If McLeish was sacked, who would you want in?

[pauliewalnuts]

precisely. no chairman is going to cut us to the bone like Lerner has over the past 18months and then watch all the savings thrown away by a relegation

That same argument could be applied to Houllier 12 months ago, when results were actually worse and we had to improve to get to 9th.  Yet rather than sack him for fear of relegation, Randy backed him in the market to buy Darren Bent.

True but Mcleish had a preseason to try and get his side in order, Houllier came in much later. Whilst Mcleish has a weaker squad, you'd expect him to have a much better handle on things by now.

To me that pretty much evens things out - Houllier had less time, but better players, AM has had more time with lesser players.

And from a results perspective AM is doing better than Gezza around the same time.

Whilst it evens things out in theory, you've forgot to factor in the worse injury crisis imaginable.

He's not doing better that GH at the same time, either.

Last year - P14, 17 points
Now - P14, 16 points

[VillaAlways]

precisely. no chairman is going to cut us to the bone like Lerner has over the past 18months and then watch all the savings thrown away by a relegation

That same argument could be applied to Houllier 12 months ago, when results were actually worse and we had to improve to get to 9th.  Yet rather than sack him for fear of relegation, Randy backed him in the market to buy Darren Bent.

True but Mcleish had a preseason to try and get his side in order, Houllier came in much later. Whilst Mcleish has a weaker squad, you'd expect him to have a much better handle on things by now.

To me that pretty much evens things out - Houllier had less time, but better players, AM has had more time with lesser players.

And from a results perspective AM is doing better than Gezza around the same time.

Whilst it evens things out in theory, you've forgot to factor in the worse injury crisis imaginable.

We had also already played Arsenal,'The Mighty Reds YNWA',Chelsea,Spurs and Manure this time last year

[Chris Smith]

What selective memories we all have. The defeats at Man City and Liverpool last season were at least as bad as anything this season and that's without mentioning losing at Blackburn and the defeat at home to Sunderland which was one of the most depressing evenings I've ever endured and I've been married.

[PaulWinch again]

precisely. no chairman is going to cut us to the bone like Lerner has over the past 18months and then watch all the savings thrown away by a relegation

That same argument could be applied to Houllier 12 months ago, when results were actually worse and we had to improve to get to 9th.  Yet rather than sack him for fear of relegation, Randy backed him in the market to buy Darren Bent.

True but Mcleish had a preseason to try and get his side in order, Houllier came in much later. Whilst Mcleish has a weaker squad, you'd expect him to have a much better handle on things by now.

To me that pretty much evens things out - Houllier had less time, but better players, AM has had more time with lesser players.

And from a results perspective AM is doing better than Gezza around the same time.

Whilst it evens things out in theory, you've forgot to factor in the worse injury crisis imaginable.

We had also already played Arsenal,'The Mighty Reds YNWA',Chelsea,Spurs and Manure this time last year

Ok so we have a worse points record and have played on the whole easier games. It doesn't look good at all.

[Rick_avfc]

I dont think the GH reign and AM reign can be compared.  Ok, results wise it wasn't the best at first with GH but he came in late and only got to sign a couple of players in Jan.  We played some good stuff under him and towards the end of the season, it started to show.  I still believe that had GH been incharge now, we would be better off (points wise anyway).  he would have signed some quality foreign players on the cheap that could have come in a done really well.  I mean look at that Cabaye for nufc.  He claimed that had GH been in charge then he would of signed for villa.  GH was getting rid of the "untouchables" i.e. Petrov, Collins, Dunne, Warnock and would have replaced them with better quality players and incorporate the youth.  Ciaran clark who I think did fairly well under GH was developing nicely but since Eck has come in, he hasn't had a look in.  Eck hasn't a clue im afraid but we are stuck with him for the next 3 seasons.

Ask liverpool fans, GH would have made us solid at the back and difficult to beat but also play good football.  With Eck in charge, I have no idea whats going on

[pauliewalnuts]

In fairness, I dont think we'd played Liverpool or Arsenal in our first 14 games last year.

Lest we forget, though, last season we'd lost our manager five days before the start of the season, we then had a caretaker manager, and didn't have a permanent manager until tje sixth league game of the season. After that, we had a horrendous run of injuries.

In McLeish's favour, we've lost two of our best players since then, but then we didn't have Darren Bent then either.

With Houllier we were frequently hopeless. There's no getting away from that. We did at least try to play football, though. This is McLeish's style of football we're seeing now, this is what he does. He's not going to undergo a conversion to attacking any time soon.

You can argue that our results match those of a mid table team (although over the last seven games, they certainly don't), but if we're settled for mid table, let's at least try and play a bit of football.

The guff we're being served up now is going to sap the remaining drops of goodwill and optimism from the support.

[JUAN PABLO]

I would have prefered it if Sid Cowans was in charge for the remaining of season. But I read something recently about he wouldn't want the job due to the pressure. The board have proper fucked us up with this appointment regardless.

whos he ?  I thought it was Gowans on the coaching staff 

[pauliewalnuts]

Also, for me the most puzzling and disappointing thing about McLeish's appointment is that Houllier was at least trying to change the way we play, to modernise us.

