Barry Bannan

[Mantis]

All I know is Crystal Palace were doing badly, started to play Bannan, started winning. Scotland were doing badly, started to play Bannan, started winning. Villa were doing badly all season, whenever we played Bannan we did better.

 

And all this is coincidence?

Villa were playing badly last season, dropped Bannan and have been picking up decent results almost continuously ever since.

 

Coincidence?

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

Palace's upswing in form didn't coincide with Bannan's reintroduction to the team, it coincided with Holloway's sacking/Pulis' appointment. As for Scotland, they're doing OK, not pulling up trees though, they beat Norway in a game Bannan didn't start, drew with the US and beat Croatia and Macedonia and lost the two games before that. The only stand out result is beating Croatia, a game which, correct me if I'm wrong, Bannan didn't have an awful lot of influence over, in fact he even missed a penalty. Plus, he's been starting for Scotland for much longer than the last 3 months (the period in which Scotland have hit this "purple patch") hasn't he?  

 

And as Mantis said above, Bannan getting dropped from Villa's team last season also coincided with some of our best form and the best football we saw throughout the entirety of last season.

 

So yes coincidence, as Bannan's introductions to these teams did not coincide with them picking up form and starting to win.

Edited December 8, 2013 by MessiWillSignForVilla

[Con]

Holloway's sacking coincided with the caretaker manager recalling Bannan and giving him a good go in the side.

 

Bannan's reappearance in the Scotland side was Croatia away (Strachan's first match), which was a win. Bannan's been starting most matches since. (He started the second half against Norway, having started the game a few days earlier. Scotland scored their goal in the second half, but that is also pure coincidence).

 

Again, you're wrong about Villa last year. you cannot possibly correlate Villa's upswing in form with Bannan's absence when he started 2 of those vital games, and was present on the pitch for every single goal we scored in them.

 

 

Editing this post for a Crystal Palace forum researched update:

 

Barry Bannan has his own song. It's to the tune of "Batman":

 

Barry Barry Barry Barry
Barry Barry Barry Barry 
BAN-NAN!!!!!

 

That's a nifty chant. 

 

One member of the forum says Bannan is "quality waiting to happen."  That's a good way to put it.

 

It's really great how he is now their favourite player and believe we were robbed "Anything below £5M for him is a bargain".

 

I'm sure I posted to their forum telling them all this, which resulted in some people here going over there and telling them how "bad" he was. I think they believe me now.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Con

[Mantis]

Again, you're wrong about Villa last year. you cannot possibly correlate Villa's upswing in form with Bannan's absence when he started 2 of those vital games, and was present on the pitch for every single goal we scored in them.

If Bannan was as influential to our victories as you claim then how come we continued to do well with him out of the side, including the 6-1 thrashing of Sunderland? How come we've carried that form (if not the playing style then the results) into this season without him?

[MessiWillSignForVilla]

You're correct re Holloway, I didn't realise it took Palace a month to appoint someone, however that is not when Palace's good form started, they still only got 1 point from the three games under the caretaker. Since Pulis was appointed they've won 3 lost 1, and is when Bannan began to play well. This is much more likely Pulis getting the best of Bannan and Palace rather than Bannan being responsible for Palace's good form.

 

I was wrong about how long he's been in the Scotland team, however has he been playing well for them? A quick glance at match reports suggest he didn't get any assists or goals, and missed some easy-ish chances. As for the two games mentioned, Scotland scored against the run of play in both games with goals in which Bannan wasn't heavily involved.

 

I'm not wrong about VIlla last season. Yes he started against QPR and Reading, but if you read my post again you'll notice I put best football as well as best form. We were quite poor against those two IIRC, and were fairly lucky to win both games. After that Bannan was dropped and we began to click. We played the best football we had all season and Bannan was not playing. I'm not saying it's because Bannan wasn't playing, however to suggest that whenever Bannan played we played better, is wrong imo.

