Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: barrysleftfoot on September 12, 2010, 05:04:25 PM
-
Anybody hear it this morning?
Quite interesting analysis of the Villa situation, and the club, and perception of the club.
Basically said that , for some reason, probably over expectation of supporters, that managers at VP are only given 4 years to achieve success, or perceived success.Has a good point, BFR, BL, JG, MON, all relatively successful, and yet plenty of "has taken us as far as he can" comments after 3/4 yrs.In fact every one of the above named had that accusation thrown at them.
This was an observation by BL more than a criticism, but when you look at his comments he does strike a chord.Last season, 6th, cheated out of winning the Lge Cup, and beaten by the eventual double winners in the FA Cup S/F, and because we never finished in the top 4 the season is deemed as a failure.
BL, and JG, both regurlarly finished in the top 5, and yet apparently according to some of more knowing posters , they were not good enough to take us higher.Who is there, that is attainable who can take us higher, what is the expectations of Hou, what do we want?
-
The ''cheated out of winning the League Cup'' thing just doesn't ring true for me. We couldn't break down 10 men when we played ManUre at home a couple of weeks earlier in the league (in fact they looked the likelier team to win), I'm not sure we could have done it at Wembley either. Our modus operandi under MON was to hit teams on the break away from home and I don't think we would have had the belief to take the game to United at Wembley even with an extra man.
As for BL his first full season was an unqualified success.
Had Champions League football been available to 4th placed teams in 1996 who knows how different things might have been for us thereafter.
I mean we probably would have fucked-up against Helsingborgs/Varteks/Vienna in the preliminaries but you never know..
-
If he said that I'm not going to say he was wrong.
But my overriding memory of both his and BFR's departure was one of disappointment. Most Villa fans I spoke to felt the same way, that both departures came too soon.
In the cold light of day, had BFR not been sacked when he had been there might have been no return for Sir Brian and the heights we managed between 1995-97. BFR also went (or was sent to) Coventry, spent shitloads (by their standards) and still had them scrambling about in the lower reaches. So maybe he was in decline.
But I don't recall many Villa fans saying that in Nov 1994.
It was well known in Feb 1998 that Sir Brian was struggling and not getting the desired response out of the players. In that situation, a change of manager usually is advocated. It can be cheaper for one thing, rather than offloading all the players not doing the business or the twats gobbing off in print (Southgate). But Brian enjoyed a level of popularity whereby most would have rather seen him remain and a forced exodus of the players who let him down. And they did let him down, make no mistake about it.
-
MON was the manager we needed at that point in time. The reason he could not take us forward was his own ego. The picking of the same players, lack of tactics, lack of substitution, lack of technical players.
I heard a decent comment on R5 live last week by a pundit. MON is more of a director of football than a manger as he was hardly at training and liked to micro manage the rest of the club from pitches to PR etc.
Another interesting comment is that training under Walford & Robertson was mainly made up of fitness and 5 a sides. No tactical and technical coaching.
As I said MON was the right man for us 4 years ago, but IMO is not now and had taken us as far as we can. I am hoping GH can have a bit of a Wenger effect eg revolutionise training, tactics, professionalism, scouting etc.
Villa have all the tools to finish top 4. But we need to build it slower. I think Arsenal is the blueprint for us.
-
Villa have all the tools to finish top 4. But we need to build it slower. I think Arsenal is the blueprint for us.
Arsenal is the blueprint for all clubs, if they can. Not necessarily style of play, but certainly management structure and so on.
-
Ellis should have given Big Ron more money. We could have been challenging at the top for a long time. Much of the money spent had come from selling Platt.
Little built up a very good side very quickly, with a combination of established stars, his own quality purchases and giving Yorke a proper chance up front. He got rid of some dead wood from Big Ron as well. Unfortunately a combination of limited funds released by Ellis to build it further and him spending what money he did have on a couple of enormously talented nut jobs resulted in our rather equally quick decline thereafter.