McLeish is every bit as prehistoric as O'Neill in that sense. I just don't understand why we've gone through the pain of last season to revert to this old school style.

Oh, and given the slew of interviews of late with current players slating Houllier's style, it is looking more and more like he was in the right on that one, and the players were wrong.

[PaulWinch again]

In fairness, I dont think we'd played Liverpool or Arsenal in our first 14 games last year.

Lest we forget, though, last season we'd lost our manager five days before the start of the season, we then had a caretaker manager, and didn't have a permanent manager until tje sixth league game of the season. After that, we had a horrendous run of injuries.

In McLeish's favour, we've lost two of our best players since then, but then we didn't have Darren Bent then either.

With Houllier we were frequently hopeless. There's no getting away from that. We did at least try to play football, though. This is McLeish's style of football we're seeing now, this is what he does. He's not going to undergo a conversion to attacking any time soon.

You can argue that our results match those of a mid table team (although over the last seven games, they certainly don't), but if we're settled for mid table, let's at least try and play a bit of football.

The guff we're being served up now is going to sap the remaining drops of goodwill and optimism from the support.

Yep and you also had the impression that Houllier actually had a plan. Don't get me wrong, it didn't go well in a lot of places. However he was trying to change the club and planning to sign the likes of Cabaye signifies that. We look utterly planless and clueless now, and play diabolical gutless football along with it.

[pauliewalnuts]

I also wonder if his comments about "sorting the defence out in the summer", for which he understandable got a lot of stick at the time, were primarily along the lines of "sell them, they're all shit", because by and large, they are all shit.

[JUAN PABLO]

I dont think the GH reign and AM reign can be compared.  Ok, results wise it wasn't the best at first with GH but he came in late and only got to sign a couple of players in Jan.  We played some good stuff under him and towards the end of the season, it started to show.  I still believe that had GH been incharge now, we would be better off (points wise anyway).  he would have signed some quality foreign players on the cheap that could have come in a done really well.  I mean look at that Cabaye for nufc.  He claimed that had GH been in charge then he would of signed for villa.  GH was getting rid of the "untouchables" i.e. Petrov, Collins, Dunne, Warnock and would have replaced them with better quality players and incorporate the youth.  Ciaran clark who I think did fairly well under GH was developing nicely but since Eck has come in, he hasn't had a look in.  Eck hasn't a clue im afraid but we are stuck with him for the next 3 seasons.

Ask liverpool fans, GH would have made us solid at the back and difficult to beat but also play good football.  With Eck in charge, I have no idea whats going on

if Houlier was still boss , Im not saying he was perfect but he wouldnt have spent £4 million on Hutton neither .

[Rick_avfc]

Also, for me the most puzzling and disappointing thing about McLeish's appointment is that Houllier was at least trying to change the way we play, to modernise us.

McLeish is every bit as prehistoric as O'Neill in that sense. I just don't understand why we've gone through the pain of last season to revert to this old school style.

Oh, and given the slew of interviews of late with current players slating Houllier's style, it is looking more and more like he was in the right on that one, and the players were wrong.

Couldn't agree more.  The players GH fell out with are the ones who are letting us down on a consistent basis - Dunne, Collins and Warnock.  Gabby had a rant as well but I believe he was in the wrong as well as sometimes he comes across with a bad attitude.  Again, with Gabby, I feel he is being wasted out wide on the left in an attacking 3.  He needs to play up front with Bent.

[Greg N'Ash]

I also wonder if his comments about "sorting the defence out in the summer", for which he understandable got a lot of stick at the time, were primarily along the lines of "sell them, they're all shit", because by and large, they are all shit.

aye.  He had all their cards marked. Unfortunately illness and cost put paid to that good idea.

[kippaxvilla2]

Raymond Stubbs on ESPN said at Half Time on Saturday and I quote 'The Aston Villa fans are not going to continue to accept this are they Kevin'?  It was almost like he was saying it actually feeling our pain.  Never been a great fan of his but in one sentence he summed my feelings up perfectly.

[Rick_avfc]

I dont think the GH reign and AM reign can be compared.  Ok, results wise it wasn't the best at first with GH but he came in late and only got to sign a couple of players in Jan.  We played some good stuff under him and towards the end of the season, it started to show.  I still believe that had GH been incharge now, we would be better off (points wise anyway).  he would have signed some quality foreign players on the cheap that could have come in a done really well.  I mean look at that Cabaye for nufc.  He claimed that had GH been in charge then he would of signed for villa.  GH was getting rid of the "untouchables" i.e. Petrov, Collins, Dunne, Warnock and would have replaced them with better quality players and incorporate the youth.  Ciaran clark who I think did fairly well under GH was developing nicely but since Eck has come in, he hasn't had a look in.  Eck hasn't a clue im afraid but we are stuck with him for the next 3 seasons.

Ask liverpool fans, GH would have made us solid at the back and difficult to beat but also play good football.  With Eck in charge, I have no idea whats going on

if Houlier was still boss , Im not saying he was perfect but he wouldnt have spent £4 million on Hutton neither .

Very true indeed!