Gerard Houllier

[Eigentor]

To be fair, Houllier said in the Chelsea post match interview that he had picked an experienced side because he thought experience was needed at Stamford Bridge.

I think that we should remember, though, that he might had picked another team against Spurs if it wasn't for the fact that we were playing Chelsea three days later. Maybe he thought it would be a risk to play Stan and NRC in two matches in the space of three days just after they had recovered from injury.

[Chris Smith]

To be fair, Houllier said in the Chelsea post match interview that he had picked an experienced side because he thought experience was needed at Stamford Bridge.

I think that we should remember, though, that he might had picked another team against Spurs if it wasn't for the fact that we were playing Chelsea three days later. Maybe he thought it would be a risk to play Stan and NRC in two matches in the space of three days just after they had recovered from injury.

McAllister said that very thing before the holiday period, that we'd need to use the squad with so many games and some players just coming back to fitness.

[sfx412]

There will no doubt be more hiccups along the way but a good draw at Chelsea which could have been a win sets us up more than some of the dire games when only a few of the experienced players were out fully fit.

[Villa'Zawg]

Eh?

[eastie]

We tried to play some neat football against Chelsea and I would hope we can get an early goal against sunderland and really take the game to them- we need to be wary of their attack but I'd go for an unchanged team- there is a feelgood factor after Chelsea and we could really go on a run and by the end of the month be in the top half of the table, a win tomorrow would really kickstart things and I don't see blues or Wigan beating us if we play as we did !

[Risso]

Eh?

What's the difference between a duck?

One of its legs is both the same.

[Merv]

Boxing Day vs Spurs
Houllier chose Hogg and Delph over NRC and Petrov, because he wanted to, he chose not to include Dunne, otherwise we could have had exactly the same team as against Chelsea minus Ashley Young.

Against Spurs, sure, he perhaps did have options but players were only just fit again.... Petrov was on the bench but perhaps not considered fit to start (his self-confessed return date being Jan 16 v Blues, I read).

My point was, the last couple of months, Houllier has had no choice but to pick and play the likes of Hogg, Clark in midfield, Bannan... listening to some pundits, they're of the opinion he's actively dropped a handful of key senior players in preference to the young lads but then hastily swallowed humble pie v Chelsea and brought them all back. Which wasn't the case. Do you think Hogg would have started so many games had NRC/Petrov/Delph/Sidwell been available?

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Boxing Day vs Spurs
Houllier chose Hogg and Delph over NRC and Petrov, because he wanted to, he chose not to include Dunne, otherwise we could have had exactly the same team as against Chelsea minus Ashley Young.

Against Spurs, sure, he perhaps did have options but players were only just fit again.... Petrov was on the bench but perhaps not considered fit to start (his self-confessed return date being Jan 16 v Blues, I read).

My point was, the last couple of months, Houllier has had no choice but to pick and play the likes of Hogg, Clark in midfield, Bannan... listening to some pundits, they're of the opinion he's actively dropped a handful of key senior players in preference to the young lads but then hastily swallowed humble pie v Chelsea and brought them all back. Which wasn't the case. Do you think Hogg would have started so many games had NRC/Petrov/Delph/Sidwell been available?

I'd like to think so, yes.

[Percy McCarthy]

Eh?

What's the difference between a duck?

One of its legs is both the same.

That's why I come on here. It's the only place I hear anybody talking any bloody sense.

[Eigentor]

Returning to the original point of this thread, should GH be backed or sacked? Before the Chelsea match, it seemed impossible to have a sensible debate on this. The majority thought he had to be sacked because he was "clueless", "had turned a team that finished 6th into a relegation certainty", etc.

I thought it was highly frustrating to read such comments. Regardless of his performance at Villa, Houllier has obvious strong points: he is highly experienced, very knowledgeable, capable of winning trophies. He has tactical nous, is adept at designing a game plan tailored to a specific opponent (that is one of the reasons why he has been successful in cup competitions) and has a good record of developing young players. All in all, I'd say he has he qualities to become a successful Villa manager.

On the flipside, he has some weak points: his transfer record is mixed, his focus on discipline seems overtly strict at times and not always designed to get the best out of 'difficult' players. He is clearly capable to holding a grudge (against David Ginola) for a very long time. In the wrong circumstances, such weak points can provide his downfall.

The bottom line is that it is too early to tell: he has enough strengths and weaknesses to become both a success and fiasco (and will probably end up somewhere between). Anyway, sacking a manager after four months is silly. Backing him is, too me, the only option.

[Dave]

Where as if 'Arry had to pick his kids, they'd all be touted for England places now, even if they were wrong end of the table.

I've seen quite a lot of people suggesting that Albrighton should be playing for England already.

Clark and Bannan are obviously not going to be touted for England places.

[eastie]

Certainly albrighton has the potential to be an England winger- if he continues to develop over the next year or so then he will be knocking on the door of the squad- if the likes of Henderson can get capped then albrighton has every chance.

[KevinGage]

Returning to the original point of this thread, should GH be backed or sacked? Before the Chelsea match, it seemed impossible to have a sensible debate on this. The majority thought he had to be sacked because he was "clueless", "had turned a team that finished 6th into a relegation certainty", etc.

I thought it was highly frustrating to read such comments. Regardless of his performance at Villa, Houllier has obvious strong points: he is highly experienced, very knowledgeable, capable of winning trophies. He has tactical nous, is adept at designing a game plan tailored to a specific opponent (that is one of the reasons why he has been successful in cup competitions) and has a good record of developing young players. All in all, I'd say he has he qualities to become a successful Villa manager.

I'd say a fair chunk of any criticism was valid, and he's by no means out of the woods yet.

Results is one thing, but the decline in performance over the past few months could only cause concern. Mitigating circumstances re injuries and inherited issues such as Dunne's condition would give him the benefit of the doubt were we 'only' mid table. But being lower than West Ham  (even if it was only for 24 hours) should have helped focus a few minds if players (and fans) thought we would just automatically sleepwalk our way to safety under his guidance.

We have a fight on our hands, make no mistake and I'm not sure he's the type you'd want in the trenches. He brings an academic approach to football and his knowledge and contacts of the wider game could be useful to us - just not necessarily as Aston Villa manager.  Perhaps in a less pressurised Chief Co-ordinator/ glorified Head Scout role. Pointing to a haul of trophies he won ten years ago isn't necessarily much use to us either. They won't be added to our honours list. The game changes and if we are going after successful managers of yesteryear George Graham's record trumps his (plus he actually played for the club).  It would be much more preferable if we had a guy hungry to make his name and his own history with us, rather than someone who often gives out all the vibes of being in semi retirement mode. 

[Eigentor]

I'd say a fair chunk of any criticism was valid, and he's by no means out of the woods yet.

Of course much of the criticism is valid. Results have been very poor, and performances, a lot of the time, not much better. But I don't agree that ANY criticism is valid. I can understand people who fear that he isn't the kind of manager we need at the moment, allthough I think there is a good chance that he might be. His record doesn't guarantee success, there are a lot of examples of managers doing well at one club who goes on to struggle someplace else. What I object to, is inane outbursts claiming he's a useless clown who is certain to get us relegated, and that's a fact.

[cdward]

When the good performances (Chelsea, the 60 minutes or whatever it was against Manure) out number the poor performances (Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Citeh, Blose), then Houllier will receive more support.
The manner of the defeats, the dismal performances being the majority, coupled with his poor team management and poor supporter PR, it will be a little more time yet until Houllier gets everyones backing, however there are promising signs. He is Villa manager and deserves our full backing and support, but considering Chelsea was "one" good performance since September, he has a long way to go yet.