 

Being present in a team does not necessarily mean the player influences the game, it could be that the other 10 players pick up their game as they feel they have to carry that player. I don't mean Bannan specifically, but saying a players run in a team causes the team to do better without them contributing goals or doing well defensively suggests they weren't the cause for the upswing in form.

[legov]

He seems to be a good crosser, I'll admit that much. Maybe he suffered from Lambert's preference for lofted set pieces.

 

That said...he's not going to be Cahill Mk II. Decent player at a side fighting relegation - that's what his recent performances suggest about him.

[Mantis]

Steve Sidwell has the best win ratio of any Villa player in the Premier League era I think so it just goes to show that the "Bannan played in these games and the team won therefore it was down to Bannan" angle is completely misguided. It's a bit like saying Benteke's shit because our win ratio in games he hasn't played the full 90 minutes has been better than the ratio of games won where he has played the entire game.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Mantis

[Con]

Bannan has recently got an assist for the Scotland team! Against Macedonia.

 

You see what happens when you decide a player is rubbish, then you try to build an argument around that claim? It gets shot down in flames.

[Con]

Steve Sidwell has the best win ratio of any Villa player in the Premier League era I think so it just goes to show that the "Bannan played in these games and the team won therefore it was down to Bannan" angle is completely misguided. It's a bit like saying Benteke's shit because our win ratio in games he hasn't played the full 90 minutes has been better than the ratio of games won where he has played the entire game.

 

I've debunked this about 10 times. You keep coming back with it. 

 

Sidwell was used as sub extra defensive midfielder when we were already winning. That's very different way to compile a win ratio than from games started. It's the start win ratio you need to use. The win ratio stat that includes sub-appearances (less than 45 minutes) is pointless.

[Mantis]

 

Steve Sidwell has the best win ratio of any Villa player in the Premier League era I think so it just goes to show that the "Bannan played in these games and the team won therefore it was down to Bannan" angle is completely misguided. It's a bit like saying Benteke's shit because our win ratio in games he hasn't played the full 90 minutes has been better than the ratio of games won where he has played the entire game.

 

I've debunked this about 10 times. You keep coming back with it. 

 

Sidwell was used as sub extra defensive midfielder when we were already winning. That's very different way to compile a win ratio than from games started. It's the start win ratio you need to use. The win ratio stat that includes sub-appearances (less than 45 minutes) is pointless.

Ok but you haven't debunked the fact that last season Bannan was present in most of our shit games and wasn't present in most of our good games.

[Con]

 

 

Steve Sidwell has the best win ratio of any Villa player in the Premier League era I think so it just goes to show that the "Bannan played in these games and the team won therefore it was down to Bannan" angle is completely misguided. It's a bit like saying Benteke's shit because our win ratio in games he hasn't played the full 90 minutes has been better than the ratio of games won where he has played the entire game.

 

I've debunked this about 10 times. You keep coming back with it. 

 

Sidwell was used as sub extra defensive midfielder when we were already winning. That's very different way to compile a win ratio than from games started. It's the start win ratio you need to use. The win ratio stat that includes sub-appearances (less than 45 minutes) is pointless.

Ok but you haven't debunked the fact that last season Bannan was present in most of our shit games and wasn't present in most of our good games.

 

 

Well I haven't because I can't believe someone would make that claim. Bannan was present in most of our good games.  He got 6 wins. Including the 3-1 Liverpool game, and 5 other wins.

 

No, he wasn't there for the 6-1 party against Sunderland. That was a great game but it wasn't our only good game of the season.

[Con]

[AstonMartin82]

 

He didn't get 0 assists last season. I don't know how you can continue to sneer at me when you get the basic facts wrong, again and again. You repeat your lies again and again. Bannan didn't get zero assists last season and he was very much involved in the win streak we had. How much more wrong can you get?

 

 

Bannan looked in great form on MOTD.  That touch pass with the outside of his left foot was class.

