Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Steve R on November 23, 2011, 12:12:05 AM
-
This is not intended to be a 'Bash Mcleish', 'Suck Gary Gardner's Dick','Maybe Houllier Was Right' or even a Jane Austen thread.
As I understand it, McLeish had three objectives when he was appointed :
1) reduce the wage bill (or more accurately, live with a reduced wage bill)
2) Make more if what we have (i.e. we had too many high earners taking money for doing nothing)
3) Give the much vaunted emerging ex-youth teamers opprtunity to state their case
Setting aside some miserable peformances we could all whinge about, what have we learned so far? Have we really gone about achieving the above in the right way?
It seems to me that we are guilty of trying to achieve the difficult to impossible feat of effecting major financial cutbacks whilst still making a half arsed attempt at being contenders (of sorts).
It is more than possible that the net result will not be the lean but stable platform to re-build upon that makes the interim pain worthwhile, but more a knackered donkey that doesn't know which way to turn.
Maybe a better approach would be to accept a mediocre season or (more likely) two - like were not going to get them anyway - and be prepared to write off a lot of the cash spent on the existing squad and move them on reagrdless of how low the offer.
Whatever transfer kitty we have could should be used for more loan deals and/or the kind of effective performers on low fees and wages that seem to serve the 'smaller' Prem clubs so well.
This would provide better contingency for a more concerted effort to give significant game time to the likes of Clark, Baker, Hogg (should have kept him), Delfouneso and Weimann let alone Gardner or Johnson.
I felt at the start of the season that with such a patchy squad and modest transfer kitty, blowing the majority of it on one player - any player - was maybe not such a good idea. I almost puked when I heard we were then going to lob out 4 mill on Hutton.
Similarly, even at the best of times, keeping 20/21/22 year olds on the outer fringes does little but ensure that their time passes before it even arrives.
Is there really no alternative to what is currently happening at the club?
-
Trouble is, are the young players good enough? Last 10 years i've been hearing about how ace our young players are on here and it never turns out that way. Of the last batch, we've got gabby and erm sold cahill for peanuts. the rest were meh at best. And if the latest batch are this magical generation are they ready or will we end up like Westham getting relegated with the likes of carrick, lampard, cole etc..?
-
My main issue is, when 'da blues' were twice sucked into a relegation battle, this manager wasn't able to drag them out of it. He seemingly refused to change approach or tactics, and they went down both times.
There have been a lot of noises about how players were unhappy under Houllier. Well our performances this season haven't exactly been top drawer, so what is the reason this season? Are the players just not good enough?
Also, could you really expect fans from other similar size teams of Villa's stature, to accept this 'well we have to be realistic' belief?
-
Is there really no alternative to what is currently happening at the club?
I'd rather we gambled on an up-and-coming foreign manager who tried to makes us play (what Villadelphia calls) 21st century football. People may utter the words "Jose Ramos" in the face of such a suggestion, but I've seen no evidence that McLeish is less likely to bring us into a relegation battle. In my opinion, the possible upside of a comfortable life in upper midtable and some football worth watching makes the risk worth taking.
Houllier was probably wrong man, but at least he had an idea what he was doing. He managed (sort of) to implement a defensive structure in the side, and you could see signs of how he wanted the team to play. Granted, he failed, partly because of the player's refusal to leave the comfy combination of MON's 1970s style football and John Robertson's lax training regime, but also because his own failure to bring with him coaches who could implement his ideas. But despite major setbacks like Sunderland/Wolves at home, Liverpool and Man City away, he did seem to have an idea of how he could drag us in the right direction.
McLeish, on the other hand, seems clueless. In my opinion he has not managed to get the basics right: the team look as disjointed as it did at the start of the season. Granted, we're seriously weakened because of the departure of NRC, Young and Downing, but it's not like the players who were supposedly suppressed by Houllier's stringent schoolteacher regime suddenly have blossomed. The few glimpses of decent football so far this season seems to have been been due to happy accidents and hopeless opposition, not systematic work on the training ground.
Unless the team improves significantly, it will be dragged into a relegation battle in January or so. Happily, there should be at least four or five teams significantly weaker than us. Sadly, McLeish's record in relegation battles is rather poor.
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
-
This is not intended to be a 'Bash Mcleish', 'Suck Gary Gardner's Dick','Maybe Houllier Was Right' or even a Jane Austen thread.
As I understand it, McLeish had three objectives when he was appointed :
1) reduce the wage bill (or more accurately, live with a reduced wage bill)
2) Make more if what we have (i.e. we had too many high earners taking money for doing nothing)
3) Give the much vaunted emerging ex-youth teamers opprtunity to state their case
Is there really no alternative to what is currently happening at the club?
The objectives listed above are all short term measures designed to control cash flow and reduce outgoings, these are the kind of short term objective that companies set [often under instruction from a bank] to regain an apparent control of a financial situation [often on paper]
Experts are often dropped into a company to put these measures into place, they are given big wages and bonus payouts if they achieve the objectives, the problem is with this kind of approach is that it doesn't take into consideration the long term position of the company / club. The expert / manager will get thier payout for doing what the company has asked and then more than likely move onto the next job, the risk is that the company / club will either fall over as the infrastructure has been pulled apart, or will be so weak due to lack of investment that it will not be able to compete and will suffer accordingly.
I think that the board need to put in place a longer term strategy that we can all get behind instead of burrying heads in the sand and hoping that things get better on thier own
Just my view
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
I agree Chris, but, you're banging your head up against a brick wall with some.
AMcL must be given a chance, at least, but unfortunately some will not look beyond the end of their anti blue noses.
I remember when Ron Saunders came to Villa Park to replace Vic Crowe. Many were saying back then:
"Ron who?" "What's he ever done?" .............................. Hmmm, yes, what did he ever do for Villa?!!!!
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
Is it as simple as that though Chris? I didn't want him but when he came he made the right noises I was prepared to give him a go but we played with one midfielder Monday and played blues style football, youth isn't gettin a chance, Clark, Albrighton where is Gardener? It's all too familiar
-
12 games is indeed not very much, but still sufficient to for a valid first impression. We spent 17 mill in the summer, which may not be much by our own standards of previous years but is still a pretty hefty budget compared to clubs who seem to be coping with austerity far better than we are.
The objectives of cutting the wage bill, addressing the unused baggage and trying to make more use of the academy are not mutually exclusive yet it seems (to me at least) that so far we seem to be addessing them independently, and to a degree repeating the mistakes that got us in this position in the first place.
I wasn't trying to question the right and wrongs of the managerial appointment specifically, even though I agree with everything Eigentor says. It is certainly a fact of life that good youth teams still yield precious few good first teamers, it always has been.