A real shame.
Gregory and O Neill were similar in that they spent an awful lot of money on (largely) half decent won't let you down british players that were like watching paint dry and never had the extra bit of talent/flair to really acheive something. Gregory had his partly funded by sales. I think both owners grew tired of watching the same turgid football every week and despite having respectable teams, both looked quite a long way from winning something. Yes, we got to a cup final with both, but the lack of imagination/belief/flair on the day was strikingly similar and very typical of the teams they built.
Hopefully Houllier will get it right.
-
The ''cheated out of winning the League Cup'' thing just doesn't ring true for me. We couldn't break down 10 men when we played ManUre at home a couple of weeks earlier in the league (in fact they looked the likelier team to win), I'm not sure we could have done it at Wembley either. Our modus operandi under MON was to hit teams on the break away from home and I don't think we would have had the belief to take the game to United at Wembley even with an extra man.
As for BL his first full season was an unqualified success.
Had Champions League football been available to 4th placed teams in 1996 who knows how different things might have been for us thereafter.
I mean we probably would have fucked-up against Helsingborgs/Varteks/Vienna in the preliminaries but you never know..
Considering we wouldn't have needed to take the game to United as we would have been 1-0 up against 10 men, the 'cheated of the Cup' thing still applies IMO.
-
How many times did Gregory 'regularly' finish in the top five?
BF's time had come - we'd had relegation form for twelve months. And Brian had a lot more than the players to contend with when he left.
-
My only question somewhat in response to that is what truly constitutes progress? Would we accept a step back in one year to progress at a greater pace in the following seasons? It goes to the 4 year thing that Sir Brian is hinting at. Would we accept that, or do we expect improvement (position or getting closer to silverware) year on year? As fans, are we patient enough to understand the bigger picture that true progress might take longer than 4 or 5 years?
-
I don't think there are many clubs where you could remain in a job for 4+ years having achieved very little.
The Fergie example often gets wheeled out at this point, but in his first four years he delivered a title challenge (2nd place) in his second year and a cup win in his fourth.
-
My only question somewhat in response to that is what truly constitutes progress? Would we accept a step back in one year to progress at a greater pace in the following seasons? It goes to the 4 year thing that Sir Brian is hinting at. Would we accept that, or do we expect improvement (position or getting closer to silverware) year on year? As fans, are we patient enough to understand the bigger picture that true progress might take longer than 4 or 5 years?
I think this season, given the muddled start we've had (and are still having), I think if we can remain 6th, or at a push 7th, while Houllier gets to know the players and what needs doing, then most would accept that. But, if Houllier's as good we're told he is, then next season we should be looking to move forward. If it's one place every couple of seasons then so be it but we need to be seen to be moving forward or at the very least making a bloody good fist of it. Cups have to be regarded as a bonus.
-
How many times did Gregory 'regularly' finish in the top five?
BF's time had come - we'd had relegation form for twelve months. And Brian had a lot more than the players to contend with when he left.
I'm sure I read somewhere that Brian had personal issues also at that time?
-
How many times did Gregory 'regularly' finish in the top five?
BF's time had come - we'd had relegation form for twelve months. And Brian had a lot more than the players to contend with when he left.
What else did Bri have to contend with?
-
How many times did Gregory 'regularly' finish in the top five?
BF's time had come - we'd had relegation form for twelve months. And Brian had a lot more than the players to contend with when he left.
What else did Bri have to contend with?
See above.
-
Marital issues IIRC.
-
I don't see that BL or BFR could say they were given insufficient time, both were in the bottom 6 when they went.
There are parallels between JG and MON, though I think MON's sides tended to be consistently in the top 6. JG's sides tended to be really mediocre after an outsanding start and then pull together a few victories at the end.
-
I'd be interested to see the stats Europe wide for the average lifespan of a football managerial appointment. I bet it's not more than four years anywhere.
-
I'd be interested to see the stats Europe wide for the average lifespan of a football managerial appointment. I bet it's not more than four years anywhere.
