Today's nicked from Waccoe. Any odd bits [like XXXXs] that appear are down to them, but it's too fucking long to clean up:
Bielsa's here - thoughts on the window?
It's very valuable we were able to keep the players wanted by other teams. That in itself has importance. With respect to no signings coming in, the possibility to improve the squad was not there. The club made the necessary efforts and they also showed a willingness to contribute. A willingness to invest more money. As a result, I can only value everything that has been done.
Benefits of that break? Injuries?
Cooper and Phillips are in the final stages of their recovery from their operations. Firpo is in the final stages of his recovery. He will be available next weekend or the following one. Bamford has not improved. He continues with the problems at the bottom of his foot and he has not started jogging, so his situation continues the same way.
In Scotland, he had a brilliant step. What he has managed this far at Aston Villa is good because he has put his stamp on the team very quickly.
Persist with James or time for a more natural option up top?
We managed to score six goals prior to the Newcastle game. In the game against Newcastle, we did not manage to score. The player who played the least was Gelhardt. The ones who had minutes in that CF role are Rodrigo, James and Tyler. Evidently, in the last game, we were missing finishing. The problem existed and what's been wondered is what I did the least. I went for James, then Roberts and Rodrigo, after I opted for Gelhardt, Rodrigo and Tyler.
The moment we created the least danger was when we played with three central attackers through the main part of our game. What's being demanded from my point of view, the demand is totally justified, is we did not win such an important game, that it was accessible. Every demand has to be argumented. The view is out on Gelhardt, which is the option I did not utilise or used for the least time. I have a lot of arguments. For 15 days prior to Newcastle, Gelhardt had an injury in his ankle.
The day prior to Newcastle, something not at all frequent, I organised a small training session to verify if after 15 days without activity, whether he could participate in the game the following day. Something that made me think the Gelhardt situation had to be managed carefully, but the reason he was the last on was because of the four options I had available, James, Rodrigo, Roberts, in that moment I put them in front of him. James in his national team plays as a CF with someone alongside him. Rodrigo and Tyler are original CFs. I insist that was the decision I took most to make with Gelhardt coming on. The decisions you make are if you can verify them.
What I did was the decision I made and it's judged. It's judged negatively because I did not get what was necessary. The decision I did not make, that of Gelhardt not coming on, cannot be verified so the demand comes from this. Without considering arguments like those I just mentioned, after the first half nothing had to be modified. You don't modify a team that plays well. The start of the second half, even with less chances, we still dominated. When chance creation lowered I called for Tyler. To attack down the centre with Tyler and Rodrigo.
After their goal I went with three CFs on the pitch. I insist that's the moment we created the least danger. It's logical they demand something because I did not do it. What I did not do cannot be verified.
Importance of new deals for Raphinha and Phillips?
I describe it as important the club keeps their best players. That does not deserve more recognition than I've already given it. The equilibrium of the economy of a club needs to be established for the good of the club. For the club not selling such important players, trying to make an investment of £20m, shows a signal.
Also, when you judge the options of a team in the winter window, it's very useful to see what conditions the players were in. Who they bought, how much they spent, how much the players are worth, how much did they cost, what conditions do those players arrive on loan. The signings need immediate success whether they are for now or long-term incorporation. To give an example, if the club had to replace Bamford, what amount should they invest? A winger cost £30m or £40m. How much does a CF that scores goals cost? Even if we suffer a lot of absences, some significant ones, most significant have been Bamford or Koch who were absent for 15 games. Absence of Phillips was resolved by Koch, Pascal and Forshaw. The absence of Bamford, [by] Tyler, Rodrigo, James.
All of this analysis would have a different look if we beat Newcastle. A fundamental game. We know not being satisfied is fundamental. I also understand the patience runs out. In the game against Newcastle generated a lot of disappointment in everybody. Cannot demand patience. I have the obligation to answer to those demands or claims about the games.
Shackleton, Forshaw and Cresswell are all healthy now.
The four players we still don't count on are Firpo, who should be available this weekend because his injury involved his tendon, we may be cautious with his return, Cooper, Phillips, who both should be recovered by the beginning of March. Bamford has an injury we cannot predict when he will return. Depends on the pain going away so he can start jogging again. Since the injury started the pain hasn't gone away. Of course, he is going through the demanding treatments for the injury he has.
He's a player with prestige whose past speaks for itself. Playing in a PL team like Villa with growth, back in the Brazil team.
Villa has an edge after the 2019 game and the conceded goal - would you do it again?
In that moment I did what I thought was corresponded.
[Would you do it again?]
I always try to do what corresponds. You are asking if an identical situation happened would I do it again? As the question doesn't go anywhere, but yes I would.
Concerned about Bamford's recovery time?
He hasn't played for 15 games now. How can I not worry?
Hamstring injuries rising - why?
As I am used to it, not using arguments to justify the adverse moments. I will give you an example. I never want to appear demanding. Diverting aspects I don't have to manage, but the reasons for the defeat. In the last game, it seemed I criticised what the opponent did to reduce the playing time. I didn't make any criticism. I only said the problem existed and there's resources to resolve it. I am not the one in charge of doing that. In the face of that problem in particular, the media has a position they have already taken up. Trying to manage the one you lost demands, due to the situation, and if you were to do it the next step is you justify defeats with things outside your responsibility.
Possibility for Summerville to go?