I'd still raise the question that maybe it should not be as bad as it is.
I doubt Fulham will totally compromise their usual game plan when they visit WHL. They will probably lose, but I doubt they will look as abject and will certainly have a better chance of actually getting something out of the game compared to us.
I wouldn't want Fulham's turnover, transfer kitty, their manager, their owner or their youth system. So what are they doing that we cannot?
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
He's part of the overall malaise at the club now that Lerner has lost interest. The reason we have such a poor manager, and the reason that we've sold those players you mention and not replaced them is all down to Lerner's inability to run a successful sports team.
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
Absolutely - it's very early days and I feel it's pointless expecting a managerial change anyway; McLeish is here to stay, because he's doing exactly what his employers have asked of him.
Despite working with certain limitations - transfer budget, in the main - though, McLeish has had the benefit of a full squad to work with (injuries few and far between) and I think he's made/making some poor choices. Seeing a bench full of good 'footballers' against Spurs really worried me. I'm more than happy to give him a chance - God knows I want him to succeed - but he hasn't impressed me much so far.
-
He's had 12 games and one transfer window with limited funds after losing good players the creative fulcrum of the side.
He might turn out to be the wrong man but it's pretty scant evidence to use to condemn him unless you were never going to give him a chance in the first place.
probably a good third of the support were never going to give him a chance anyway, while the rest of us have grave reservations about his style of football and lack of tactics
With that sort of rep starting a job, you'd hope the least the chairman would do is back him with money but instead he's been given a transfer budget that even Doug would think was a bit stingy.
Of course he's not gonna be given a chance.
-
I'll add that, if you want a new manager to be given a chance (which of course you do, as a club owner) then you shouldn't make one of the most controversial appointments in the history of the club. McLeish has been put in a tough spot by his bosses; he's got a much smaller margin of error than many other managers would have had.
-
Where he came from isn't important. It's the teams he picks and the tactics he uses. Both of which have been unacceptable. A park's manager would do much better.
-
I am all for giving him a chance and a chance that is over a season rather than 12 games and that is what we should do.
However I am pissing myself over the direction the club is taking. This was illustrated by a comment McLeish made yesterday when questioned about his negative tactics and not competing with Spurs on the pitch. The question was Do Aston Villa have any ambition to compete with clubs like Spurs? His answer alarmingly was We can not compete ...that's a fact of life...they have different ambitions to us
This points to a strategy agreed with Randy &Co that means our aim is to just survive in the league and that my friends is not good enough for Aston Villa FC. I do feel quite demoralised by the whole situation
-
The objectives listed above are all short term measures designed to control cash flow and reduce outgoings, these are the kind of short term objective that companies set [often under instruction from a bank] to regain an apparent control of a financial situation [often on paper]
....
That's putting things far better than I did. And I would certainly hope they are short term.
Yes, there is not point in doing what we are currently doing without the expectation of achieving stability and having a plan in place for what you do once you get there.
We are not headed toward stability though.
The need to cut back is a given, whether we like it or not. How that came about doesn't really matter that much.
I just cannot accept that it necessarily entails crap football, waving the white flag at WHL, or permanent abandonment of the aim of competing for a CL place in the reasonably near future.
Yet that is what we seem to be getting.
-
Up until Monday night, I would have considered myself fairly neutral on McLeish.
When he was appointed, I didnt want him (due to his track record, not Blues connection) but thought he should be given a chance. Since then, he had done nothing significantly positive or negative for me to reconsider my views either way.
But the team selection, tactics and rabbit-in-the-headlights reaction to Spurs controlling the game has me looking at him in a much more negative light. Not so much that I want him gone, but more of the same and I certainly would.
A few decent results and performances in December might bring him back to neutral territory, however, a bad month (particularly in terms of performance against the big teams - not expecting many points) and I think there will have to be serious questions asked.
-
AMcL must be given a chance, at least, but unfortunately some will not look beyond the end of their anti blue noses.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to moan that people are too closed minded to give him a chance, then to suggest that it's largely because they don't like Blues? Isn't that just as narrow minded?
I can think of, at most, a handful of people on here that wanted him gone as soon as he got here because of his provenance, and none of those are even regular posters.
How much do you think Monday night was about him having been the Blues manager? It wasn't. What it was was (another) 90 minutes demonstrating that those who are concerned about his brand of football - and who would be so, wherever he'd come from - are right to be worried.
The "you're only moaning because he's a former Blues manager" is the season's new cop-out non-argument.
-
Despite working with certain limitations - transfer budget, in the main - though, McLeish has had the benefit of a full squad to work with (injuries few and far between) and I think he's made/making some poor choices. Seeing a bench full of good 'footballers' against Spurs really worried me. I'm more than happy to give him a chance - God knows I want him to succeed - but he hasn't impressed me much so far.
Not having the biggest of squads is something that he is going to find difficult to work with, and something we will need to cut him some slack on at some point, but the fact is, as you said, this hasn't been a factor thus far, so it's really not a viable excuse.
We've also had the advantage of a really pretty easy opening section to the season, too.
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me. He was always going to have to do much better than expected and frankly he hasn't. A lot of us saw the fixture list at the start of the season and knew we had to get off to a flier to cover us for the coming fixtures or pull off a surprises in the next month. Like most people i've added up the points i'm expecting before January and he's gonna be in a lot trouble if the total is anywhere near my guesstimate.
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
-
I think Randys recent interview, along with his appointment of McLeish , confirms his medium to long term strategy.
No longer will we pay £5-10m pounds for over 28s on high wages.In fact i don't expect many signings until all of the big earners have gone.
I think by next summer Dunne, Warnock, Petrov, Beye, Heskey will no longer be at the club, and we will be buying 22/23 year olds, probably from abroad.
Slowly but surely, Bannan, Gardener, Clark, Johnson et al will be worked into the team, and the better ones sold off, probably once a year with the idea that we have others coming through.
Wages will be kept down apart from player like Gabby and Bent and Given.And as and when the youngsters develop, they will be well rewarded.
We will probably have a net spend of about £10m for each of the next 2 seasons.
TBF to Randy , we can't complain.We had a go under MON, and we failed to break into the top 4.Randy is reluctant to throw any more money at a lost cause, and who can blame him.We have some good youngsters coming through, and it would'nt be a bad idea to have a good look at them before signing journeymen like Collins, Beye, Warnock, LYoung etc.We have the basis of a very good team down there, even now, in my eyes a top 8 team, possibly higher, but the manager certainly needs to show a bit more belief in his better footballers, otherwise Randy needs to bite the bullet, get rid of McL, and give Brendan Rogers 5 years.