The English game is actually going to be one of the highest average as it has been artificially inflated by Fergie (23 years) and Wenger (14). If you look that MON was 4th longest before he walked behind the two mentioned and Moyes (8 years) you realise that it isn't an issue exclusive to Villa.
-
Four years is more than enough to prove yourself in a managerial position, in any walk of life.
The company I worked for gave business directors an average of 1 year.
-
Define a successful season for AVFC then.Was last year a failure.You could argue we were getting better year on year.If Hou failed to get into the top 4, a final, and a S/F, would that be a failure?
-
Define a successful season for AVFC then.Was last year a failure.You could argue we were getting better year on year.If Hou failed to get into the top 4, a final, and a S/F, would that be a failure?
We were stagnating, in my view, with a Manager who was only too happy to pay out ludicrous salaries to sub-standard players (Beye £40,000pw, Heskey £60,000pw to name but 2).
-
Four years is more than enough to prove yourself in a managerial position, in any walk of life.
The company I worked for gave business directors an average of 1 year.
Is this the same company that has been losing a lot of money and moved to the Fort from next to the Police station in town? Could a high change over of Directors had something to do with it as none of them could put in efficient long term strategies.
-
Define a successful season for AVFC then.Was last year a failure.You could argue we were getting better year on year.If Hou failed to get into the top 4, a final, and a S/F, would that be a failure?
There's a difference between achieving that in your first season, and achieving that in your fourth season. Last season wasn't so much a failure as further evidence that, in terms of qualifying for the CL, it wasn't going to get any better under O'Neill. The cup runs were good but as I said at the time I don't think they were proof that we were moving forward as a club, and neither was eventual League position.
-
Four years is more than enough to prove yourself in a managerial position, in any walk of life.
The company I worked for gave business directors an average of 1 year.
Is this the same company that has been losing a lot of money and moved to the Fort from next to the Police station in town? Could a high change over of Directors had something to do with it as none of them could put in efficient long term strategies.
Nope.
The company above are victims of seagull management from the very top, endless relaunches to a mainly disinterested public, compare and contrast with the Express and Star which has barely changed in the last 25 years.
Incidentaly, the company at The Fort are now making a small profit.
-
So what do you expect of Hou then?
I accept some of the comments about MON stagnating , but i was really looking foward to Keane, Onohua, Flamini, and McGeady coming down VP, because they were players that we needed, and might have been the spark players to get us into the top 4.
But we will never know.
-
So what do you expect of Hou then?
I accept some of the comments about MON stagnating , but i was really looking foward to Keane, Onohua, Flamini, and McGeady coming down VP, because they were players that we needed, and might have been the spark players to get us into the top 4.
But we will never know.
What I do know is that is no evidence that we were after Onohua or Flamini, as for McGready and Keane, you're taking the piss, £18m and a shitload of wages for those 2?
You're delirious.
-
This really does get to the nub of supporting Villa. How we see ourselves and how the rest of football - our footballing peers - see us. To them we are this 7th-12th team. That's how football perceives us. Maybe out 6th places is all we can do. Maybe that is our real level. Its interesting to mention because not one of us will ever agree with it. However true it may be.
Are we unfair on anyone who manages us, or owns us? Are our expectations far outreaching our size, status, and true level within the game.?Are we just trying to get in the Champions league because we think we want to get into it and play in it, or is it because we really do believe its where we belong?
I'm not saying this because I actually will ever contend that we are anything but striving to get back to where we belong. But its also nice to guage how others view us. Still, its what makes us all Aston Villa fans I suppose. The alternative to ambition, and wanting success, is just down the road.
-
I'm not sure the outside world past Houllier does see us as 7-12th also-rans, perhaps the ones who only follow the progress of Man U and Chelsea maybe. Or foreigners who think 'English football' means Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.
For others not as shallow, or with an ounce of footballing knowledge that doesn't see 1992 as the cut off point I'd say they're plenty aware of our pedigree.