He spoke with me and he told me he wanted to leave. I told him that would not be a problem. The reason why I said this to him is if a player who has pretty frequent participation with the first team, not necessarily coming on, but contemplated frequently, asked me to leave, for me that reason is sufficient.
For any player that tells me they want to leave, I would answer: no problem, I'm not opposed to you leaving. But is the reason he wants to leave? I don't analyse if it corresponds or not, simply not wanting to be here is sufficient. That's a sporting position.
After the club has a different look on it because the players sign contracts and have obligations, they sum up to economic and I don't have the power to decide contractual or economic problems. In the case of Summerville, there were 10 players in a similar situation and all the subjects were treated the same way. When a player signs a contract he is saying he wants to belong and it's legitimate he does not want to belong anymore. It's a possibility and it's right it's that way.
By limiting the power of my position, all the players know if they want to leave I'm not going to stand in their way. I only have part of the decision.
Worried that workshy freelance fops who've delayed starting their 'working' days might be regretting committing to updating this because of the number and length of your answers?
I can not correspond to a matter outside of my reference and this is what you ask me so I say again no.
[ ... Tick fucking tock ... 13 mins since last update. Either he's left or there's a mammoth answer incoming.]
[I reckon he's probably gone and Beren Cross hasn't said. Either that or someone asked him whether he regretted the way he treated Riquelme, or what he thinks of new agricultural taxes disproportionately penalising the poorest Argentinian cattle farmers.]
Ten players in a similar situation to Crysencio - can you explain what you meant by that please?
Everything that I had to say, I already said it.
You ask me about the case of Summerville of which I'm not sure how the information was obtained. I have no other option but to answer on that case based on the information you guys have. No way am I going to make public the cases that haven't been made public.
In the case of Summerville, in no way did I make that public. I don't know who makes these things public and with what intention they do it. What I do know is what I have to resolve: you ask me if Summerville had offers to leave, which you already know he had offers - and all I can do is do what I had to resolve. The only thing I do know, if that if he didn't leave, it's not that I forced the club to keep him in. I clearly said to him if he wanted to leave, the best thing for him to do was to leave. And I say that to any player - be very careful how you interpret what I say because it's the most natural thing in the world and a person wants to evolve, they consider that the place where they are is not going to allow them to evolve, and they've found a problem. That happens in all laborious situations, constant, and there's nothing wrong with it. The desire of someone not continuing, nor my position, if you don't want to be here then what sense does it make to stay.
And of course with all of this being made public, it's no good for anybody, not for me, not for Summerville, not for Leeds, but you have to see and understand the footballing world to know who made it public and what are they looking for when they make it public. I'm not accusing anybody or demanding any behaviour, that was wrong, what I'm saying happens at every club constantly. And as it's made public I have the responsibility to tell the truth. What I can't answer you is who the other ten are, because the last thing I want is this to be commented on.
Do you feel you're finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel with regards to the injury crisis that has dominated the season?
When Ayling wasn't here, Dallas played. When Llorente wasn't here, Ayling played. When Firpo wasn't here, Struijk layed. When Junior wasnt here, When Phillips wasn't here, Koch or Pascal played. Raphinha James and Harrison haven't been out, and when Bamford hasn't been here, Rodrigo James or Tyler have played. Gelhardt and Hjelde have been the youngsters with consistent minutes and Shackleton has also been an option.
Of course I would have hoped that we didn't have the problems but the team also found the solutions. So of course the results are poor, because the results are poor everything is made bigger and with respect to the injuries, any analysis that is made, I don't want to have an opinion because when you're going through a sporting moment which is negative, everything you say is read as an excuse. Because this circle is very clear, every time there is more games, to earn more money. The excuse to earn more money is that we need more money to pay the players because they want to earn more each time or the coaches/managers want to earn more each time.
That is not the reason, of course everyone wants to earn more but this was a way to limit the veracity the way to earn more. Every time there's more games, the way the scheduling is completed XXX. it's impossible to schedule within that scenario. And of course the pandemic has multiplied the effects of this problem, but there's only one solution that hasn't been attempted - that we all earn less as a product of the situation, that we all earn less and play less to make it clear how it is that we're going to play less to earn less.
Obviously the competition is being denaturalised by injuries and all these situations but never the reasons of the problems and why they're generated or the solutions. How is it possible that the scheduling puts competitions in the same place, of course they're going to have to reschedule and between all the federations FIFA, UEFA, it's impossible for it not to be overhauled.
Now I also want to say something: our injuries have not been due to an excess of games. Ayling injured his knee and was missing 8 games, Pascal his foot 6 games missing, Bamford his ankle and foot 14 games, Koch's hip 16 games, Rodrigo Moreno his foot 5 games, Phillips Cooper and Shackleton have had problems with the tendons, the muscular problems we have had have been really few - Llorente and Firpo and Bamford within those injuries that he had with that hamstring injury, so we've had three muscular injuries, but obviously the problems you're making reference to in that moment there is an infinite amount of data that has to do with the fact the rest and recovery is not sufficient and is produced due to an excess of games.
An excess of games should be treated as well, with regards to the teams that are able to have two teams and those who are able to only have one, which is not our case, because we don't have a problem with the excess of games, the one who has a problem with this in general is football. Everything I've said in this conference XXXXX. That is something I should have managed better.
"Football is not so important that we can't have tolerance of incorrect evaluations."