Objectives and objectivity

[Mazrim]

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.

[Risso]

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.

[Mazrim]

I'll chase it up when I can be arsed.

[Villanation]

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.

[Chris Smith]

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.

[Monty]

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.

[Villanation]

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.

[Concrete John]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

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.

[Chris Smith]

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.

[pauliewalnuts]

Do you think we tried to get anything out of the match, Chris?

And, if so, what?

[PeterWithesShin]

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.

[Merv]

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.

[Chris Smith]

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.

[Iago]

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?