We have no divine right to be in the CL, nobody could say in good conscience it's where we belong. But as one of the biggest clubs in England, in one of England's biggest cities it is at the very least a legitimate target.
-
That's the thing though KG, of course it should be a target the question is our we realistic in what we want, and we we realistically achieve ? and we're only talking about whether we can qualify or not, not even winning the bleeding thing.
-
I think pretty much where we've been the last few seasons is realistic or 'par' for a club our size, with our resources and our standing in the game.
The hope is that a good manager delivers more than parity, gets us punching above our weight. That's the beauty of sport, finance will get you so far but team chemistry, strong leadership and individual brilliance can make the impossible possible. Or the unlikely a bit more likely.
-
Agree with everything but the last point. Its all about money. Name the last club without a lot of it won the Champions League, or even the Premiership?
-
That's probably where a fair degree of the frustration emanated from when it came to MON.
Not so much that we expected 4th as of right, rather that we knew we had a window of opportunity back in 2009 that realistically might not come around again. It's so bloody hard to crack it, when you get the chance you have to seize it.
An eight point gap going into early March might (might) have been too much of a psychological blow for Arsenal to bounce back from. We'll never know, but the decisions taken around that period -signing Heskey, Moscow and so forth- and the result v Stoke framed our outlook and thinking. Were we ever good enough? Did we really want it?
And so on.
-
The aim I would have thought would be to somehow replicate what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Or at least use that model.
Of the formerly established top 4 he's spent his money most wisely recruiting some very good players coupled with outstanding prospects. Though Wenger hasn't won a trophy in the past few years his teams are attractive to watch and always competitive. They are perennially in the top 4 which demonstrates a shrewdness that I hope Houllier can bring to the club. Given the money being doshed out by others Wenger has worked miracles spending relative to turnover. It's not easy but it can be done.
-
Thing is, that window still hasn't closed, it has one more year left of it, until Liverpool find a rich sheikh and man City get it right. This is the last year when we may as well have thrown money at it, nit stupid amounts - but enough to get those minimum 3 players that we needed to push us on.
no need to choose not to because if we had have finished 5th downwards after spending money that window will have closed and we can then take stock of where the club is going.
-
Agree with everything but the last point. Its all about money. Name the last club without a lot of it won the Champions League, or even the Premiership?
Villareal have got to the latter stages of the CL.
They have finance, but aren't traditionally one of the powerhouses in Spain and get very small gates.
Wolfsburg and Hoffenheim aren't giants of the German game but have made significant strides in recent years. Again, yes, part of that progress is because of finance. But there are plenty more wealthy clubs in Germany, clubs traditionally much stronger.
So good coaching, good management and team chemistry does have a role to play.
Finance is important -and had we managed it in 2009/09 many would have pointed to the fact that we were one of the biggest spenders in Europe that year. But it isn't the be all and end all.
-
The aim I would have thought would be to somehow replicate what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Or at least use that model.
Of the formerly established top 4 he's spent his money most wisely recruiting some very good players coupled with outstanding prospects. Though Wenger hasn't won a trophy in the past few years his teams are attractive to watch and always competitive. They are perennially in the top 4 which demonstrates a shrewdness that I hope Houllier can bring to the club. Given the money being doshed out by others Wenger has worked miracles spending relative to turnover. It's not easy but it can be done.
the problem here is that Wenger, like Ferguson, will have their legacies formulated by being at the right place at the right time. The latter because Man U had a great team of kids coming through many of whom went on to play international football, whilst Wenger came to Arsenal at the right time, when france, and French footballers, were the best, and knew which undervalued players to put together to make a great team.
The management of both made it work, but they will never replicate that again.
-
The aim I would have thought would be to somehow replicate what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Or at least use that model.
Of the formerly established top 4 he's spent his money most wisely recruiting some very good players coupled with outstanding prospects. Though Wenger hasn't won a trophy in the past few years his teams are attractive to watch and always competitive. They are perennially in the top 4 which demonstrates a shrewdness that I hope Houllier can bring to the club. Given the money being doshed out by others Wenger has worked miracles spending relative to turnover. It's not easy but it can be done.
I think very few clubs could get away with what Wenger has managed there, it's pretty unique.
The London location helps too, when it comes to attracting promising young players from across the globe. Would a young Fabregas or Vela want to settle in Birmingham? Unlikely.
A model we could more closely follow is that of the other North London lot. Casting the net wide, not afraid to take a punt on Championship players and trading at profit. Again the level of foreign player they can attract might be helped by the London factor, but as an overall model there might be more to draw from than the Arsenal one.
-
The aim I would have thought would be to somehow replicate what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Or at least use that model.
Of the formerly established top 4 he's spent his money most wisely recruiting some very good players coupled with outstanding prospects. Though Wenger hasn't won a trophy in the past few years his teams are attractive to watch and always competitive. They are perennially in the top 4 which demonstrates a shrewdness that I hope Houllier can bring to the club. Given the money being doshed out by others Wenger has worked miracles spending relative to turnover. It's not easy but it can be done.
the problem here is that Wenger, like Ferguson, will have their legacies formulated by being at the right place at the right time. The latter because Man U had a great team of kids coming through many of whom went on to play international football, whilst Wenger came to Arsenal at the right time, when france, and French footballers, were the best, and knew which undervalued players to put together to make a great team.
The management of both made it work, but they will never replicate that again.
I wasn't really pointing to Wenger's intial years. More about how he competes today. You're right. He had a tremendous base from which to work from but once he sold or discarded those players, he still maintained a constant stream of players coming through a consistent system. He's also added experienced internationals at various times to that mix. He hasn't got it right all the time and when you don't have the money you can't afford to make too many mistakes. But his record of staying competitive after the period you are referring to stands up with anyone.
I'd certainly discount Ferguson from this. Yes, that batch of kids was sensational, but since then he has invested very heavily in proven talent and costly gambles, some of which haven't paid off at all. Most of his youth team never make it because of the existing first team talent currently available to him, and end up being sold off to lower PL or Championship sides.
-
The aim I would have thought would be to somehow replicate what Wenger has achieved at Arsenal. Or at least use that model.
Of the formerly established top 4 he's spent his money most wisely recruiting some very good players coupled with outstanding prospects. Though Wenger hasn't won a trophy in the past few years his teams are attractive to watch and always competitive. They are perennially in the top 4 which demonstrates a shrewdness that I hope Houllier can bring to the club. Given the money being doshed out by others Wenger has worked miracles spending relative to turnover. It's not easy but it can be done.
I think very few clubs could get away with what Wenger has managed there, it's pretty unique.
The London location helps too, when it comes to attracting promising young players from across the globe. Would a young Fabregas or Vela want to settle in Birmingham? Unlikely.
A model we could more closely follow is that of the other North London lot. Casting the net wide, not afraid to take a punt on Championship players and trading at profit. Again the level of foreign player they can attract might be helped by the London factor, but as an overall model there might be more to draw from than the Arsenal one.
See I don't buy into the London argument as much when it comes to prospects from across Europe or other parts of the world. I think a chance to play in the PL at a big club is enticing enough for most. Even proven pros, given the right environment and offer can be acquired. Steve Bruce has convinced a number of very good players to come to Wigan and Sunderland. Middlesborough for a while had Juninho, Mendietta, Yakubu and Ravinelli. None of those are the most exciting places on the earth. We've just got to have a very good scouting system in various parts of the world. I would hope Houiller's experience in various football circles means he would get tipped off once in a while to the next big thing. One can hope anyway.
-
For me the saddest thing about all of this is that clubs like Villa aspire to get 4th place - not the title. I appreciate that the money does go a long way to deciding the top places however I agree with KevinGage that with astute coaching and a correct blend of hungry ambitious players (young and experienced) there is no reason a club cannot win the league.
