does not fit our style of play at all.

 

Helenius and Kozak give us both depth and options. There is also nothing, at all, in anyway, that suggests that not buying these two players would have meant buying players in other positions. The reports from the club were that we'd looked at an AM, an enquiry was at least made about Kiyotake, but that no player was available for the price we were willing to pay. That doesn't mean that we don't have the ability to pay the price but we were unwilling to pay the amounts wanted.

 

 

Missed both the above points the first time around so would like to reply to them now.

 

Delfouneso hasn't shown any less than what Bowery has shown and Bent wasn't given a fair crack by Lambert no matter what system we played.

 

Concerning your point that there's nothing to suggest if we hadn't spent the money on Helenius and Kozak that we would have spent it elsewhere. HH has already suggested that Lambert wasn't backed on all of his targets so the manager was obviously trying to spend his full budget. I do not therefore agree that part of that limited budget should have been spent on two players one of whom isn't ready for the first team and the other cost 7m when we had sent an experienced goalscorer out on loan who incidentally scored again today.

 

Which did we need more. 8m on two forwards when we had ample cover in those positions or a quality DM/AM?  

[AaB-Aalborg]

A danish media had a little interview with Helenius the other day. Some of the key points:
- He is happy with the start in Villa and is surprised and pleased he has already been given the chance to play a few times

- He says that the pace of the game has been the biggest change from danish football and he still needs to adapt a bit - but feels confident, as he experienced the same thing/feel when he was moved up to the Aalborg senior squad and pretty quickly adapted

- He feels that he should have been given a penalty against Tottenham and would have liked to score his first goal. He states that he has both been praised for staying on his feet in the episode while others have criticised that he did not just fall to the ground

[praisedmambo]

 

Missed both the above points the first time around so would like to reply to them now.

 

 

Delfouneso hasn't shown any less than what Bowery has shown and Bent wasn't given a fair crack by Lambert no matter what system we played.

 

Concerning your point that there's nothing to suggest if we hadn't spent the money on Helenius and Kozak that we would have spent it elsewhere. HH has already suggested that Lambert wasn't backed on all of his targets so the manager was obviously trying to spend his full budget. I do not therefore agree that part of that limited budget should have been spent on two players one of whom isn't ready for the first team and the other cost 7m when we had sent an experienced goalscorer out on loan who incidentally scored again today.

 

Which did we need more. 8m on two forwards when we had ample cover in those positions or a quality DM/AM?  

 

 

This is for you Morpheus: http://www.clubcall.com/fulham/boss-reassures-striker-over-role-1647015.html

 

Looks like Jol appreciates Bent's limitations too. Honestly, and I mean this constructively, your argument above makes it seem you see all 'forwards' as simply 'forwards'.

 

Lambert clearly likes the big man up front - he had Holt, he has Benteke and now Kozak too. The other forwards all have different skills. You can't put someone like Michael Owen up front to replace Benteke. I'm sorry if that seems blindingly obvious, but the way you argue above makes it seem like you don't get it at all. Buying Kozak has allowed us to cover for Benteke's injury and maintain the shape of our team, and to be fair we've got 7 points from the three premiership games where Benteke has been injured. In those games Kozak has scored once and assisted for Weimann against Manchester City. I say this because I really do clearly find some of your views frustrating, because I cannot understand how you come to some of your conclusions: you argue as if there was no logic behind what Lambert did in signing Kozak. The proof, they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is those seven points out of nine we just won in the league.

 

I think you're getting like Con was to Bannan with regards to Darren Bent. I have to say Con has turned his virtual Villatalk existence around recently. Maybe you still have hope, eh.

 

And I don't think you'll find a single Villa supporter not disappointed that we didn't sign an AM, but don't pretend there is no logic in buying Kozak. And don't pretend Darren Bent is the answer. We've all seen him play, and we all understand he is a limited player on massive wages - exactly the sort of player who is holding back the club.

 

As for Delfouneso: I have seen you moan about almost every player and person at this club, and yet you start suggesting Delfouneso should be used!! The boy has had his chances, and sad to say it doesn't look hopeful for him. He's lightweight anyway. I can see that Bowery, at least, adds physicality and presence up front, which can be a useful addition to the squad. As has been pointed out Bowery has featured sparingly, but when he has played he has done his job effectively - he has played well, even - and he is still a young player too - a young VILLA player - when Bowery has played we have got good results. All the evidence suggests you might do best by yourself - and the messageboard would be a little bit brighter and more pleasant - if you lightened up a bit. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but look: Kozak and Bowery have contributed to Aston Villa's progress under Lambert already, more than Delfouneso can.