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
Depends on how bad we're doing and if he values his credibility over hard cash. He panicked quick enough and bought Bent when things looked iffy. Impending relegation and more million pound losses may focus his mind somewhat
-
He may be doing the job he's been asked to do but I doubt randy's ever told him to play 6 defenders. maybe he wants the wage bill brought down further as Mcleish's anti brand of football will drive the crowds down even further
-
Do we have a problem with some of our fans not accepting that we're no longer challenging for honours and competing at the top with the like of now, Spurs etc.
It's obviously hard to swallow, especially for the older fans that have witnessed European Glory Days. however, things probably aren't going to be much better than this going forward, or are they?
-
he may have only had 12 games, but in those 12 games there has been little or nothing to show we are moving in a more positve direction.
Infact, we appear to be worse now, than when he took over. They may have been one off, somehat flukey results, but I honestly cannot see see us pulling off wins against Arse and Liverpool like we did at the backend of last season.
This malaise around the club that people mention, I think, is correct.
We have not have the new manager 'bounce', it just seems to be a case of 'as you were', but a little bit shitter.
I have yet to see any game this season where we have looked postive, bright, enthusiastic and capable.
I don't mean world beaters, I just mean up for the game and looking like we think we can win.
The closest was Norwich, but lets face it, that was against a very naive (sp ?) team, who actually were the better team for a large part of the game, and could have snatched a draw at the death.
Other than that game, we have looked at best, functional.
I did not want McLeish, nothing to do with the Rags, just because I think he is a poor manager.
Ater the Monday night debacle, I feel evrn more so that we are now going backwards.
I hope Lerner wakes up and smells the coffee, before its too late.
-
obviously we don't have to accept where we are, and should strive for more from oru club, but it's probably not going to happen. Slightly heartbroken.
-
Do we have a problem with some of our fans not accepting that we're no longer challenging for honours and competing at the top with the like of now, Spurs etc.
It's obviously hard to swallow, especially for the older fans that have witnessed European Glory Days. however, things probably aren't going to be much better than this going forward, or are they?
We just need Lerner to sell. We haven't got a cat in hell's chance of paying him back the loans he's made to us, so as it's clear that he isn't willing to finance us any more after he wasted so much, he's going to have to find a buyer. And no, it doesn't have to be an oil rich arab nation, just as it didn't when Ellis was looking to sell.
-
AMcL must be given a chance, at least, but unfortunately some will not look beyond the end of their anti blue noses.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to moan that people are too closed minded to give him a chance, then to suggest that it's largely because they don't like Blues? Isn't that just as narrow minded?
I can think of, at most, a handful of people on here that wanted him gone as soon as he got here because of his provenance, and none of those are even regular posters.
How much do you think Monday night was about him having been the Blues manager? It wasn't. What it was was (another) 90 minutes demonstrating that those who are concerned about his brand of football - and who would be so, wherever he'd come from - are right to be worried.
The "you're only moaning because he's a former Blues manager" is the season's new cop-out non-argument.
With respect that's bollocks, Paulie. No other appointment would have served up the embarrassing scenes outside Villa Park when it was first rumoured.
That attitude just hasn't shifted despite a reasonably good start to the season.
I said then and I'll say it again, he wasn't the man I wanted but I'm prepared to have an open mind. To at least see what he can over the course of a season.
-
Do we have a problem with some of our fans not accepting that we're no longer challenging for honours and competing at the top with the like of now, Spurs etc.
It's obviously hard to swallow, especially for the older fans that have witnessed European Glory Days. however, things probably aren't going to be much better than this going forward, or are they?
We just need Lerner to sell. We haven't got a cat in hell's chance of paying him back the loans he's made to us, so as it's clear that he isn't willing to finance us any more after he wasted so much, he's going to have to find a buyer. And no, it doesn't have to be an oil rich arab nation, just as it didn't when Ellis was looking to sell.
There's 2 ways out of this current stagnation in my opinion, and both decisions lie with Mr Lerner, either, he sells up, to someone, as you say, who hasn't got to be some oil rich squillionaire. Or he pumps in another load of cash to chase the dream that he outlined when he bought the club, 5-year plan and all that... Personally, I think the first option is the only one. I can't see Mr Lerner putting in more cash, especially as we've seen enough of his original investment wasted in poor signings by a previous manager. Looking from outside in, it would be a fantastic investment for some rich, and just as importantly, enthusiastic business man (or woman) to have a part-time hobby. But, it's going to take a hell of a few million quid to push us up to the promise land, and let's face it, there's only 4 spots to get into the Champions League, which, are pretty much decided out of 5 maybe now 6 clubs. And whatever happens, it's not going to happen over night. Can't see Villa Park being a happy place for a few years yet....
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that we would yet again have to pay compensation, Randy has taken an unpopular decision based on his belief in McLeish and the new club policy. The fact is that McLeish is capable more than many others of implementing a strategy of ‘steady as she goes’ with a possible cup flirtation and it is inconceivable that no matter what noise comes out of message boards or even from the Holte End that he’ll pull the trigger.
McLeish is here to stay, so like it or lump it.
-
Our starting line up on Monday actually cost more than Spurs. They've just bought better players with the money they've spent, and have a much, much better manager, which of course is related to the first point.
-
Just throwing a question (or two) out there:
How much of this current plight is to do with McLeish? It was pretty obvious to me that the start of all this was before MON resigned. He walked, in my opinion because of the new approach that Mr Lerner wanted to take the club forward with. Obviously a succession of managers since then is never going to steady a ship. But, if MON had stayed on and been a relatively popular manager, in comparison to McLeish, and taken on Mr Lerners approach, would we still be in a similar position where we are questioning the Chairman’s ambition and interest in the club? if MON had us in 8th place after an average-ish start to the season, with a similar crop of players and similar style of Football, after a crappy pre-season in terms of transfers, would we still be all up in arms?
Obviously it's all hindsight and hypotheticall but there's a root to the current mood at the club. I'm just interested in finding out where people lay the blame, because let's face it, we're AVFC, we need a scapegoat or two....
-
Just throwing a question (or two) out there:
How much of this current plight is to do with McLeish? It was pretty obvious to me that the start of all this was before MON resigned. He walked, in my opinion because of the new approach that Mr Lerner wanted to take the club forward with. Obviously a succession of managers since then is never going to steady a ship. But, if MON had stayed on and been a relatively popular manager, in comparison to McLeish, and taken on Mr Lerners approach, would we still be in a similar position where we are questioning the Chairman’s ambition and interest in the club? if MON had us in 8th place after an average-ish start to the season, with a similar crop of players and similar style of Football, after a crappy pre-season in terms of transfers, would we still be all up in arms?
Obviously it's all hindsight and hypotheticall but there's a root to the current mood at the club. I'm just interested in finding out where people lay the blame, because let's face it, we're AVFC, we need a scapegoat or two....
