Talk about a freaky week for Villa fans, three games and no loses, that hasn’t happened much in recent seasons. While a point against Leicester in the context of their league position isn’t a bad result, you could tell by the urgency that Rudy Gestede grabbed the ball after his goal to restart the game, that wins are the important currency that the team must trade in nowadays.
The new chairman Steve Hollis finally revealed himself, although Villa supporters didn’t get much assurance from his words that were the same-old, same-old wishy-washy clap trap that again took little responsibility and promised little.
“There is no agenda to sell the club, but if there is anybody out there who wants to phone me up and have a chat, they know where I am now,” said Hollis, a voice of contradiction.
Villa CEO will face the music of Villa supporters at this Thursday’s AVST AGM, so get down there if you can. If you have any questions to Fox you want passing on, drop me a line on contact@myoldmansaid.com
In the meantime, here’s five reasons to be cheerful as Villa fans…
2. HOT BUNN
I’m not going to lie, but I never considered Mark Bunn a credible number two for Villa, never mind a number one. I thought him in was a case of getting a back-up to Guzan on the cheap, when the club should have been getting a new goalkeeper for Guzan to play second-fiddle to – another poor mistake in the summer’s recruitment policy.
That being said, fair play to Bunn for stepping up, as Guzan deserved to be dropped for the second season in succession. So, far we are unbeaten when Gunn has started.
While he was relatively quiet against Palace, his penalty save against the Foxes earned him huge plus points with the Villa faithful; although his positioning could be questioned on the first (but his efforts to prevent the goal afterwards were first rate).
Depending on how serious Villa are in getting a top-notch number one in during the remainder of the January window (not very, I’m guessing), then good luck to Bunn in the meantime.
The 15 minute reference was aimed at the so called TV pundits who scrutinize everything AFTER the game. I understand that it would only take minutes (if that) at the actual match, that wasn’t my point My point is I don’t like the fact that Sky Sports are buying the game and dictating how it’s being run.
Your point regarding video evidence is self opinionated and excludes the bigger picture which for those that care about actually going to watch a game is frustrating.
Sky Sports have indeed ‘stole the soul’ out of the wonderful game for cash, lots of cash,to take the game to the armchair masses, and they do it extremely well (except for the boring ex pro’s banging on about what it was like in their day)
Sky Sports are the driving force behind Video technology and are part funding it to ensure that they have a 15 minute talking point for their so called experts to keep the viewer interested longer talking about dogdgy reffereing decisions.
You pointed out quite rightly that we would more than likely have got a penalty on Saturday if a video referral system was in place, but we may also have had our goal disallowed if the ref had called on a referral of Gestedes hand ball.
I would argue the lack of atmosphere is directly linked to dwindling attendances at certain games due to non attendance because it’s easier for some to watch on TV (or other device) I don’t have a problem with anyone who don’t actual attend a game, it’s just as an active fan that does attend regularly I p***** off that I have to go on the day and the time that Sky tell me too!
Sunday at 12.30 when I should be in church ! Monday night at 8 o’clock when I should be at bell ringing practice, it’s just not on.
This is football we’re talking about, something that divides opinions, something that encourages conversation. Do you really want to turn up at work every Monday just to say ” Ha good job the Ref referred that hand ball, you would never had seen that in real time” No but we could have talked about it!
I want the right decisions, as simple as that. Penalties can change games…especially if someone gets sent off and there’s a goal. The game stops anyway and it takes seconds.
Your reference to Sky Sports funding video evidence doesn’t really add-up on the point you highlight. If the decision is correct due to benefit of a quick video review, then there’s no 15-minute debate on it. The decision is correct, so they have to move on.
I prefer winning games than debating something afterwards that you can’t change. ‘Poor decisions also allow a window for corruption and match-fixing, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this has happened in English league considering some of the decisions we have witnessed over the years (even goals given, when the ball hasn’t gone in the net!).
Miffa Jan 19, 2016 at 7:12 am
The 15 minute reference was aimed at the so called TV pundits who scrutinize everything AFTER the game. I understand that it would only take minutes (if that) at the actual match, that wasn’t my point My point is I don’t like the fact that Sky Sports are buying the game and dictating how it’s being run.
Well, they have paid for it. Cash is king, like sport in the USA. It’s difficult to fight.