 

A bit of patience and someday soon you will get your attacking midfielder. These things do take time. Look at United and Arsenal and how tough those top 4 clubs struggled to bring in certain players.

 

As for Helenius, we spent one million on him, and he is a young player. Signing Helenius had nothing to do with not signing an AM.

Edited October 11, 2013 by praisedmambo

[bannedfromHandV]

OMG Morpheus. Cheer up old chum.

Tis a lost cause

[Jonoridge91]

 

 

Missed both the above points the first time around so would like to reply to them now.

 

 

Delfouneso hasn't shown any less than what Bowery has shown and Bent wasn't given a fair crack by Lambert no matter what system we played.

 

Concerning your point that there's nothing to suggest if we hadn't spent the money on Helenius and Kozak that we would have spent it elsewhere. HH has already suggested that Lambert wasn't backed on all of his targets so the manager was obviously trying to spend his full budget. I do not therefore agree that part of that limited budget should have been spent on two players one of whom isn't ready for the first team and the other cost 7m when we had sent an experienced goalscorer out on loan who incidentally scored again today.

 

Which did we need more. 8m on two forwards when we had ample cover in those positions or a quality DM/AM?  

 

 

This is for you Morpheus: http://www.clubcall.com/fulham/boss-reassures-striker-over-role-1647015.html

 

Looks like Jol appreciates Bent's limitations too. Honestly, and I mean this constructively, your argument above makes it seem you see all 'forwards' as simply 'forwards'.

 

Lambert clearly likes the big man up front - he had Holt, he has Benteke and now Kozak too. The other forwards all have different skills. You can't put someone like Michael Owen up front to replace Benteke. I'm sorry if that seems blindingly obvious, but the way you argue above makes it seem like you don't get it at all. Buying Kozak has allowed us to cover for Benteke's injury and maintain the shape of our team, and to be fair we've got 7 points from the three premiership games where Benteke has been injured. In those games Kozak has scored once and assisted for Weimann against Manchester City. I say this because I really do clearly find some of your views frustrating, because I cannot understand how you come to some of your conclusions: you argue as if there was no logic behind what Lambert did in signing Kozak. The proof, they say, is in the pudding, and in this case the pudding is those seven points out of nine we just won in the league.

 

I think you're getting like Con was to Bannan with regards to Darren Bent. I have to say Con has turned his virtual Villatalk existence around recently. Maybe you still have hope, eh.

 

And I don't think you'll find a single Villa supporter not disappointed that we didn't sign an AM, but don't pretend there is no logic in buying Kozak. And don't pretend Darren Bent is the answer. We've all seen him play, and we all understand he is a limited player on massive wages - exactly the sort of player who is holding back the club.

 

As for Delfouneso: I have seen you moan about almost every player and person at this club, and yet you start suggesting Delfouneso should be used!! The boy has had his chances, and sad to say it doesn't look hopeful for him. He's lightweight anyway. I can see that Bowery, at least, adds physicality and presence up front, which can be a useful addition to the squad. As has been pointed out Bowery has featured sparingly, but when he has played he has done his job effectively - he has played well, even - and he is still a young player too - a young VILLA player - when Bowery has played we have got good results. All the evidence suggests you might do best by yourself - and the messageboard would be a little bit brighter and more pleasant - if you lightened up a bit. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but look: Kozak and Bowery have contributed to Aston Villa's progress under Lambert already, more than Delfouneso can.

 

A bit of patience and someday soon you will get your attacking midfielder. These things do take time. Look at United and Arsenal and how tough those top 4 clubs struggled to bring in certain players.

 

As for Helenius, we spent one million on him, and he is a young player. Signing Helenius had nothing to do with not signing an AM.

 

 

Couldn't agree more with this post. So much sense spoken here.

 

In regards to the AM creative midfielder role at least we were enquiring about a lot of players. The price was just too much and didn't match our valuation of the players like Kiyotake for example, which would of been a big risk at £10million considering he's only had one good season himself and even then he'd need to adapt to the Premier League which often is proven not an easy task. This isn't that Football Manager game and I think more than half the time some fans just want us to sign players left right and centre without thinking about anything. It's rather laughable.