Villa Signings and General Rumours Thread

shoutman

I agree with Savman. Up until Saturday, Knight surpassed all my expectations of him. He was very reliable at the back and himslef and Laursen have nulified any opposition who wanted to play route one football against us. Yes he had a shocker on Saturday and to be honest I think he should be dropped but at the same time many peoples reactions are over the top.

Raekwon

shoutman wrote:

I agree with Savman. Up until Saturday, Knight surpassed all my expectations of him. He was very reliable at the back and himslef and Laursen have nulified any opposition who wanted to play route one football against us. Yes he had a shocker on Saturday and to be honest I think he should be dropped but at the same time many peoples reactions are over the top.

I'll have to disagree with both of you here. I hate to single players out & I haven't until now (Harewood aside), but Zat Knight is clearly a liability in a very important position. Okay he had a decent debut against Chelsea, capped by a good goal, but what has he done since that game? Knight has played in every game since his debut, that’s 2 wins, 1 draw & 3 defeats with 10 goals conceded. IMO Knight was to blame for the vast majority of those goals. That might sound harsh but that facts don't lie. Okay I will be asked to back up this claim so here goes:

Man City 1 - 0 Villa: As Michael Johnson cuts into the Villa box, Zat Knight rashly goes to ground with a lundging tackle that Johnson easily avoids, enabling him to get a clear sight on goal and deliver a low drive past Carson's out stretched right arm into the bottom left corner of the Villa net.

Villa 0 -1 Leicester: DJ Campbell slipped a ball between Zat Knight's legs for Matt Fryatt to break away and fire an angled shot inside Stuart Taylor’s left-hand post. (Villa are subsequently knocked out of probably our best route into European football by a team that are propping up the Championship table).

Tottenham 4 - 4 Villa: For Tottenham's second goal Zat Knight makes a lazy effort to cut out Garth Bale's left wing cross then stands on the left hand side of the six yard box (totally out of position) looking on as the unmarked Jermaine Defoe's shot cannons off the near post and fall's to Pascal Chimbonda to get and unchallenged goal at the far post.

For Tottenham's last gasp equalizer Zat Knight (instead of staying on his feet and getting his 6'6 frame to block the shot) went to ground with a half hearted left foot tackle but he had already given Younes Kaboul too much space and the Tottenham defender slammed home into the top left of the Villa goal.

Villa 1 - 4 Man Utd: For Utd's first goal Zat Knight inexplicably allowed Nani's cross to drift across the face of goal, and Rooney arrived at the far post to score with a simple side-footed finish.

For Utd's second Knight was again at fault as Rooney put United in front two minutes before half-time, getting caught out of position as Tevez's clever pass played in the England striker for a composed strike past Carson. (Btw Laursen's reaction towards Knight says it all really).

Considering that Martin Laursen is probably the player of the season for Villa so far further highlights Zat Knights ineptness at the heart of our defence. It is true that Villa have had two clean sheets with Knight in the side (at home to Everton & West Ham) but I think that would have more to do with the oppositions fortune infront of goal coupled with Laursen's tower presence then anything else. A good example of this was against West Ham. Carlton Cole ran rings around Zat Knight all afternoon but it was the fact that Cole couldn't hit a barn door with a snipers rifle that keep him off the score sheet not Knights defending. Hopefully Curtis Davis will be given a long over due runout.

Bounty Hunter

Zat Knight was bought as a squad player, a ridgewell replacement and slight improvement IMO not as a starter. Davies was signed as a starter, otherwise they would not have even considerd having an 8+mil option on him. However Davies was unfit and Knight signed earlier so got a start against Chesea in which he had a blinder and scored. This meant he was given a run in the team, a run which may have ended earlier if Davies hadnt to his own admission looked like a pub team player in his one outing in the claret and blue against Leicster in the league cup.

Now that Knight has had his worst Villa showing albeit against the champions, its time davies is given a second chance. hopefully he will prove that he is the player that both Spurs and Arsenal thought could be a future England international and will form a strong pairing with Laursen while knight goes back to being a backup player.

Savman

Raekwon wrote: »

I
Man City 1 - 0 Villa: As Michael Johnson cuts into the Villa box, Zat Knight rashly goes to ground with a lundging tackle that Johnson easily avoids, enabling him to get a clear sight on goal and deliver a low drive past Carson's out stretched right arm into the bottom left corner of the Villa net.

And Michael Johnson is a striker? Nope, he's a central midfielder. Where was Barry or Reo-Coker? Chasing his shadow, leaving the defence exposed.

Villa 0 -1 Leicester: DJ Campbell slipped a ball between Zat Knight's legs for Matt Fryatt to break away and fire an angled shot inside Stuart Taylor’s left-hand post. (Villa are subsequently knocked out of probably our best route into European football by a team that are propping up the Championship table).

Oh c'mon, this dreadful performance cannot be blamed on one player. The entire 11 were awful that night. We should have put away our chances so any goal Leicester got was only a consolation. The result was not Knight's fault.

Tottenham 4 - 4 Villa: For Tottenham's second goal Zat Knight makes a lazy effort to cut out Garth Bale's left wing cross then stands on the left hand side of the six yard box (totally out of position) looking on as the unmarked Jermaine Defoe's shot cannons off the near post and fall's to Pascal Chimbonda to get and unchallenged goal at the far post.

Firstly, Bale is a LB/LW and was terrorising us all night. You should point the finger of blame here at either Gardner or Mellberg who failed to control him. Last time I checked Chimbonda isn't a Striker, so again where was Barry and NRC? Any last ditch tackles by Knight on players he is not marking is not his fault.

For Tottenham's last gasp equalizer Zat Knight (instead of staying on his feet and getting his 6'6 frame to block the shot) went to ground with a half hearted left foot tackle but he had already given Younes Kaboul too much space and the Tottenham defender slammed home into the top left of the Villa goal.

Again, Kaboul is not a striker. Where was our player who was marking Kaboul? Why wasnt he tracked?
Did Knight give away the Penalty? No, that was Deadhead. Did Knight leave Berbatov unmarked for the first goal? No, that was Mr Perfect Laursen.

Villa 1 - 4 Man Utd: For Utd's first goal Zat Knight inexplicably allowed Nani's cross to drift across the face of goal, and Rooney arrived at the far post to score with a simple side-footed finish.

For Utd's second Knight was again at fault as Rooney put United in front two minutes before half-time, getting caught out of position as Tevez's clever pass played in the England striker for a composed strike past Carson. (Btw Laursen's reaction towards Knight says it all really).

It would appear Knight was at fault here, no argument as I already said, but Mellberg has come out on record on the OS saying there was a breakdown in communication between the Back 4 and Carson.

I could go thru the entire team picking out where certain players did badly. Hell even Ashley Young and Agbonlahor had a couple of quiet games where they did nothing. But apparently it's not yet ok to criticize the cool kids. Knight is an easy scapegoat simply because a lot of fans were none to excited at his last minute signing so will chime in at the first sign of a bad game.

It serves no positive means to berate our own players, you can put whatever spin you want onto his performances but in any I've seen on d'telly he has looked solid.

One Cold Hand

Savman wrote: »

That's harsh. A bad display against a team like Man U will always provoke knee jerk reactions. Knight has been decent and fairly consistent since the end of August. It's highly likely Davies will get his run now, so its up to him to grab his chance.

All I'm saying is he'll soon realise those lapses in concentration will get him benched, I've no argument there, but let's not start giving the guy stick. He could bounce back and bail us out when needed.

I wouldn't be surprised if MON doesn't drop him next week and gives him the chance to redeem himself and prove his worth.

I may have worded it a bit harshly, but I still think he's terrible. He was terrible at Fulham. He improved *slightly* at Villa for a few games, but I think we'll see him back to his usual self (unless he's dropped)

Savman

One Cold Hand wrote: »

I may have worded it a bit harshly, but I still think he's terrible. He was terrible at Fulham. He improved *slightly* at Villa for a few games, but I think we'll see him back to his usual self (unless he's dropped)

He does have a bad rep as a defender and I'll admit I never watched him at Fulham so knew very little about him before he signed so I'm just going on what I've seen so far this season. I doubt he'll go back to his "usual self" at Villa, reason being he knows that there's a younger, potentially better, hungry-er version waiting in the wings. That will surely keep him on his toes.

I'm just saying its not all doom and gloom, if Knight gets dropped, Davies comes in, Cahil comes back off loan, Knight has to knuckle down so hopefully when he does get in the team we only see the best of him and he can leave his error prone days behind him.

