Who is to blame?

[Greg N'Ash]

The thing is, McLeish can say "I want to play attractive football" and be telling the truth

It was possibly why the cynics amongst us were prepared to give him a chance. 'He could'nt possibly play drab football with the players we have' we thought at the time? Somehow he's managed it.

eh? While i agree i thought it was more than likely the football would be drab with Mcleish in charge, I certainly didn't look at the likes of Dunne, Heskey, Petrov Warnock etc.. and think "he's gonna have a hard time turning them into a dull side"

Why would you expect a CB, a DCM and a shit striker to be the source of our entertainment as opposed to N'Zogbia, Gabby, Bent, Ireland and Albrighton?

Well Zogbia wasn't here when Mcleish was appointed and frankly he's hardly mr entertaiment anyway. Ireland had been rubbish under GH (only a little better now) and Bent for all his plusses is hardly the most skilled player just a great finisher. So again its not like he inherited a team of Messi's to work with.. In fact one of the few logical explanations for Mcleish's appointment was that the players who couldn't or wouldn't work under GH's passing style, would thrive with us reverting to Hoof, albiet on a budget

[paul_e]

The thing is, McLeish can say "I want to play attractive football" and be telling the truth

It was possibly why the cynics amongst us were prepared to give him a chance. 'He could'nt possibly play drab football with the players we have' we thought at the time? Somehow he's managed it.

eh? While i agree i thought it was more than likely the football would be drab with Mcleish in charge, I certainly didn't look at the likes of Dunne, Heskey, Petrov Warnock etc.. and think "he's gonna have a hard time turning them into a dull side"

Why would you expect a CB, a DCM and a shit striker to be the source of our entertainment as opposed to N'Zogbia, Gabby, Bent, Ireland and Albrighton?

Well Zogbia wasn't here when Mcleish was appointed and frankly he's hardly mr entertaiment anyway. Ireland had been rubbish under GH (only a little better now) and Bent for all his plusses is hardly the most skilled player just a great finisher. So again its not like he inherited a team of Messi's to work with.. In fact one of the few logical explanations for Mcleish's appointment was that the players who couldn't or wouldn't work under GH's passing style, would thrive with us reverting to Hoof, albiet on a budget

But they clearly haven't thrived.

That said, an attack of Nzog, Ireland and Albrighton behind Bent and Gabby should have led to better than slightly more than a goal a game.  Is the squad as good as it was, of course not, is the squad better than to be looking enviously at Norwich and Swansea - most certainly.

I think you and maybe 1 or 2 other people have got to the point where the ongoing argument has backed you into a position whereby you have no choice but to blame the players because to not do so means that you have to admit that the squad is better than we're seeing and therefore that Lerner might not be massively out of line in thinking that it's ok to remove a lot of the experienced dross and let the kids fill the gaps for the time being.

[Greg N'Ash]

The thing is, McLeish can say "I want to play attractive football" and be telling the truth

It was possibly why the cynics amongst us were prepared to give him a chance. 'He could'nt possibly play drab football with the players we have' we thought at the time? Somehow he's managed it.

eh? While i agree i thought it was more than likely the football would be drab with Mcleish in charge, I certainly didn't look at the likes of Dunne, Heskey, Petrov Warnock etc.. and think "he's gonna have a hard time turning them into a dull side"

Why would you expect a CB, a DCM and a shit striker to be the source of our entertainment as opposed to N'Zogbia, Gabby, Bent, Ireland and Albrighton?

Well Zogbia wasn't here when Mcleish was appointed and frankly he's hardly mr entertaiment anyway. Ireland had been rubbish under GH (only a little better now) and Bent for all his plusses is hardly the most skilled player just a great finisher. So again its not like he inherited a team of Messi's to work with.. In fact one of the few logical explanations for Mcleish's appointment was that the players who couldn't or wouldn't work under GH's passing style, would thrive with us reverting to Hoof, albiet on a budget

But they clearly haven't thrived.

That said, an attack of Nzog, Ireland and Albrighton behind Bent and Gabby should have led to better than slightly more than a goal a game.  Is the squad as good as it was, of course not, is the squad better than to be looking enviously at Norwich and Swansea - most certainly.

I think you and maybe 1 or 2 other people have got to the point where the ongoing argument has backed you into a position whereby you have no choice but to blame the players because to not do so means that you have to admit that the squad is better than we're seeing and therefore that Lerner might not be massively out of line in thinking that it's ok to remove a lot of the experienced dross and let the kids fill the gaps for the time being.

I've said we should be doing better, the arguement is how much better. Most people think we should be mid-table and seeing the amount and ability of the players we lost in the summer a couple of places down on 9th is about right IMO. Trouble is thats only 6 points off where we are. Do i think people would still be complaining if we were there? Course they would. Me and others predicted in the summer Mcleish would have to do better than GH to get a reprieve in the fan's opinion.

as for Norwich and Swansea, i think its a rather complacent and patronising viewpoint to consider our collection of hasbeens, Kids and rejects as automatically better than them because we were in a higher division than them last year. So were Blose.

