CrackpotForeigner Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I saw this and couldn't help myself. No, this is not referring to Kozak, but the other £7million striker. —I was looking through the first impressions of Benteke. This was 2 games in I think. He just doesn't look like a player to me. 7m wasted! How am I not surprised it was morpheus that posted that? It would be less annoying if he'd actually cost 7m. Try 4 1/2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 Malta are a pub team so wouldn't read too much into it, Kozak did score last time out against Italy let's not forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted October 11, 2013 Share Posted October 11, 2013 I saw this and couldn't help myself. No, this is not referring to Kozak, but the other £7million striker. —I was looking through the first impressions of Benteke. This was 2 games in I think. He just doesn't look like a player to me. 7m wasted! How am I not surprised it was morpheus that posted that? It would be less annoying if he'd actually cost 7m. Try 4 1/2. the post was about benteke, and was made last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 the post was about benteke, and was made last year Mmm. This egg on my face tastes delicious. But still. Go back a page or two on the Helenius thread and you'll find the same poster wailing about what we could have done with the "7m" that Kozak cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I saw this and couldn't help myself. No, this is not referring to Kozak, but the other £7million striker. —I was looking through the first impressions of Benteke. This was 2 games in I think. He just doesn't look like a player to me. 7m wasted! How am I not surprised it was morpheus that posted that? I'm not surprised 'Praisedmambo' took the time to source that. Take a bow mate you finally got something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 the post was about benteke, and was made last year Mmm. This egg on my face tastes delicious. But still. Go back a page or two on the Helenius thread and you'll find the same poster wailing about what we could have done with the "7m" that Kozak cost. Stating an opinion that the money spent on another striker when we already had two in the squad as backup and farmed out another two on loan would have been better spent on, let me see, either the DM or AM identified by all on here as needed to strengthen our midfield. That is unless you have stated otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Stating an opinion that the money spent on another striker when we already had two in the squad as backup and farmed out another two on loan would have been better spent on, let me see, either the DM or AM identified by all on here as needed to strengthen our midfield. That is unless you have stated otherwise? It's possible that we could have got an AM for 4.5 million good enough to walk into the side, but pretty unlikely. Seemingly Paul Lambert and his network of professional scouts felt the same way. It's possible that they were wrong and you're right. Can you think of any really good AM's who moved to clubs the size of Villa in the summer for that sort of fee? I can't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandaq Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Now that I would like to see. There was that boudebouz guy but would he pull up trees? Kiyotake would probably have a good effect, still doing good in germany. Too expensive but seems like he was right on that one. Hope he gets next summer, if not this january if the opportunity is there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course Who would you have signed as cover then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course HairyHands said 4.5 categorically. 4.5 is about 7m Euros. Hmmmmm....... It's not as though Lazio are going to contradict anyone. Their fans will want to hear as high a figure as possible. Edited October 12, 2013 by CrackpotForeigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course Who would you have signed as cover then? Cover wasn't needed at the expense of a hole in the starting eleven. The fact is that you concentrate on building as good a team as possible before you start spending big amounts of squad players. Secondly, the only reason that we needed cover is because Lambert clearly can only play with a target man up front. Weimann, Gabby and Helenius could have occupied the main forward role in Benteke's absence but obviously that would've meant Lambert deploying tactics where hoofing it to the big man isn't an option. Edited October 12, 2013 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course Who would you have signed as cover then? Cover wasn't needed at the expense of a hole in the starting eleven. The fact is that you concentrate on building as good a team as possible before you start spending big amounts of squad players. Secondly, the only reason that we needed cover is because Lambert clearly can only play with a target man up front. Weimann, Gabby and Helenius could have occupied the main forward role in Benteke's absence but obviously that would've meant Lambert deploying tactics where hoofing it to the big man isn't an option. I'd say the start of the season and the 7 points out of nine since Benteke was injured suggests otherwise. We also had great form since January, which also suggests there isn't necessarily a pressing hole in the starting 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I saw this and couldn't help myself. No, this is not referring to Kozak, but the other £7million striker. —I was looking through the first impressions of Benteke. This was 2 games in I think. He just doesn't look like a player to me. 7m wasted! How am I not surprised it was morpheus that posted that? I'm not surprised 'Praisedmambo' took the time to source that. Take a bow mate you finally got something right. Ha I promise you it took me less time than you took to find the gif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ?Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of courseWho would you have signed as cover then?Cover wasn't needed at the expense of a hole in the starting eleven. The fact is that you concentrate on building as good a team as possible before you start spending big amounts of squad players.Secondly, the only reason that we needed cover is because Lambert clearly can only play with a target man up front. Weimann, Gabby and Helenius could have occupied the main forward role in Benteke's absence but obviously that would've meant Lambert deploying tactics where hoofing it to the big man isn't an option.Oh dear 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 I saw this and couldn't help myself. No, this is not referring to Kozak, but the other £7million striker. —I was looking through the first impressions of Benteke. This was 2 games in I think. He just doesn't look like a player to me. 7m wasted! How am I not surprised it was morpheus that posted that? I'm not surprised 'Praisedmambo' took the time to source that. Take a bow mate you finally got something right. Ha I promise you it took me less time than you took to find the gif. I wouldn't doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest av1 Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Some absolute idiots in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 Stating an opinion that the money spent on another striker when we already had two in the squad as backup and farmed out another two on loan would have been better spent on, let me see, either the DM or AM identified by all on here as needed to strengthen our midfield. That is unless you have stated otherwise? It's possible that we could have got an AM for 4.5 million good enough to walk into the side, but pretty unlikely. Seemingly Paul Lambert and his network of professional scouts felt the same way. It's possible that they were wrong and you're right. Can you think of any really good AM's who moved to clubs the size of Villa in the summer for that sort of fee? I can't. If you had sourced my previous posts correctly you would have noted that i made reference to two players. One at 7m and another at 1.5m one of whom hasn't played much. If the fee for Kozak was less than 7m fair enough but it doesn't excuse the fact that we did have cover in the forward positions and Kozak isn't a Benteke replacement meaning that we are not as reliant on playing one system as many had though and we could have used those other available forwards. I also don't pertain to know more than the scouting network at the club but i do find it difficult to understand when on a limited budget we spent anything from 4.5m-7m on another forward having already sent two out on loan and had two others to choose from. If it's the opinion of the manager that Helenius isn't yet good enough to start then why buy him in the first place when he already had purchased Bowery to develop? Thats why i have criticised the allocation of limited funding and will continue to do so whether it upsets your blinkered view of the present manager or not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 12, 2013 Share Posted October 12, 2013 (edited) Where has this 4.5m fee appeared from ? Everywhere i read said 7m. Not that he looks worth either fee as yet of course Who would you have signed as cover then?Cover wasn't needed at the expense of a hole in the starting eleven. The fact is that you concentrate on building as good a team as possible before you start spending big amounts of squad players. Secondly, the only reason that we needed cover is because Lambert clearly can only play with a target man up front. Weimann, Gabby and Helenius could have occupied the main forward role in Benteke's absence but obviously that would've meant Lambert deploying tactics where hoofing it to the big man isn't an option.I'd say the start of the season and the 7 points out of nine since Benteke was injured suggests otherwise. We also had great form since January, which also suggests there isn't necessarily a pressing hole in the starting 11. No we've been in mid-table form since January. If that is 'great' in your opinion then good for you. However our home form has remained very poor and as has been argued to death, this is mainly because we cannot break teams down. Also, your argument about our last three games doesn't really prove anything as we don't know what results we would've got had we played with one of the aforementioned players as the main striker instead of Kozak. Edited October 13, 2013 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heid3ster Posted October 13, 2013 Share Posted October 13, 2013 If it's the opinion of the manager that Helenius isn't yet good enough to start then why buy him in the first place when he already had purchased Bowery to develop? Because they're different types of players filling different roles. They are forwards but that's about all they have in common. It's like asking "Why bring in Benteke when we already have Agbonlahor?" Different attributes to fill different holes in the squad. There's very little that's similar about Bowery and Helenius. Bowery is a big powerful guy, good at holding up the ball and battling with big defenders, handy for taking the ball down to the corner flag when trying to hold on to a lead. Helenius is tall but better with the ball at his feet than in the air, can play in the hole to lay off balls to the main man or run onto rebounds. They will develop differently and into different types of players. I think Kozak was brought in to be a long term replacement for Benteke and I think he will play in a similar role to Benteke. He is still getting used to his teammates and the league and isn't ready to be that guy just yet, but we all know Benteke will be off next year (much as we'd all like him to stay). Kozak has a year to bed in with the squad and grow into that role. He stepped into the shoes a bit early due to the injury and he isn't the finished article yet, but it took Benteke several games to find his feet in the league too. My expectation is that Kozak spends this year bedding in, getting used to the league, getting game time up top with Benteke or off the bench, occasional starts for when Benteke's tired or injured or suspended (the way he throws elbows around he'll be bound to miss a match or two), and he'll be ready to lead the line next season. Helenius and Bowery will probably take a little longer to break into the first team. Bowery might never get there, to be honest, he may never be anything more than a squad player, but the money we spent on these two players, around 1.3m, would not have gotten us too far in the market -- even if you combined that with the Kozak money, for a combined total of about 6m. We would not have been able to bring in the AM we all crave for that kind of money, at least not one ready to go straight into the first team. In Helenius, I think we have a guy who has a very bright future, but that future might be a couple of seasons off still. I thought it was smart to bring Kozak in this year and give him a whole season to bed in, and I think it will pay off in the long run. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts