Transition or "We are where we are"?

[Iago]

It's precisely because we're re-adjusting that we sometimes plausible that way, but it's not every game and it's a distortion to pretend it is. If we take the last three we've had good, bad and average performances and until we get a settled midfield I feel we'll continue to see more of the same.

There is no distortion of the truth from the last two games, we have been awful to watch and have got no rewards for being "safe and ugly".

It is not every game? How can you possibly say that after not viewing the Spurs match. It is no pretense to state that AM is more concerned with the defensive side of the game. It has been like this for the majority of the season, and our performances are very reminiscent of SHA last season.

We all knew Bannan or Jenas needed to start the Swansea game, but AM had the idea Heskey would create chances for Bent, without any evidence from the previous game.

As for playing the youngsters, yesterday we started with Delph and Herd as our central midfield pairing it would have been an almighty risk to put a third one in their as well.

That would be reassuring, if it was not for McLeish's thug-like football. I do not want to see our youngsters nurtured in that environment, they are better than that style.

[Greg N'Ash]

I think for it not to be transitional then you'd have to assume the cuts are over. I don't think they are.

Realistically, Beye and Cueller will leave end of this season and they wouln't be replaced unless its youth players. Then there's Ivanhoe and petrov both nearing the end. We gonna find 8m and 50k a week for a readymade petrov replacement? Nah.... then there's the players the club probably would like to get rid off but can't shift like Ireland.... Next season we'll get a better idea of the size of club Lerner wants to run - my guess is it will be similar to what it was before he arrived

[Chris Smith]

is not every game? How can you possibly say that after not viewing the Spurs match

There is absolutely no logic to that comment. Think about it?

People like you and Compass will not  accept that he can do anything right. Even when we win you slag him off but it's not because he used to manage the Noses, no siree honest bob.

We all knew Bannan or Jenas needed to start the Swansea game, but AM had the idea Heskey would create chances for Bent, without any evidence from the previous game.

Even though Jenas wasn't fit enough to start and three kids in central midfield away from home is asking for trouble?

[DB]

OK Chris, humour us, what has he done right so far?

[Clampy]

I don't think playing Bannan instead of Heskey would have been asking for trouble at all. That's nonsense Chris i'm sorry.

[pauliewalnuts]

is not every game? How can you possibly say that after not viewing the Spurs match

There is absolutely no logic to that comment. Think about it?

People like you and Compass will not  accept that he can do anything right. Even when we win you slag him off but it's not because he used to manage the Noses, no siree honest bob.

We all knew Bannan or Jenas needed to start the Swansea game, but AM had the idea Heskey would create chances for Bent, without any evidence from the previous game.

Even though Jenas wasn't fit enough to start and three kids in central midfield away from home is asking for trouble?

Can you manage a single response to people which doesn't involve an accusation of it all being about AM being a former Blues manager, Chris?

I'm genuinely interested, because you make some good points, but then you fall back on some really lazy arguments. It's like a permanently valid get out of jail free card.

Anyone could make a good case for why they're unhappy with McLeish, but there's always the killer "just because he used to manage them" argument there to nuke it.

[Iago]

There is absolutely no logic to that comment. Think about it?

There is logic to my comment if you actually select the whole argument.

It's precisely because we're re-adjusting that we sometimes play that way, but it's not every game and it's a distortion to pretend it is.

We are re-adjusting to AM's normal style, you know, the style and formation he had at SHA when they were relegated.

There is no pretense or illusion, we are poor with the ball and look to bypass the midfield by going long, this is our main source of attack under AM. Tottenham and Swansea were poor games to watch as a Villa supporter and the results gave me no comfort.

People like you and Compass will not accept that he can do anything right. Even when we win you slag him off but it's not because he used to manage the Noses, no siree honest bob.

You know that is complete rubbish as you include another poster to justify it. If we win I am naturally delighted, I would not knock AM for winning football matches. But we have drawn too many games and performances have been negative.

I could careless about his connection with that club, I can understand why other supporters may have a problem with it, but to me it makes little difference who is last club were.

Furthermore, I recently admitted if we had appointed him after he finished ninth with SHA I could understand the appointment. But I doubt he would come here if they were still a PL club.

Even though Jenas wasn't fit enough to start and three kids in central midfield away from home is asking for trouble?

I apologies about Jenas. But it is hard to define Delph/Herd/Bannan as kids, if he did select and start them I would have backed his decision, as we could call it progressive and adventurous.

Heskey playing there was inexcusable, no reason or logic considering Monday night's performance.

[Greg N'Ash]

The thing i don't understand is if we're going with the kids where are they? Herd...bannon.... erm.... AM's transfer business and him farming them out doesn't exactly scream youth either. People could probably get behind a team fielding 4 or 5 youth players every game if that looked like a plan but as usual with this club its half-assed. Either AM doesn't fancy them as much as Faulkner and co.,or they're not ready yet.