[paul_e]

as for Norwich and Swansea, i think its a rather complacent and patronising viewpoint to consider our collection of hasbeens, Kids and rejects as automatically better than them because we were in a higher division than them last year. So were Blose.

Point proven, our squad isn't top 6 but it's certainly not hasbeens, kids and rejects, but it supports you're argument for them to be judged as that.

As for improving on GH I don't agree, I think he needed to match him, both in terms of results and performance.  We're nowhere near on either front.  The squad is a little weaker this season that it was for the 2nd half of last season but we have never, at any point this season, been down to the level that GH had to deal with in November when we had about 15 players out including about 8 midfielders.

[Greg N'Ash]

as for Norwich and Swansea, i think its a rather complacent and patronising viewpoint to consider our collection of hasbeens, Kids and rejects as automatically better than them because we were in a higher division than them last year. So were Blose.

Point proven, our squad isn't top 6 but it's certainly not hasbeens, kids and rejects, but it supports you're argument for them to be judged as that.

Hasbeens = Heskey, Dunne, Warnock, Petrov
Rejects - Ireland, Hutton, given, Dunne (again)
Kids: self-explanatory
apart from Bent and maybe gabby there's not one player the top 4 or even the top 6 would consider purchasing

As for improving on GH I don't agree, I think he needed to match him, both in terms of results and performance.  We're nowhere near on either front.  The squad is a little weaker this season that it was for the 2nd half of last season but we have never, at any point this season, been down to the level that GH had to deal with in November when we had about 15 players out including about 8 midfielders.

a little weaker? Young. A, Young. L , NRC, Downing. Best part of 30 milllion from just the midfield. and how have we replaced them? Wigan's best player - i'm not sure who he was supposed to replace because he's not even vaguely similar quality wise to either of the two who went in the summer. Hutton, again not in the same ballpark as Young at his best. The rest weren't replaced. Mentioning the injuries last season just emphasises my point. If we'd had them this season, we'd probably been unable to field a side without breaking our youngest ever player record

[paul_e]

Very nearly stopped reading when I saw Shay Given (regularly regarded as one of the best keepers ever in the premier league) flagged as a reject.

What you're completely failing to account for is the experience side of things.

Last season we had Clark, Herd, Lichaj, Bannan, Albrighton, Hogg and Baker (and probably 1 or 2 others) make their league debuts.  All of these players should be better suited to the prem this season, that a couple of them appear to have gone backwards is evidence of bad management not a weaker squad.

In the summer we lost a number of players and replaced them with players chosen by the current manager, if the replacements are weaker it's his fault.  We had a short fall of 1 where we sold downing and young and bought in Nzogbia.

Finances are nothing to do with squad strength either, Young and Downing weren't £35m worth of players when we signed them but were actually £22m (roughly).  If McLeish bought similarly we wouldn't be having problems.  Making a profit on player trading isn't some huge problem guaranteed to lead to failure like you're trying to claim, Arsenal have generally made profits over the last few years but it's not seen them drop from the top 4 to the bottom of the league because there has been a plan to allow for this.

[Greg N'Ash]

Very nearly stopped reading when I saw Shay Given (regularly regarded as one of the best keepers ever in the premier league) flagged as a reject.

Good 'keeper i agree but reality is he was let go for being too old and too injury prone. Dunne had to be paid to leave such was his enthusiam to join us and for them to get rid.

What you're completely failing to account for is the experience side of things.

Last season we had Clark, Herd, Lichaj, Bannan, Albrighton, Hogg and Baker (and probably 1 or 2 others) make their league debuts.  All of these players should be better suited to the prem this season, that a couple of them appear to have gone backwards is evidence of bad management not a weaker squad.

Young players going backwards you say? Sorry but thats the nature of the beast - young players are notoriously inconsistant so i wouldn't lay the blame entirely at Mcleish's feet

In the summer we lost a number of players and replaced them with players chosen by the current manager, if the replacements are weaker it's his fault.  We had a short fall of 1 where we sold downing and young and bought in Nzogbia.

I agree that it his fault but that's neither here or there - the original arguement was how good the players were and where they should be in this league. Surely if he's bought shitter players for less money to replace better players, that is going to affect the league place?

Finances are nothing to do with squad strength either, Young and Downing weren't £35m worth of players when we signed them but were actually £22m (roughly).  If McLeish bought similarly we wouldn't be having problems.  Making a profit on player trading isn't some huge problem guaranteed to lead to failure like you're trying to claim, Arsenal have generally made profits over the last few years but it's not seen them drop from the top 4 to the bottom of the league because there has been a plan to allow for this.

"Finances are nothing to do with squad strength either" Heh. Someone better tell the rnancs, Citeh, Chelsea etc., that they're wasting their time and money.

as for what Young and Downing cost originally, when has Mcleish had 22m to spend?If he'd been given 22m to find two replacements for Young and Downing and ballseds it up i'd agree, but he hasn't

[paul_e]

He did spend 10m to replace one of them though (which is the right area of spend we'd be looking at) and he's shown a complete inability to figure out how to use that resource effectively.