But I'd defo like to get a good look at Davies in there.

Raekwon

Savman wrote:

I could go thru the entire team picking out where certain players did badly. Hell even Ashley Young and Agbonlahor had a couple of quiet games where they did nothing. But apparently it's not yet ok to criticize the cool kids. Knight is an easy scapegoat simply because a lot of fans were none to excited at his last minute signing so will chime in at the first sign of a bad game.

It serves no positive means to berate our own players, you can put whatever spin you want onto his performances but in any I've seen on d'telly he has looked solid.

Savman, as I have already said, I don't usually pick out certain players and criticise them but in the case of Zat Knight I feel it needs to be said, I am simply calling a spade a spade. At the end of the day his performances have been consistently below par and it is simply not good enough and he should be dropped.

I think I put forward a clear argument to highlight Knight's shortcomings but I have to say that your counter arguments are paper thin. I haven't put any spin on my arguments like you have implied, the facts quite frankly speak for themselves. Knight is a fifth choice centre half (behind Laursen, Mellberg, Davis & Cahill) and is constantly showing why he that far down the pecking order on weekly basis.

You say nobody wants to criticise the cool kids, but why should we??? Gabby & Young had a few bad games this season but they always bounce back well and they are an intricate part of a great team that is slowly taking shape.

You then say that Knight is an easy scapegoat because the fans were none to excited at his last minute signing? I don't think anybody can truly judge a player before they actually see him play, but seeing Knight play for the last six games has made it clear in my mind that he is just not good enough. Anyway, everybody jumped on Harewood's back before he kicked a ball in anger, you included, so your argument about berating are own players doesn't really hold much weight to be honest.

Finally Knight was clearly at fault for a number of goals regardless of the playing position of the opponents scoring player. It's not really rocket science. If a midfielder gets through into our box and Knight is between him and the goalkeeper then it is Knights duty to dispose the player of the ball and clear the danger. Another key part of a centre backs role is to command their area, communicate clearly with other players (keeper included) and have the ability to read the game well. Knight fails miserably on all of these counts.

Savman

I was in disbelief at the Harewood signing, but once he came on I was willing to give the guy a chance. But the Spurs performance confirmed what I already knew.
Maybe you're saying the same thing about Knight, its just that I don't see it. He may not have been setting the world alight but I don't think he's been awful either. A post on the Villa message board sums it up for me: a couple of decent games, couple of average games and one horror show.

I completely disagree with you on the job of a Central Defender, how you can suggest Knight (or any defender) is at fault for goals coming from opposition Midfield players makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but if we're going down that route at least try and be fair and balanced and take the whole team into view. At least then it won't look suspiciously like singling out one player to be a scapegoat.

I just watched the Man U match highlights on the official site, first goal was a serious error in judgment by Knight, no question whatsoever. Second one he lost his man inside the box, an absolute cardinal sin for a Defender worse still when you're playing against someone like Wayne Rooney. Once ManU got ahead, let's be honest it was always gonna be game over. The 3rd goal, somebody left Ferdinand free in the box. Suppose that's Knight's fault too? If you ask me, Gardner made a complete hash of the clearance. You can see him getting in the way of Bouma, who -being a left footer- would have put the ball into the fooking stands.

I'm sure Knight is big enough, physically and metaphorically, to accept the blame for that showing. I just don't see what can be gained by getting on his case. The only thing he could be guilty of is playing above himself but you can't start giving someone stick just for being average. He's doing his best, if that's not good enough then the onus is on O'Neill to drop him or improve him over time. I think playing alongside Laursen can only be a good thing for some like Knight or indeed Davies.

We can dwindle on where things went wrong against ManU, or we can put it to bed as a bad day at the office. I just hope that next time Laursen makes a mistake and costs us a goal that the fans are equally as quick to jump on his back. But I doubt it, and that's the sentiments behind the "cool kids" comment. Some players are popular and takes a lot of bad games to get stick, other players are not so popular and get stick at the first available opportunity. Such is human nature, especially in football when its someone you may not be too fond for whatever reason.

I'm not suggesting that's why you're on Knight's case and I see where you're coming from, but I do think perhaps you're letting his reputation at Fulham impair your balanced judgement of his performances at Villa, which so far have been mostly good-ish.

Xavi6

http://www.football365.com/mediawatch/0,17033,8749_2817527,00.html

'Ex-Man United ace Eric Djemba-Djemba, who made around £4million from English football, has gone bust, is was revealed yesterday. The Cameroon international, said to owe cash to Aston Villa, another former club, has been declared bankrupt. His agent, Charles Collymore, said it followed "an accumulation of problems over a long time." - The Sun.

At least John Arne Riise was playing football when he went bust.

Bounty Hunter

always felt we deserved a refund as he was "not fit for purpose intended" but i wonder what he owes Villa money for.

Raekwon

Savman wrote:

I completely disagree with you on the job of a Central Defender, how you can suggest Knight (or any defender) is at fault for goals coming from opposition Midfield players makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but if we're going down that route at least try and be fair and balanced and take the whole team into view. At least then it won't look suspiciously like singling out one player to be a scapegoat.

If you don't know that a central defenders sole purpose is too defend his area and give adequate cover to their goalkeeper then my argument is obviously lost on you. I also openly admitted that I am singling out Zat Knight. I don't usually agree with singling out players and I have stood by while others here have lambasted players like Petrov on this thread but I felt I couldn't stand by while people where claiming that Knight had only one bad game.

Savman wrote:

The 3rd goal, somebody left Ferdinand free in the box. Suppose that's Knight's fault too? If you ask me, Gardner made a complete hash of the clearance. You can see him getting in the way of Bouma, who -being a left footer- would have put the ball into the fooking stands.

Well if you look closer at Utd's third goal you will see that when Nani's corner was swung in Zat Knight's late reaction let Gerard Pique get a free header on goal (which Young cleared off the line). Knight then stood on the penalty spot while a midfielder and left back nearly fell over each other trying to clear the danger. So if I was to be extremely critical I could say that Knights lax defending caused the original danger but the rest was down to pure comical error. Put it this way, if Knight had won the header and the ball got cleared then the ref would have blown for halftime.

Savman wrote:

We can dwindle on where things went wrong against ManU, or we can put it to bed as a bad day at the office. I just hope that next time Laursen makes a mistake and costs us a goal that the fans are equally as quick to jump on his back. But I doubt it, and that's the sentiments behind the "cool kids" comment. Some players are popular and takes a lot of bad games to get stick, other players are not so popular and get stick at the first available opportunity. Such is human nature, especially in football when its someone you may not be too fond for whatever reason.

I'm not suggesting that's why you're on Knight's case and I see where you're coming from, but I do think perhaps you're letting his reputation at Fulham impair your balanced judgement of his performances at Villa, which so far have been mostly good-ish.

The difference between Laursen and Knight are an ocean wide. Laursen (when fit) is a managers wet dream of a centre half. The guy is a born leader who commands his area brilliantly and wins 99% of his aerial duals. Plus the fact that he has just come back from the brink with a career-ending injury to become one of the best defenders in the Premiership shows what kind of character and heart that he possesses. Zat Knight doesn't deserve to clean his boots and for you even to compare the two is unbelievable.

A few quick examples:

~ Laursen loses Berbatov for the first Tottenham goal in the 4-4 draw. Does he let it get to him? Nope, he goes up the other end and scores two goals to give Villa a 2-1 lead!

~ Knight lets the ball run passed him on the edge of his six yard box and Rooney taps the ball in at the fair post. Does he let it get to him? Yep, he doesn't learn from his mistake and gives Rooney another free pop at goal a few minutes later.

Rest assured, I am not letting Knight's Fulham career taint my opinion of him, his short Villa career has done enough to justify my criticism of him already. When he signed I actually thought that because he was a local lad and a Villa fan at heart that he would give 100% and be, at the very minimum, a decent replacement for Ridgewell. So much for me being optimistic :rolleyes:

DSB

Ah here you can't put Knight in the same bracket as Petrov. He probably won't work out as a good signing, but like he has only played a few games. He shouldn't be in the first team, Mellberg should be in centre back with an actual rightback. But cmon like a certain period of settling in has to be allowed before you start singling out the player himself.

Raekwon

^^^ This is from the same bloke that wants O'Neill out??? :rolleyes:

Savman

Raekwon wrote: »

If you don't know that a central defenders sole purpose is too defend his area and give adequate cover to their goalkeeper then my argument is obviously lost on you.

Obviously not, I regularly play Centre Half meself so I've a good idea of what the job entails. It's fairly simple, if your CB has to go challenging runners from Midfield, the problem lies elsewhere. You make it sound like the Central Defensive pair should be doing everything. I still maintain that Johnson's goal at Man City, although a sublime bit of skill, could not be blamed on the defence. When a player breezes past 3 of our players, its stoopid to blame it on the last guy. We were undone by a bit of magic, the same bit of magic we lack in Midfield but I don't hear anyone criticizing ReoCoker.

The really good Defenders, like Laursen, can do the job of 2 or 3 men and that's what makes them so important. I'm not for one minute suggesting that Knight is one of those extra special defenders, but for the player he is he has done well IMHO. I hear what you're saying and I don't fancy going on about this all year but for the time being I'm gonna give the guy a break.

You think he's crap, I think he's ok. It's all a matter of perspective, only that it seems mine is shared by Martin O'Neill who saw fit to buy the player, and play him at every opportunity.

Savman

My main beef is when, after a bad performance, so many fans just hop on the bandwagon regarding certain players, managers, tactics, whatever.

When Villa beat Chelsea 2-0, and Knight scored the opening goal on his debut, I didn't hear a single bad word said about him then, nor MON, nor anyone. The general feeling was euphoria. Yet when we lose, all of a sudden MON is a halfwit and Knight is crap. I just don't get it.

DSB

Raekwon wrote: »

^^^ This is from the same bloke that wants O'Neill out??? :rolleyes:

Yes. Your point?

Savman wrote: »

My main beef is when, after a bad performance, so many fans just hop on the bandwagon regarding certain players, managers, tactics, whatever.

When Villa beat Chelsea 2-0, and Knight scored the opening goal on his debut, I didn't hear a single bad word said about him then, nor MON, nor anyone. The general feeling was euphoria. Yet when we lose, all of a sudden MON is a halfwit and Knight is crap. I just don't get it.

People are entitled to both positive and negative opinions though. I thought Villa were very good against Chelsea, and the players have performed well throughout the season. I just have qualms about the manager as I think we could be doing even better. The only player I'll ever really give proper stick to is Petrov as he generally does seem to lack commitment and interest.

Raekwon

Savman wrote:

Obviously not, I regularly play Centre Half meself so I've a good idea of what the job entails. It's fairly simple, if your CB has to go challenging runners from Midfield, the problem lies elsewhere. You make it sound like the Central Defensive pair should be doing everything. I still maintain that Johnson's goal at Man City, although a sublime bit of skill, could not be blamed on the defence. When a player breezes past 3 of our players, its stoopid to blame it on the last guy. We were undone by a bit of magic, the same bit of magic we lack in Midfield but I don't hear anyone criticizing ReoCoker.

Where did I say that centre-backs have to do everything? You obviously remember the goal that we conceded to Man City but I find it strange that you missed Knight's poorly timed sliding tackle that let young Johnson in to score.

It is interesting that you say that you play centre-back because I play on the right-wing for my work team and I love cutting inside the leftback and trying to unsettle the central defenders. As you know as soon as you commit to a challenge and go to ground, if you miss it, you are out of the game and have put huge pressure on your defensive partner. Kind of like Zat Knight, if he would only stay on his feet and stop these rash challenges then he could be a solid enough player. If only.

Savman wrote:

You think he's crap, I think he's ok. It's all a matter of perspective, only that it seems mine is shared by Martin O'Neill who saw fit to buy the player, and play him at every opportunity.

True, it is all a matter of perspective. I am willing of course to get behind Zat Knight every time he plays for Villa, not because I like him and think that he deserves a chance, but because I love Villa and I want them to finally fulfill their potential and be playing in Europe again. Oh and please don't go into sharing perspectives with MON..........did you want him to buy Harewood and neglect to buy a right-back? No, I didn't think so.

Savman wrote:

My main beef is when, after a bad performance, so many fans just hop on the bandwagon regarding certain players, managers, tactics, whatever.

When Villa beat Chelsea 2-0, and Knight scored the opening goal on his debut, I didn't hear a single bad word said about him then, nor MON, nor anyone. The general feeling was euphoria. Yet when we lose, all of a sudden MON is a halfwit and Knight is crap. I just don't get it.