McLeish is a symptom of the deep-rooted problem at the club, in that I believe you're absolutely correct. Doesn't stop him being a pretty big symptom, mind, but he isn't the fundamental cause of the current malaise.
In Dave's article, he spoke of how Randy and the club used to seem telepathic with us. We truly were all in it together, the club seemed to know what we wanted and when it made a mistake, learned from it and, for our part, we took mistakes they made mostly with grace as we knew where their hearts were. We don't know anymore. The appointment of McLeish displayed a cavalier disregard for what the fans think beyond any reason. This isn't a Newcastle-esque trying to run the club through fan pressure, this is just a total disconnect.
Secondly, there is a genuine worry as to whether or not Randy, Faulkner et al really know what they're doing. They didn't appoint MON who, for all his faults, had some very good managerial qualities. However, they didn't 'manage' him well at all - instead, very unwisely, they gave him free reign, not least with the finances, which has lead ultimately to the financial issues we now face.
If that didn't show great footballing understanding, the two following searches for managers certainly didn't either. The emphasis placed on that 'Premier League experience' nonsense showed a buying into of myths about the primacy and special-ness of English football that was naive bordering on childish. Why else would they express an interest in two managers as massively divergent as McLeish and Martinez? And, indeed, McLaren, very different again. The only thing they have in common was that Premier League experience thing. Is that really what they're basing the future strategy of our club on?
These questions have to be answered. Very importantly, though, they have to realise how much they're shooting themselves in their collective foot. Fans will turn up to watch entertaining football, successful football and especially both. We might not manage the latter two, but if we're going nowhere we might as well do it with panache and with a smile on our faces. At the moment, it's just vaguely hopeless, uninspiring drudgery, which is not going to put bums on seats and increase our revenues that way.
-
Our starting line up on Monday actually cost more than Spurs. They've just bought better players with the money they've spent, and have a much, much better manager, which of course is related to the first point.
But clearly everyone on here would not have wanted Redknapp as he's got clubs relegated in the past. He's become a better manager with experience and cash to spend but it wasn't always so.
If you tot up the total cost of their squad and compare it to ours they're miles in front. They've been doing it since way before Lerner arrived.
-
Maybe some managers are just better with better players. As Pardew seems to be proving at the moment? Maybe some managers just can't get their ideas and approach across to players with less ability.... just a thought....
-
Just throwing a question (or two) out there:
How much of this current plight is to do with McLeish? It was pretty obvious to me that the start of all this was before MON resigned. He walked, in my opinion because of the new approach that Mr Lerner wanted to take the club forward with. Obviously a succession of managers since then is never going to steady a ship. But, if MON had stayed on and been a relatively popular manager, in comparison to McLeish, and taken on Mr Lerners approach, would we still be in a similar position where we are questioning the Chairman’s ambition and interest in the club? if MON had us in 8th place after an average-ish start to the season, with a similar crop of players and similar style of Football, after a crappy pre-season in terms of transfers, would we still be all up in arms?
Obviously it's all hindsight and hypotheticall but there's a root to the current mood at the club. I'm just interested in finding out where people lay the blame, because let's face it, we're AVFC, we need a scapegoat or two....
McLeish is a symptom of the deep-rooted problem at the club, in that I believe you're absolutely correct. Doesn't stop him being a pretty big symptom, mind, but he isn't the fundamental cause of the current malaise.
In Dave's article, he spoke of how Randy and the club used to seem telepathic with us. We truly were all in it together, the club seemed to know what we wanted and when it made a mistake, learned from it and, for our part, we took mistakes they made mostly with grace as we knew where their hearts were. We don't know anymore. The appointment of McLeish displayed a cavalier disregard for what the fans think beyond any reason. This isn't a Newcastle-esque trying to run the club through fan pressure, this is just a total disconnect.
Secondly, there is a genuine worry as to whether or not Randy, Faulkner et al really know what they're doing. They didn't appoint MON who, for all his faults, had some very good managerial qualities. However, they didn't 'manage' him well at all - instead, very unwisely, they gave him free reign, not least with the finances, which has lead ultimately to the financial issues we now face.
If that didn't show great footballing understanding, the two following searches for managers certainly didn't either. The emphasis placed on that 'Premier League experience' nonsense showed a buying into of myths about the primacy and special-ness of English football that was naive bordering on childish. Why else would they express an interest in two managers as massively divergent as McLeish and Martinez? And, indeed, McLaren, very different again. The only thing they have in common was that Premier League experience thing. Is that really what they're basing the future strategy of our club on?
These questions have to be answered. Very importantly, though, they have to realise how much they're shooting themselves in their collective foot. Fans will turn up to watch entertaining football, successful football and especially both. We might not manage the latter two, but if we're going nowhere we might as well do it with panache and with a smile on our faces. At the moment, it's just vaguely hopeless, uninspiring drudgery, which is not going to put bums on seats and increase our revenues that way.
Spot on Monts.
-
This was illustrated by a comment McLeish made yesterday when questioned about his negative tactics and not competing with Spurs on the pitch. The question was Do Aston Villa have any ambition to compete with clubs like Spurs? His answer alarmingly was We can not compete ...that's a fact of life...they have different ambitions to us
On my thread "can we have our club back please" i said how we are morphing into the Dog shit
This is almost exactly the same thing he came out with after we gubbed the dog shit 5-1 a few years ago
Fuck me why dont we just make it easier for him and change the kit to royal blue / white
I really have tried to accept him (and it has nothing, not a single thing that he came from them - as other have said if he was victim of circustance over there and proved to be great with better players i would have loved it that they lost out ot us again) its all about migrating his inability to coach / tactic awareness and lack of bottle that he had over there to over here
This was my fear at first and it is only growing - the most alarming thing was that all my nose friends warned me what his tactics were like well before he ever came here. Instead of mising him they were actually glad he fooked off!!!!!
Whether Monday was his 12th game or 1200 to meekly put out a cowardly team like that from the start is enough in my mind for sacking - i could almost understand damage limitation if we had a lot of regulars out injured etc - he had a virtually fully fit squad to choose from
Totally embarrassing to be a Villa fan on Monday - and 3 days on i am still fuming where normally i would have let it go by now after a defeat.
But the total manner of the line up / the tactics / the lack of changes after 5 mins when everyone could see it was shit is beyond belief and i am sorry for my / our club that is not acceptable at any level
-
AMcL must be given a chance, at least, but unfortunately some will not look beyond the end of their anti blue noses.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to moan that people are too closed minded to give him a chance, then to suggest that it's largely because they don't like Blues? Isn't that just as narrow minded?