 

Of course, you're going to tell me "he always looks good on MOTD, you have to be there."

 

Maybe you should consider he does 95% rubbish, but the 5% he does brilliantly is what separates him from other players?

 

First off, AM82 didn't say he got 0 assists, he said that when we play Palace he will get no assists and his crosses will just float into Guzan's hands.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this is what I meant, however Con is the Max Clifford of VillaTalk and I suspect he knew this himself though is simply trying to discredit the claim with his normal spin.

 

All I know is Crystal Palace were doing badly, started to play Bannan, started winning. Scotland were doing badly, started to play Bannan, started winning. Villa were doing badly all season, whenever we played Bannan we did better.

 

And all this is coincidence?

 

They didn't start playing Bannan... Bannan has played in the majority of Palace's games so again you are spinning to try to back your point.

 

He seems to be a good crosser, I'll admit that much. Maybe he suffered from Lambert's preference for lofted set pieces.

 

That said...he's not going to be Cahill Mk II. Decent player at a side fighting relegation - that's what his recent performances suggest about him.

 

Palace fans have equal frustration about his lofted crosses. This wasn't a Lambert instruction, it is Bannan's style.

 

 

Steve Sidwell has the best win ratio of any Villa player in the Premier League era I think so it just goes to show that the "Bannan played in these games and the team won therefore it was down to Bannan" angle is completely misguided. It's a bit like saying Benteke's shit because our win ratio in games he hasn't played the full 90 minutes has been better than the ratio of games won where he has played the entire game.

 

I've debunked this about 10 times. You keep coming back with it. 

 

Sidwell was used as sub extra defensive midfielder when we were already winning. That's very different way to compile a win ratio than from games started. It's the start win ratio you need to use. The win ratio stat that includes sub-appearances (less than 45 minutes) is pointless.

 

 

Frustrating when you debunk peoples claims yet they continue to quote it isn't it? The one good stat you refer to regarding Bannan has been debunked at least 50 times. You have no answer to it, yet you still continue to quote it.

 

 

So basically red all to the 2 easiest games in the season against QPR and Reading. He played awfully in these games followed by the worst performance I've ever witnessed from any Villa player against Liverpool (where he played Suarez clean through on goal TWICE in one game) and got dropped. We then go on excellent form, only losing to top quality teams, and continue that form into this season.

 

Yeah, that's really proved your point!! 

[Seat68]

Con will ignore the this and make up some stat to show that you are wrong.

[legov]

Where I live, Palace fans are completely non-existent so I have to rely on my own observations of him, which are very limited in number.

[AstonMartin82]

Where I live, Palace fans are completely non-existent so I have to rely on my own observations of him, which are very limited in number.

 

Where I live, around 5 miles away from Selhurst Park, Palace fans are few (!) but I can confirm that whilst everything is currently rosy in their garden and they see nothing bad in anything, they are at times frustrated with Bannan's poor crossing and wayward passing.

 

On MOTD yesterday though he did look quite instrumental in a number of their moves. (See Con, I am able to give balanced opinions unlike your one track mind). However, we all know how seeing 3 minutes of highlights can potentially be very misleading. (Whoscored.com had him down as their second worst player).

 

If Bannan had put in the same cross that Puncheon (generally considered the worst Palace player by their fans) had for Jerome's goal Con would be going wild and be quoting it for the next 2 years with all sorts of gifs and heat maps.

Edited December 8, 2013 by AstonMartin82

[Morpheus]

Cannot believe that people are still replying. 

[Ponky]

My local Chinese restaurant is called the Crystal Palace and I can confirm that service has definitely improved since Bannan arrived.

[legov]

My local Chinese restaurant is called the Crystal Palace and I can confirm that service has definitely improved since Bannan arrived.

 

Barry's a waiter now?

[Davkaus]

Most of the food gets to the tables half an hour late and cold, if it isn't just dropped on the floor. But 5% of the time he does an okay job.