What bandwagon? The bandwagon of watching your team play, then forming an honest/non-biased opinion about them while sharing you thoughts with others? That is call freedom of speech.

Of course you didn't hear a bad word about him after the Chelsea game, it was the first time that he played for Villa and he scored in an amazing 2-0 win! You are hearing bad words about him now because he has let his standards drop alarmingly since then and it all came to a head with his shocking display on Saturday (btw nobody thinks MON is a halfwit.........the man is a legend!)

DSB wrote:

Yes. Your point?

Have you got selective memory or something? You basically said that people should be given a certain amount of time to settle into the respective roles right? But you are the one who wants to see the back of one of best managers in British football, only 15 months into his job? You are a walking contradiction!

DSB

Raekwon wrote: »

Have you got selective memory or something? You basically said that people should be given a certain amount of time to settle into the respective roles right? But you are the one who wants to see the back of one of best managers in British football, only 15 months into his job? You are a walking contradiction!

Clearly I'm not of the opinion that he is one of the best managers in British football.

Bounty Hunter

Villa just beat Chelsea 6-0 in the reserves with a Harewood hattrick and new boy Salifou getting named MOTM!

DSB

Haha wow.

One Cold Hand

I think that Laursen's brilliance so far this season has actually covered up for Knight. If there wasn't someone as good as Laursen beside him I think we'd have seen before now how bad Knight is. You could see Laursens fustration with Knight after the Rooney goal.

One Cold Hand

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Villa just beat Chelsea 6-0 in the reserves with a Harewood hattrick and new boy Salifou getting named MOTM!

Class!!

~Rebel~

do you have the teamsheet for chelseas 11?

One Cold Hand

~Rebel~ wrote: »

do you have the teamsheet for chelseas 11?

http://www.avfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/HeadlinesDetail/0,,10265~1149451,00.html

It's on here.

Bounty Hunter

~Rebel~ wrote: »

do you have the teamsheet for chelseas 11?

Chelsea: Taylor, Hutchinson, Magnay, Worley, van Aanholt, Bridcutt, Stoch, Grant, Cummings, Rodriguez, Sinclair. Subs: Simmonds (for Cummings 77), Searle, Sawyer (for Hutchinson ht), Woods (for Grant 79), Ofori-Twumasi.

Savman

Raekwon wrote:

You obviously remember the goal that we conceded to Man City but I find it strange that you missed Knight's poorly timed sliding tackle that let young Johnson in to score.

Jebus, for the last time, KNIGHT WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR THIS GOAL. You're further highlighting my point that it's ok to slate some players while some others get off scott free. I mean, have you even looked at where Barry and ReoCoker where? The feckin player runs straight thru on goal and you're going on about the only person who did make a bloody challenge. But it's ok, Barry and NRC seem to be exempt from criticism in your book.

Raekwon wrote:

It is interesting that you say that you play centre-back because I play on the right-wing for my work team and I love cutting inside the leftback and trying to unsettle the central defenders. As you know as soon as you commit to a challenge and go to ground, if you miss it, you are out of the game and have put huge pressure on your defensive partner. Kind of like Zat Knight, if he would only stay on his feet and stop these rash challenges then he could be a solid enough player. If only.

If only he was Canavaro. If you're a winger, like say Gareth Bale, and you like "cutting inside", it is the sole responsibility of the opposing winger, in this case Craig Gardner, to track your movement. You have a distorted view of the game if you really think Central Defenders should mark, track and challenge every other midfielder that comes their way. Can't believe I actually have to explain this.

Raekwon wrote:

Oh and please don't go into sharing perspectives with MON..........did you want him to buy Harewood and neglect to buy a right-back? No, I didn't think so.

If you're gonna ask a question, you don't actually have answer for me too. What I implied is simply that your view on Knight is quite obviously not one shared by the Aston Villa manager, who brought Knight to the club and put him in the team when he had other options available. Suffice to say, I back him in that decision because for the best part of the games so far it has worked. Other decisions he has made, maybe not so much but noone has to agree with everything he says and does.
Maybe Laursen is mopping up Knight's mess or maybe that's the whole idea. Knight will not find a better partner to learn from than someone as experienced as Laursen.

Raekwon wrote:

(btw nobody thinks MON is a halfwit.........the man is a legend!)

That was a reference to DSB's quote actually so you can take that up with him.