I can think of, at most, a handful of people on here that wanted him gone as soon as he got here because of his provenance, and none of those are even regular posters.
How much do you think Monday night was about him having been the Blues manager? It wasn't. What it was was (another) 90 minutes demonstrating that those who are concerned about his brand of football - and who would be so, wherever he'd come from - are right to be worried.
The "you're only moaning because he's a former Blues manager" is the season's new cop-out non-argument.
With respect that's bollocks, Paulie. No other appointment would have served up the embarrassing scenes outside Villa Park when it was first rumoured.
That attitude just hasn't shifted despite a reasonably good start to the season.
I said then and I'll say it again, he wasn't the man I wanted but I'm prepared to have an open mind. To at least see what he can over the course of a season.
It's not bollocks.
Forget the protests outside Villa Park, I'm talking about the people who discuss the issue on here, who - with the exception of a tiny number of people - i imagine had nothing at all to do with the protests.
There are a lot ofpeople here who made it quite clear they were prepared to give him a chance, who have now seen enough to get a good idea of the way things are going and don't like the look of it.
The whole blues argument falls apart when applied to anyone with half a brain cell.
Who, for example, would give a flying one if we'd appointed someone who had been amazingly successful at Blues rather than bagged two relegations?
-
Whenever there is a poor performance some people decide that it sums up everything about the manager. The games where we play well are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, it's the game where he tried something different and it failed that are put forward as irrefutable proof of his utter shitness.
We're turning into Geordies, dancing around like fannies on SSN about the appointment and then calling for a change after 12 games.
That's modern football for you.
-
Although obviously connected, I see this as two arguments; 1. Randy's longterm plan/vision and 2. McLeish's managerial ability.
1. He invested heavily, but I always thought the plan was to see the club get self sufficient at some point. That self sufficiencey was probably envisioned with a CL income, but as that didn't happen plans had to be redrawn, hence our current budget cutting. I like Randy and trust that he has the best interests on the club at heart, so am prepared to wait and see what he does next. Are we having a 'cooling off period' to clear the decks before taking another bash at it or has he given up the ghost? In the former then fair enough and I'll be patient, but if the latter then he should be looking for a buyer.
2. 12 games isn't a long period, but it's enough to at least start looking for where our weaknesses are and try to improve them. Spurs away was a joke, which nobody was laughing at, but he at least deserves the chance to learn from that mistake and improve. His defensive reputation is now questionable, but at the start of the season we were quite solid, so not sure what's changed? Plus points have been the signing of Given, Herd, the form of Gabby and results overall as 8th is higher than a lot predicted pre-season. I think he's been average - decent results with relatively poor form overall - so not enough to call for him to go without being a ringing endorsement.
Where those two parts meet is is he the man if we start spending again? For me, it's a no, as with a decent budget we could attract better, but if we're coasting he'll be about our level.
So maybe it's a matter of a two year plan to shift what we don't want while seeing what kids cut the mustard, then saying 'Thanks, Alex' before paying up the last year of his contract and then looking to re-try our approach under MON?
-
Although obviously connected, I see this as two arguments; 1. Randy's longterm plan/vision and 2. McLeish's managerial ability.
1. He invested heavily, but I always thought the plan was to see the club get self sufficient at some point. That self sufficiencey was probably envisioned with a CL income, but as that didn't happen plans had to be redrawn, hence our current budget cutting. I like Randy and trust that he has the best interests on the club at heart, so am prepared to wait and see what he does next. Are we having a 'cooling off period' to clear the decks before taking another bash at it or has he given up the ghost? In the former then fair enough and I'll be patient, but if the latter then he should be looking for a buyer.
2. 12 games isn't a long period, but it's enough to at least start looking for where our weaknesses are and try to improve them. Spurs away was a joke, which nobody was laughing at, but he at least deserves the chance to learn from that mistake and improve. His defensive reputation is now questionable, but at the start of the season we were quite solid, so not sure what's changed? Plus points have been the signing of Given, Herd, the form of Gabby and results overall as 8th is higher than a lot predicted pre-season. I think he's been average - decent results with relatively poor form overall - so not enough to call for him to go without being a ringing endorsement.
Where those two parts meet is is he the man if we start spending again? For me, it's a no, as with a decent budget we could attract better, but if we're coasting he'll be about our level.
So maybe it's a matter of a two year plan to shift what we don't want while seeing what kids cut the mustard, then saying 'Thanks, Alex' before paying up the last year of his contract and then looking to re-try our approach under MON?
-
Whenever there is a poor performance some people decide that it sums up everything about the manager. The games where we play well are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, it's the game where he tried something different and it failed that are put forward as irrefutable proof of his utter shitness.
We're turning into Geordies, dancing around like fannies on SSN about the appointment and then calling for a change after 12 games.
That's modern football for you.
Commenting about games you haven't even seen. There's modern football for you.
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that we would yet again have to pay compensation, Randy has taken an unpopular decision based on his belief in McLeish and the new club policy. The fact is that McLeish is capable more than many others of implementing a strategy of ‘steady as she goes’ with a possible cup flirtation and it is inconceivable that no matter what noise comes out of message boards or even from the Holte End that he’ll pull the trigger.
McLeish is here to stay, so like it or lump it.
Again i don't think thats true. while Lerner may ignore the fans opinion, the whole point of AM's appointment was to save money. If he's worried about the finances now he'll be on prozac if we go down. AM's minimum brief is to keep us up. If that looks like not happening then he'll be gone whether Lerner loses face or not.
-
I'd say that after 14 games into the season, the fact we've only won 4 and those were against Wigan (20th) Blackburn (19th) Norwich (2 years ago a Division 3 side) and Hereford (19th in Div 4) could be the reason a few people are getting a tad worried.
I personally would be just as worried regardless of who the manager is.
-
The Spurs game was things coming to a head. The games against Wolves,Newcastle,Everton,West Brom,first half against QPR,we were completely out fought and passed,lacked any creativity apart from launching it up to Gabby.
And after reading his interview in the evening mail regarding Hutton and Cuellar leaves me with more dread as he said he'd do it again if he had to.
Most folk on here weren't happy with the appointment but would still back Mccleish,but as things seem to be getting worse,I think its completely understandable people questioning his future at the club.
-
I'd say that after 14 games into the season, the fact we've only won 4 and those were against Wigan (20th) Blackburn (19th) Norwich (2 years ago a Division 3 side) and Hereford (19th in Div 4) could be the reason a few people are getting a tad worried.
I personally would be just as worried regardless of who the manager is.
