Hands up - Pulis...

[Nastylee]

Never wanted him and glad we didn't sell our soul. He's a limited manager and you'll no doubt hear the cries of discontent increase in volume as their fans realise beating relegation is as good as it gets.

[john2710]

In truth, it was only because we were playing so shit, for so long & so desparate to get rid of Lambert that anyone was pushing for Pulis.

Pulls is what he is & we'd have been pushing for him to go by Christmas.

We're Aston Villa & setting staying in the Premier League as our only objective is never good enough.

[supertom]

Hand up. But I thought this way back in November. He knows what he's doing and his record at West Brom has generally been good. They had a sticky spell, largely brought on by us beating them convincingly twice in a week, but they've steadied the ship and are well clear of trouble. But with Pulis you know what you're gonna get. You'll get a mid-table side. Nothing spectacular. He can grind out a result like Sherwood probably can't, but by the same token I don't think you'll see Pulis winning in style. And honestly, winning in style is the preference for me really. I'm all for being a club that stays clear of relegation and wins as much as they lose, but mid-table mediocrity shouldn't have to mean outdated, one dimensional football. Plus it only gets you so far.

What Sherwood has done, a lot better than I ever expected him to, is to get us playing good expansive football. We mix it up very well. We look good on the deck. We can string the ball around for 40 passes if needs be and we can pump it forward to Benteke quickly. I think we can be an entertaining mid-table side next season. Perhaps upper mid, nipping at the heels of Spurs, Southampton etc. With the right signings.

[Boz]

In truth, it was only because we were playing so shit, for so long & so desparate to get rid of Lambert that anyone was pushing for Pulis.

Pulls is what he is & we'd have been pushing for him to go by Christmas.

We're Aston Villa & setting staying in the Premier League as our only objective is never good enough.

Absolutely spot on

[curiousorange]

Delighted to say I have no Pulis on my conscience. I've always been vehement in my opposition to him managing Villa. If there was a way of ensuring he couldn't enter the ground, I'd like the club to explore it.

[supertom]

Pulis would have been a safe bet and good for the short term. But in terms of progression there would be very little prospect for us, and the footy would become drearily repetitive. His signings are often obvious too.

Timmy was always going to be a big gamble, but I think he's got great potential to put something in place.

[N'ZMAV]

I never wanted Pulis. Ok, he's done what they required of him at WBA, but, their fans will get fed up of him a lot sooner than we will of Sherwood. Tony is very limited. Sherwood has a lot more about him.

[amfy]

The thought of Pulis was something that kept me hoping and hoping that Lambert would turn it round well after the point that it was patently obvious to everyone that it wasn't going to happen.

 It was the thought of Pulis that just kept me thinking 'please, please, please -I know you can do it Villa I've seen it, please don't make us have to have him!'

Even at the point when it ended up being Sherwood and pretty much everyone, including me, was a bit 'wtf?', I still wasn't thinking ''We should have gone a bit earlier and got Pulis'

Never would have guessed how good Sherwood would be though. Even if this goes pear shaped now, a few weeks of remembering why we do this, has been brilliant.

[SamTheMouse]

I didn't *want* Tiny Penis, but with every passing week it looked more and more like it was coming down to a choice between him and relegation.

[pauliewalnuts]

Nothing to confess here really, he would have done a better job than Lambert.

That's an argument I don't get at all.

We spend months, or years, telling each other that Lambert is fucking awful - and he was - and then want to appoint someone on the basis of them being better than Lambert?

Surely if Lambert is so woeful, then "better than him" is the faintest praise of all?

I didn't want Sherwood, I am happy to admit, and I am still not convinced it's going to be a sensible appointment in the long term, but let's wait and see on that one.

However, having watched years of turgid anti-football, why anyone would want to appoint a manager with a record going back several years for running teams which were amongst the most horrible to watch offenders on that front is beyond me.

I honestly can't think of a currently working manager I'd want at our club less than Pulis. Allardyce possibly, but that's about it.

[N'ZMAV]

I couldn't stand Sherwood at Spurs. But, I couldn't stand Pulis at WBA, Stoke and Palace. The miserable old twat.

[pauliewalnuts]

In truth, it was only because we were playing so shit, for so long & so desparate to get rid of Lambert that anyone was pushing for Pulis.

Pulls is what he is & we'd have been pushing for him to go by Christmas.

We're Aston Villa & setting staying in the Premier League as our only objective is never good enough.

Absolutely spot on

That's kind of what I was getting at.

A dog is for life, not just for Christmas You don't just appoint a manager for a few months. Certainly not one with reasonably high stock and an expectation of being to get a job elsewhere without too much trouble.

You appoint a manager with the objective of getting us to safety, yes, but also with an eye on the fact that by offering him a three or four year deal, you're signing up to him as a manager for much longer.

Pulis may or may not have kept us up, but we wouldn't then have been able to tell him to fuck off now we're saved, as we were going to look for a better long term option.

And anyone who thinks Randy would have sacked Lambert, paid him off several millions, employed Pulis to keep us up, watched him do that, and then sack him as well and fork out another several million pounds in compensation is either kidding themself, or hasn't watched the way we've acted financially the last few years.

If we'd taken Pulis we'd be looking forward to a summer of trying to sign Kenwynne Jones / Peter Crouch / all those dismal footballers who suit his dismal style.

[Monty]

I was never pining for him, but I thought he'd keep us in the Premier League, allowing us to be bought by an owner ambitious enough to sack him. Looking back, I'm pretty pleased that the cards fell the way they did.

[passport1]

I think the Pullis suggestion was based on the percieved ambition of the club.We are or have been indoctrinated into believing that we have no budget and that mid table survival is the most that we can hope for. With that ambition Pullis would look like a safe choice

I just wonder if Sherwoods ambitions will remain aligned  with the owner in the long term.

[Chris Jameson]

I remember somebody suggesting Dean Saunders at one stage. And it wasn't villakicks or whatever he's called these days.