If Knight never makes those mistakes again, then the defeat to Man U will not have been in vain. There are many positives to be taken from a game like that and tbh I was more dejected and frustrated after some of the other games, Spurs away or Leicester at home being examples that spring to mind.

So I'm not that downbeat about the ManU result. As for Knight, well I'm not defending him any longer, he's a big fella he can prove himself to the manager who picks the team and show his critics what he's made of.

Someone change the subject please.

Time Magazine

What Villa websites do you all read? I generally check here, the official site and avfcblog.com.

Savman

www.villatalk.com (very busy and gets quite heated)

There's also:
www.astonvilla.vitalfootball.co.uk and
www.heroesandvillains.net

I find the official site attracts all sortsa trolls and a lot of people say it's badly moderated.

Raekwon

Savman wrote:

Someone change the subject please.

You are so stubborn! The subject was changed already but you still insisted on having the last word. Unreal :rolleyes:

Anyway I am bored to tears going over the same arguments with you again & again. If you cannot see Zat Knight's ineptness then that is your problem not mine. I am going to finish by saying the only good contribution Knight has made for Villa this season (aside from the Chelsea game) is scoring an own-goal against Villa while he was playing for Fulham

BountyHunter wrote:

Villa just beat Chelsea 6-0 in the reserves with a Harewood hattrick and new boy Salifou getting named MOTM!

Good stuff Do you think we'll see anything of Salifou this weekend against Bolton?

~Rebel~

Raekwon wrote: »

You are so stubborn! The subject was changed already but you still insisted on having the last word. Unreal :rolleyes:

Raekwon wrote: »

I am going to finish by saying the only good contribution Knight has made for Villa this season (aside from the Chelsea game) is scoring an own-goal against Villa while he was playing for Fulham

Pots and kettles?

Time Magazine

And before we get into a fight: should Berger be in the squad ahead of Petrov?

One Cold Hand

Ibid wrote: »

And before we get into a fight: should Berger be in the squad ahead of Petrov?

Well he hasn't played this season, but based on last season, yes definitely. As an impact sub I think he was quite effective and can be great to bring on after 60 mins or so if things aren't going great.

Bounty Hunter

send Osbourne on loan and have both on the bench

Raekwon

One Cold Hand wrote:

Well he hasn't played this season, but based on last season, yes definitely. As an impact sub I think he was quite effective and can be great to bring on after 60 mins or so if things aren't going great.

I'd go along with that.

I think Berger would have more of an impact coming off the bench then Petrov possibly would.

DSB

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

send Osbourne on loan and have both on the bench

ah no Osbourne looks like he might develop into a useful player at the club.

Time Magazine

Team against Bolton?

Taylor

Mellberg---Davies---Laursen---Bouma

Maloney---Barry---Gardner---Young

Agbonlahor---Moore

Subs: Sorenson, Knight, Berger, Petrov, Homer.

Bounty Hunter

Ibid wrote: »

Team against Bolton?

Taylor

Mellberg---Davies---Laursen---Bouma

Maloney---Barry---Gardner---Young

Agbonlahor---Moore

Subs: Sorenson, Knight, Berger, Petrov, Homer.

+1 that is the exact team/squad id have against Bolton. Hopefully Anelka is still out, cos against Arsenal they didnt look like even threatening to score without him.

DSB

I'm still shocked that Sorensen is now number 3 choice. He isn't bad at all. Carson is better. Don't think Taylor is though.

Bounty Hunter

DSB wrote: »

I'm still shocked that Sorensen is now number 3 choice. He isn't bad at all. Carson is better. Don't think Taylor is though.

Sorenson is probably (i think he is anyway) better than Taylor, but he is on his way out of the club and has made comments to the media to that effect. Taylor did very well when called upon against united including saving a penalty from Rooney. He has been our No.2 for this whole season so far and therefore i expect him to get the nod against Bolton who without Anelka dont seem to have too much going forward atm.

about what i said about Osbourne i agree that he does look like he could develop into a quality player at Villa and prob deserves to get his chance this year, but i would much prefer Berger as an impact sub. Also pre-January i do not expect Petrov to be cast aside from the first team squad so dont see Osbourne getting too many opportunitys. Prehaps a couple of months playing regularily in the chapionship would be good for him before he returns after January when Petrov could be gone and Berger injured again.