That is exactly it in a nutshell - the Blues thing is a smokescreen for the facts
He is turning us into the blues by sticking to the same gutless, lacklustre football he employed there - like most i thought it would be different when having better players to play with
He is actually making the better players worse and the shit players regulars
-
Can't speak for anyone else but I'm certainly drawing on what I've read, seen and learned over 12-odd games to form an opinion on the McLeish reign so far. Spurs was an interesting game to see what the manager would put in place tactically with practically the whole squad to utilise; it was a strange approach to take, didn't work (Bale involved in the both the goals) and since then McLeish has commented that he still believed it was the best thing to do.
I didn't protest about his appointment. I did think it was a poor choice and believed then that he was the wrong man for the job. I still consider myself open-minded on him, because I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong (I championed the signing of Stephen Ireland, and have held my hand up since to admit I was way off course then) but little has changed my opinion of McLeish as a manager to date.
I have been impressed with the way he generally conducts himself but doubt his credentials as a manager and as a coach; I believe he has a ceiling as a manager, which is probably a notch or two lower than where we perceive our potential to be.
-
Whenever there is a poor performance some people decide that it sums up everything about the manager. The games where we play well are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, it's the game where he tried something different and it failed that are put forward as irrefutable proof of his utter shitness.
We're turning into Geordies, dancing around like fannies on SSN about the appointment and then calling for a change after 12 games.
That's modern football for you.
There was never going to be much singing and dancing after home wins against Wigan, Norwich and Blackburn though, was there?
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that we would yet again have to pay compensation, Randy has taken an unpopular decision based on his belief in McLeish and the new club policy. The fact is that McLeish is capable more than many others of implementing a strategy of ‘steady as she goes’ with a possible cup flirtation and it is inconceivable that no matter what noise comes out of message boards or even from the Holte End that he’ll pull the trigger.
McLeish is here to stay, so like it or lump it.
Again i don't think thats true. while Lerner may ignore the fans opinion, the whole point of AM's appointment was to save money. If he's worried about the finances now he'll be on prozac if we go down. AM's minimum brief is to keep us up. If that looks like not happening then he'll be gone whether Lerner loses face or not.
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
-
Houllier got till this time last year so why anyone would think AM would get longer given the circumstances is beyond me.
Because Lerner has bet the house (in terms of his credibility) on this appointment.
You can forget any notion that AM is going to get sacked any time soon.
Exactly.
Aside from the fact that we would yet again have to pay compensation, Randy has taken an unpopular decision based on his belief in McLeish and the new club policy. The fact is that McLeish is capable more than many others of implementing a strategy of ‘steady as she goes’ with a possible cup flirtation and it is inconceivable that no matter what noise comes out of message boards or even from the Holte End that he’ll pull the trigger.
McLeish is here to stay, so like it or lump it.
Again i don't think thats true. while Lerner may ignore the fans opinion, the whole point of AM's appointment was to save money. If he's worried about the finances now he'll be on prozac if we go down. AM's minimum brief is to keep us up. If that looks like not happening then he'll be gone whether Lerner loses face or not.
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
To be honest that's not the greatest way to do build a club, I'd rather we tried to be proactive than reactive.
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
Exactly. I do not understand it, why do we play with shackles on? Not one sensible fan expects us to compete with the top teams.
-
Regarding some of the posts during this thread that state Learner may have lost interest...well IMO his recent statement was dignified and called for, however it is rightly questionable that Learner, an Aston Villa supporter who started following the club when he was a University student at Cambridge (and even has the club badge tattooed on his leg) would hire a manager that THE SUPPORTERS do not want and who would certainly compromise what many felt was going to be a make or break season. Granted, we are in the top half but personally, for the good of Aston Villa FC I'd sack McLeish now and go for a Villa man. There are not too many out there at the moment in club management but Dean Saunders would do for me.
-
To be honest that's not the greatest way to do build a club, I'd rather we tried to be proactive than reactive.
As would I, but should we be in that position I won't turn down another Darren Bent!
-
Whenever there is a poor performance some people decide that it sums up everything about the manager. The games where we play well are ignored or dismissed as irrelevant, it's the game where he tried something different and it failed that are put forward as irrefutable proof of his utter shitness.
We're turning into Geordies, dancing around like fannies on SSN about the appointment and then calling for a change after 12 games.
That's modern football for you.
Commenting about games you haven't even seen. There's modern football for you.
I wasn't commentating about the game though, was I. It's the reaction to it that I'm talking it. Trying to add more significance to this game than the previous two where we'd played pretty well.
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
Exactly. I do not understand it, why do we play with shackles on? Not one sensible fan expects us to compete with the top teams.
Really, I thought this thread was all about expecting us to compete with one of the top teams on Monday night. Or are you saying that none of the posters on here are sensible? ;-)
-
I thought we were lining Bent up in the summer before the January we bought him?
In which case how could it have been anything to do with relegation fears?
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
Exactly. I do not understand it, why do we play with shackles on? Not one sensible fan expects us to compete with the top teams.
Really, I thought this thread was all about expecting us to compete with one of the top teams on Monday night. Or are you saying that none of the posters on here are sensible? ;-)
No, it's not about that.
If we'd just lost to Spurs - even by a large margin - having had a go at least, there would be far less anger than there has been.
In that sense it is not at all about not competing with Spurs on Monday, it is about going out to play for a draw, then after conceding a goal, to keep the score down.
It was a shockingly unambitious display, and it is that which people are annoyed about, not the fact we got zero points.
-
I thought we were lining Bent up in the summer before the January we bought him?
In which case how could it have been anything to do with relegation fears?
Hard to imagine we were, given that O'Neill walked out after being told he wouldn't be given the Milner money to spend, and Houllier didn't actually start until the transfer window had shut. Nope, it was a signing to stave off imminent and inevitable relegation. it worked to be fair, but in the context of the last two years, it's impossible to believe that Bent was a long term plan, given the fact that we've sold so many other good players and not replaced them.
-
Seriously, I had it on good information that we were in contact about Bent as soon as we knew Milner was leaving but, I can't prove it so... never mind. It's not really that important anyway.
-
Seriously, I had it on good information that we were in contact about Bent as soon as we knew Milner was leaving but, I can't prove it so... never mind. It's not really that important anyway.
Sorry, not buying it at all. That would have meant O'Neill being told that he'd have to work in a far more limited way, other than paying for an £18m striker. Or that they contacted Sunderland about Bent without having a permanent manager in place, which would be equally ludicrous. It also goes completely against the prevailing attitude towards transfers from the owner. The only reason we bought Bent was because getting relegated would have cost us far more than the £18m he cost us. Even Lerner can manage a simple sum like that.
-
I'll chase it up when I can be arsed.