Again the preference to finish 4th rather than win one of the cups is a strange concept to me.
Little and BFR had their failings and hence their departure,s however they did bring silverware to VP and made a few of us happy doing so.
-
Agree with everything but the last point. Its all about money. Name the last club without a lot of it won the Champions League, or even the Premiership?
Villareal have got to the latter stages of the CL.
They have finance, but aren't traditionally one of the powerhouses in Spain and get very small gates.
Wolfsburg and Hoffenheim aren't giants of the German game but have made significant strides in recent years. Again, yes, part of that progress is because of finance. But there are plenty more wealthy clubs in Germany, clubs traditionally much stronger.
So good coaching, good management and team chemistry does have a role to play.
Finance is important -and had we managed it in 2009/09 many would have pointed to the fact that we were one of the biggest spenders in Europe that year. But it isn't the be all and end all.
As far as I aware, by Premiership standards, Porto were not wealthy. I stand to be corrected though.
-
See I don't buy into the London argument as much when it comes to prospects from across Europe or other parts of the world. I think a chance to play in the PL at a big club is enticing enough for most. Even proven pros, given the right environment and offer can be acquired. Steve Bruce has convinced a number of very good players to come to Wigan and Sunderland. Middlesborough for a while had Juninho, Mendietta, Yakubu and Ravinelli. None of those are the most exciting places on the earth. We've just got to have a very good scouting system in various parts of the world. I would hope Houiller's experience in various football circles means he would get tipped off once in a while to the next big thing. One can hope anyway.
I think it's definitely a factor.
You're right in so far as other clubs in even less glamorous location than ours have been able to procure foreign talent. It's not that we wouldn't be able to get any, just that London sides have an inbuilt advantage.
Someone like Vela can probably find within very easy travelling distance food he gets from home and the support of various Mexican/ Latin American communities down that way. Doesn't sound like the most important things when it comes to a career, but pretty crucial in swaying a young player starting out.
-
How many times did Gregory 'regularly' finish in the top five?
Not many but he had a win ratio of 43% , how many pre and post managers can boast that ?
-
For me the saddest thing about all of this is that clubs like Villa aspire to get 4th place - not the title. I appreciate that the money does go a long way to deciding the top places however I agree with KevinGage that with astute coaching and a correct blend of hungry ambitious players (young and experienced) there is no reason a club cannot win the league.
Again the preference to finish 4th rather than win one of the cups is a strange concept to me.
Little and BFR had their failings and hence their departure,s however they did bring silverware to VP and made a few of us happy doing so.
I was thinking about this the other day and you're right, to an extent.
It does seem a bit shit to set top 4 as some kind of pinnacle, when I can remember not too long back genuine title challenges. If you're not in it to win it, what's the point?
But for me top 4 would be a crucial stage in our development.
Top 4 = better standard of opposition = higher profile = more finance = better players.
So that eventually, with that better standard of player and deeper level of resources available we'd be able to -in theory at least- sustain a title challenge.
-
Agree with everything but the last point. Its all about money. Name the last club without a lot of it won the Champions League, or even the Premiership?
Villareal have got to the latter stages of the CL.
They have finance, but aren't traditionally one of the powerhouses in Spain and get very small gates.
Wolfsburg and Hoffenheim aren't giants of the German game but have made significant strides in recent years. Again, yes, part of that progress is because of finance. But there are plenty more wealthy clubs in Germany, clubs traditionally much stronger.
So good coaching, good management and team chemistry does have a role to play.
Finance is important -and had we managed it in 2009/09 many would have pointed to the fact that we were one of the biggest spenders in Europe that year. But it isn't the be all and end all.
As far as I aware, by Premiership standards, Porto were not wealthy. I stand to be corrected though.
I think Porto's scouting system, particularly but not exclusively in South America, must have been about the best around. Bring them in and sell them on for a lot more.