DSB

Does your Sorensen/Taylor theory not contrast with your Petrov/Osbourne 1?

Bounty Hunter

DSB wrote: »

Does your Sorensen/Taylor theory not contrast with your Petrov/Osbourne 1?

no, Sorenson and Osbourne have been playing in the reserves. Petrov and Taylor have been in the first team squad. Hense why i believe Taylor will start although as i stated i think Sorenson is prob better and that Osbourne could benefit from regular 1st team football although untill atleast January i dont see him getting that ahead of Petrov/berger at villa.

DSB

Ah sorry. Didn't realise you were talking about what you thought will happen as opposed to what you wanted to happen.

Bounty Hunter

DSB wrote: »

Ah sorry. Didn't realise you were talking about what you thought will happen as opposed to what you wanted to happen.

didnt expect that response, quite refreshing.

on topic Taylor says:
'It's obviously down to the manager. We've still got Thomas Sorensen at the club and I don't know what the manager's thinking.

'If I get the nod, I'll go out there and look to do a job. It's the job of a substitute goalie to wait for a chance and take it. You feel sorry for Scott, but if I get the chance, I have to do my best to take it.'

O'Neill said: "Stuart has been the number two because Thomas got injured in pre-season and now he's fit. He played on Monday night for the reserves; he played for his country last week.

"Countering that, Stuart came on last Saturday and did very well. With three keepers we've had people enquiring about the availability of players, but now we've only got two.

and Ozzy is apparently suffering from a groin strain, but may be fit if needed for Bolton

One Cold Hand

I'm a bit worried about this Bolton game, for the following reasons,

1. It's away
2. It's Bolton, our bogey team of the last few years
3. They have a new manager and for some reason teams always seem to do well in their first game under a new manager.
4. We're missing Carson and Reo-Coker (and Carew!)

Anyway we'll see....

Bounty Hunter

One Cold Hand wrote: »

I'm a bit worried about this Bolton game, for the following reasons,

1. It's away
2. It's Bolton, our bogey team of the last few years
3. They have a new manager and for some reason teams always seem to do well in their first game under a new manager.
4. We're missing Carson and Reo-Coker (and Carew!)

Anyway we'll see....

plus they have Anelka back. im still quietly confident though

edit: Gareth Barry will become the youngest player ever to play 300 Premier League games if he plays on Sunday

Raekwon

One Cold Hand wrote:

I'm a bit worried about this Bolton game, for the following reasons,

1. It's away
2. It's Bolton, our bogey team of the last few years
3. They have a new manager and for some reason teams always seem to do well in their first game under a new manager.
4. We're missing Carson and Reo-Coker (and Carew!)

Your third point is what worries me the most. All the players at Bolton are going to try and play really well to impress the new manager and make sure they are part of his plans before he inevitably wields the axe. Plus their new manager is Gary Megson, the bloke who managed Leicester to a shock 1-0 win at Villa Park last month.

That aside I think Villa will be looking to bounce back after the Man Utd nightmare. I think we can nick all 3 points at the Reebok.

I'm going for a 2-1 win for Villa

Villain

Bolton couldn't hit a barn door at the moment if we can't beat them its a bad sign. Whats the story with the suspension, I gather NRC got one game and misses Bolton did Carson get 2 or 3?

One Cold Hand

irish1 wrote: »

Bolton couldn't hit a barn door at the moment if we can't beat them its a bad sign. Whats the story with the suspension, I gather NRC got one game and misses Bolton did Carson get 2 or 3?

According to Fantasy Football (the fountain of all knowledge!), Carson is only suspended for the Bolton game. I'd imagine that although he got a straight red it wasn't for violent conduct or a dangerous tackle, just a professional foul.

Raekwon, if Megson can beat us with Leicester, imagine what he'll do with Bolton!!

Bounty Hunter

One Cold Hand wrote: »

According to Fantasy Football (the fountain of all knowledge!), Carson is only suspended for the Bolton game. I'd imagine that although he got a straight red it wasn't for violent conduct or a dangerous tackle, just a professional foul.

according to sky sports news both are 1game bans so good news there. Im also going to go for 2-1 Villa with goals from Gabby and Anelka then Maloney to spoil Megsens day and stake a claim for a regular spot again.

DSB

6 points a necessity from these next two, especially since we're yet to get an away win.