-
There are some very good reason why AM should not have been appointed in the first place, we all know them, some highlighted in this thread, put simply its been pointed out that something like a third of fans where 100% against him in the first place because of where he was coming from, another huge bunch are chomping at the bit waiting for him to fall at the next hurdle to give him a right good kicking, another huge bunch just don't like his tactics and his football, can't wait for the bloke to fail, so the question is
who other than a moron would give the bloke the job in the first place knowing full well what he was up against, knowing the only way the bloke can succeed is to back him with zillions, and then don't, and then to top it all the very man that put him in place goes AWOL for all kinds of reasons, leaving yet further questions and giving the feeling that the club is drifting.
The start the club has had is in no way remarkable, its just as relevant in having to do with how the fixtures have fallen than anything else, and if anybody doubts that we play Swansea next, lose that and we go up against Man Utd, Bolton (a), Liverpool, Arsenal, Stoke, Chelsea, bad results against these sides and we will be in a very sticky position, so a win against Swansea is not just a must its everything because I can't see another 3pts anywhere soon on the horizon.
Which is why I said if we don't get the 3 v Swansea for his own sake AM should quit, because you can bet your last dollar that every fan including those with the patience of Jobe saying he should be given a chance will be salivating to rip his throat out come Jan.
IMO RL should be aware of these points, because he clearly has never chaired Villa Park with unrest going on.
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
Exactly. I do not understand it, why do we play with shackles on? Not one sensible fan expects us to compete with the top teams.
Really, I thought this thread was all about expecting us to compete with one of the top teams on Monday night. Or are you saying that none of the posters on here are sensible? ;-)
No, it's not about that.
If we'd just lost to Spurs - even by a large margin - having had a go at least, there would be far less anger than there has been.
In that sense it is not at all about not competing with Spurs on Monday, it is about going out to play for a draw, then after conceding a goal, to keep the score down.
It was a shockingly unambitious display, and it is that which people are annoyed about, not the fact we got zero points.
So if we'd competed with them it would have been ok, in other words it is about not competing with Spurs.
-
I think the more likely scenario is he'll realise some funds to ensure safety, as he did Jan 2011.
If we are in that position then, it's hard to imagine a signing who'd have an immediate impact like Bent did.
That's partly what pisses me off about McLeish, despite everything, in Gabby and Bent we've a strike force that just about every team outside of the top 4 would kill for, and yet the way he set up the team for the Spurs game guaranteed that they'd struggle.
Exactly. I do not understand it, why do we play with shackles on? Not one sensible fan expects us to compete with the top teams.
Really, I thought this thread was all about expecting us to compete with one of the top teams on Monday night. Or are you saying that none of the posters on here are sensible? ;-)
No, it's not about that.
If we'd just lost to Spurs - even by a large margin - having had a go at least, there would be far less anger than there has been.
In that sense it is not at all about not competing with Spurs on Monday, it is about going out to play for a draw, then after conceding a goal, to keep the score down.
It was a shockingly unambitious display, and it is that which people are annoyed about, not the fact we got zero points.
So if we'd competed with them it would have been ok, in other words it is about not competing with Spurs.
No Chris. It's about not even having a go, it's about giving up before we've even started. It's about tactics which are so uninspiring and, by the way, very very predictable so opposition managers have a headstart in countering them.
-
Its also about playing a team that we where easily the equal of just a short while ago, its about playing a side that we offered no opposition to, that contained us with ease, that actually could have thrashed us and there was little or nothing we could have done to offer as resistance.
It seriously looked not just physically but mentally like there was a whole division between Spurs and Aston Villa, we will see how that pans out in the coming 7 or 8 fixtures.
-
I thought we were lining Bent up in the summer before the January we bought him?
In which case how could it have been anything to do with relegation fears?
My understanding, which is limited to the press and what I read on here, so not claiming any sort of ITK, was that Houllier started speaking about getting Bent when he arrived. So while it was probably not a panic buy as such, when you look at our dealings immediately before and since I find it hard to see how Randy would have rubber stamped it had we not been where we were in the league.
-
So if we'd competed with them it would have been ok, in other words it is about not competing with Spurs.
It's about not trying to compete with Spurs.
I found it actually embarassing to watch, it was that bad.
-
Monty, you will have to explain the difference between "having a go" and "competing" to me as I'm not getting it.
We played crap and we lost the game, everyone says it so I accept it. Similarly I think most would agree with me that, at present, Spurs are a richer club than us with better playing resources at their disposal. So from that point of view choosing that game as particularly significant makes little logical sense.
We're a side and club in transition. McLeish has had half a transfer window and 12 games. In some of them we've played well, some poorly and some averagely. From any sensible standpoint that's entirely to be expected but as ever these days it's only the most recent game that matters.
-
Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?
And, if so, what?
-
Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?
And, if so, what?
We tried not to lose by 5 or 6. We succeeded. Job done. Chris is happy.
-
Result aside, 'performance' (loosest possible terms) aside, I'm more concerned about McLeish's understanding of football, following Monday's game. That the best way to combat a team like Spurs was to deploy two players into the midfield who, between them, do not have the technical ability to keep and pass the ball efficiently and effectively. While four midfielders, all of whom can do that as second nature, sat on the bench.
It was little more than getting bodies in the way, be a nuisance. It just allowed Spurs to have all the possession, which is the last thing we should have done. It was tactics in the absolute most basic of terms. And McLeish still seems to believe it was the right approach.
That's where I'm coming from, in terms of concern for the team moving forward.
-
Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?
And, if so, what?
As I've said I didn't see the game but it sounds like we tried to do what many teams did to us when MON was manager and stifle the opposition who, let's be honest, are currently much better than we are and the same as England did against Spain the other week. Great when it comes off but you look crap when it doesn't.
-
Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?
And, if so, what?
As I've said I didn't see the game but it sounds like we tried to do what many teams did to us when MON was manager and stifle the opposition who, let's be honest, are currently much better than we are and the same as England did against Spain the other week. Great when it comes off but you look crap when it doesn't.
You did not see the game? :o
-
I thought we were lining Bent up in the summer before the January we bought him?
In which case how could it have been anything to do with relegation fears?
My understanding, which is limited to the press and what I read on here, so not claiming any sort of ITK, was that Houllier started speaking about getting Bent when he arrived. So while it was probably not a panic buy as such, when you look at our dealings immediately before and since I find it hard to see how Randy would have rubber stamped it had we not been where we were in the league.
That's my understanding too.
In fact, I'm sure GH himself said something very similar soon after the signing was completed, that he'd admired him since his time at Liverpool and had specifically mentioned his name soon after taking over.
But maybe the deal only became reality when it was clear Ash was off and that money could effectively by used in advance. That bit I'm not so sure about.
-
Monty, you will have to explain the difference between "having a go" and "competing" to me as I'm not getting it.
We played crap and we lost the game, everyone says it so I accept it. Similarly I think most would agree with me that, at present, Spurs are a richer club than us with better playing resources at their disposal. So from that point of view choosing that game as particularly significant makes little logical sense.
We're a side and club in transition. McLeish has had half a transfer window and 12 games. In some of them we've played well, some poorly and some averagely. From any sensible standpoint that's entirely to be expected but as ever these days it's only the most recent game that matters.
I've been to most home games this season plus the odd away and have yet to witness us 'play well' Chris.
There's every chance this is all going to end in misery for us and Mcleish. It's a shame because he seems like a nice guy. He doesn't appear up to the job.
It's ok to give him some time, but lets hope it's not too late if we need to get rid.
I'm not looking forward to taking some Man U clients to the next home game, that's for sure.
-
Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?
And, if so, what?
As I've said I didn't see the game but it sounds like we tried to do what many teams did to us when MON was manager and stifle the opposition who, let's be honest, are currently much better than we are and the same as England did against Spain the other week. Great when it comes off but you look crap when it doesn't.
As somebody said after the match on here, if he's going to play boring, dull football, at least be good at it. Monday night was an abolsute shambles.
-
Chris, monday night was appalling. Not because we lost but in the manner we lost. QPR went there, gave it their all but still came away with nothing. And there is a gulf between them and spurs. We on the other hand rolled over before we even kicked te ball. That's whats getting most people's backs up. And when it went tits up and we were 2-0 down. He did nothing.
If capello had gone 2-0 down to Spain within 30 mins and did nothing we'd all be saying the same thing.
I saw half time as an opportunity to rethink and go for broke. Containing and frustrating spurs didn't work. We find ourselves two down so we have nothing to lose by just going for it. Instead it was a substitution of cellar for bannan with 30 mins to go (IIRC) then Delph on with less than 10 mins to go.
Spurs are a better side than us now, but that doesn't mean we should not have a go at them. Same as I don't expect us to surrender when we come to playing Man u and Liverpool in the next few weeks. Otherwise what's the point in turning up.
-
Going back to Steve's original post, the point for me that remains undefined was this:
3) Give the much vaunted emerging ex-youth teamers opprtunity to state their case
With the exception of Herd who looks like he has what it takes to be a solid defensive midfielder (despite a few of you looking to shift him to right back on Sunday), I feel the younger players have been played out of position.
Delph started 8 games but he's never a defensive midfielder, so why play him there?
Bannan would be far more suited in a Lee Hendrie type role, further up the pitch, linking the play, finding that through ball that Bent thrives on, so why play him so deep?
Clark has only started one game and that was the 4-1 defeat to Man City. Will he ever get another game?
Albrighton admittedly hasn't looked like the player he was early last season but he's hardly been given a chance, yet we've persisted with N'Zogbia who has been just as bad, ranging from crap to not so crap. I can only assume his price tag gets him on the team sheet so often.
Sadly young Eric Lichaj got injured when really looking the part, certainly a million times better than Hutton. Hopefully he'll soon be back.
Not much to say regarding the Fonz or Weimann, their opportunities will be few with Gabby and Bent up front.
If this season was to be anything, it was an opportunity to give these lads a chance but there comes a point when the team are struggling and it may be cruel to throw them in. That time is fast approaching but I'd certainly like to see them given their chance. The sooner the better.
-
What I am struggling to see is a plan for the season and it has been like this since the first few games.
People say that we are steadying the ship financially and therefore the performances are symptomatic of this. Football of today dictates that if you try and stand still you go backwards and this is what I see as happening to us now.
We have sold some players that have brought a considerable amount of money in and reduced the wage bill but core expenditure that we are not getting value for money from is still here. In fact, you could say that the players we sold were the performing assets.
It was clear to McLeish when he came in that Ashley Young had gone and Downing was on his way. He was also very quickly aware that Reo Coker would be on his way and that Luke Young wanted to go back to London. Also, Friedel was looking for security of an extended contract. He had two and a half months of the transfer window to replace these players if he wanted to. Some have said he has only had half a transfer window but very few dealings were done early in the window so this loss of time should not have hindered him.
Randy Lerner was willing to back him with a certain amount of money but, other than Given, I think he has wasted what little money he had. It was as clear as day that he could not afford to replace Young and Downing with equivalent players so he should have been looking to strengthen other parts of the team. Our forwards and wide players have for a number of seasons compensated for a non performing central midfield. It should have been this area that AM should have spent the bulk of his money on. Something to build a new era around, something that would help the defence and the attack. But no, he went out and bought another wide player and overpaid for an average fullback.
Although new managers do not know the exact personalities of players they inherit, they do have more than a passing knowledge of their capabilities. Football is a very technical game now, with every manager have a dossier on opposition players strengths and weaknesses. AM must have known what our weaknesses were but did not address them. He replaced like for like with inferior players (with the exception of Given). It is no wonder we are going backwards. He has not tried to improve us as a 'footballing' side, in fact I think we have take a huge step backwards from where GH had taken us in this respect. He seemed to have decided that he could take us back to the MON way but does not seem to appreciate that the 'bells and whistles' of that team have moved on.
i have said it before (and some have argued against it) but I think there is a core of players in the squad that lack motivation to react when things go against us. I am not saying conceding a goal against the run of play but like the other night against Spurs when we did not start well and then conceded. Could anybody honestly say that they thought we could have got back into the game after we went a goal behind. We have too many players in the team whose careers are on the down slope, too many players in the team that cannot pass the ball accurately, let alone intelligently. The defending is shocking and that is not just down to the central defence. How any times are we going to concede goals with players being given oceans of space in the middle of the penalty area. The manager is an ex international centre half, with a lot of his appearances being when Scotland were not a bad side. What is he doing about it, either he cannot work out what to do or the players are not playing to instructions, in which case they should be dropped. The number of times this season I have thought why is so and so picking up him, it is a total miss match.
You can play effective football with average players if you play the right way. There are quite a few teams with players of less quality than we have that play far better than we do. It is down to the quality of the manager to play the right players, in the right positions and with a playing strategy. Some will say "but we are above these teams in the table". In my opinion that is because the fixtures have been kind to us but I will reserve final judgement until we reach half way and we have played all of the teams.
I appreciate that we cannot compete with the top 6 or 7 teams at the present time due to financial reasons but we should have a plan of closing the gap. Without money this can only be done by developing and playing our young players or buying bargains. We will inevitably have to sell some good players along the way but that should be in our future strategy. As I said earlier, we have too many fading players in the team and we need to shake the team up. I'm afraid evolution is looking out of the question and it needs to be more revolution.
All in all, I do not think AM has the ability to manage a team that will be consistently above 9th or 10th in the league, or can play a style of football that fans will pay to watch.