McLeish could be the manager to take this club forward

[Monty]

Good point Merv. A striker isn't a striker if he's played on the wing, he's a winger. Players aren't just fixed, automated positions, with positional rectangles in-built in their DNA, they're people with talents for various things which may be utilised in various ways.

[Merv]

Crucially, it's a striker being played on the wing. Some can adapt, some can't. But it was almost as if McLeish was asking out loud why we weren't scoring loads-a-goals with four 'strikers' on the field. Uh-oh, I thought. I knew why.

[Monty]

Exactly. Some of the things he says sound like the flounderings of a someone who's frustrated by not being very good at Football Manager.

[KevinGage]

The irksome 'Premier League experience' is the worst statement the management team made on their searches for new managers. If possession football of the like played by Swansea, Arsenal, etc is the future, then endeavouring to bring in managers so firmly rooted in old style tactics (4-4-2, hoof it if in doubt, high intensity etc) then you will inevitably get a throw back team rooted in the past.

To move forward and unlock the talent in our players we really needed fresh ideas. Whether that came from a manager based in Britain (in whatever league) or from outside the UK makes no matter. It was, as has been said, the philosophy that was important. That is what will inspire the players, That is what will capture the hearts and minds of the fans, and bring them back into Villa Park even during a recession.

Agreed chap.

Brendan Rodgers is flavour of the month at present, and -as we've seen- that can change very quickly.

But it can't have hurt that he was a big part of the youth development set-up at Chelsea before he made the transition to management himself. 

I wouldn't necessarily say he would be suitable for the Villa -even now.  But that kind of appointment, whilst probably not met with huge fanfair,  might have illustrated that although we have to go about things differently now (and money won't be splashed about in the same laissez-faire manner that characterised the MON era) we do have a long-term plan and vision. And part of that vision is absolutely centred on maximising our Academy. 

An appointment like McLeish -with no real record of ever bringing through young players-  is at odds with that.  Whatever the hot air about him buying into our values and all the rest of it.  Judge him by what he's done previously, not what he says.

[N'ZMAV]

Exactly. Some of the things he says sound like the flounderings of a someone who's frustrated by not being very good at Football Manager.

I'm no good at FM.

[dazzyg]

So McLeish knew nothing about the offer for Bent from Liverpool probably because the lying scot was the one who offered Bent to Liverpool. How much more can we trust him? Can we trust him with any amount of money? If Hutton is anything to go by.

[Dave Clark Five]

So McLeish knew nothing about the offer for Bent from Liverpool probably because the lying scot was the one who offered Bent to Liverpool. How much more can we trust him? Can we trust him with any amount of money? If Hutton is anything to go by.

Dalglish knew nothing about it as well. Also a Scot. When Dalglish denied any knowledge it was about a week before the 'scoop' in the papers. It could have been discussed in the meantime with nobody being a lying Scot.
There would not be a manager in history who didn't own up to all transfer offers. They are all liars even the English and Welsh ones. It is a game of bluff and double bluff otherwise everyone knows your business.

[Merv]

So McLeish knew nothing about the offer for Bent from Liverpool probably because the lying scot was the one who offered Bent to Liverpool. How much more can we trust him? Can we trust him with any amount of money? If Hutton is anything to go by.

Hang on, where's this come from?

[Monty]

So McLeish knew nothing about the offer for Bent from Liverpool probably because the lying scot was the one who offered Bent to Liverpool. How much more can we trust him? Can we trust him with any amount of money? If Hutton is anything to go by.

Hang on, where's this come from?

Honestly, God knows. I think dazzyg is good proof that the reasons you think something are at least as important as what you think.

[Chris Smith]

Good point Merv. A striker isn't a striker if he's played on the wing, he's a winger. Players aren't just fixed, automated positions, with positional rectangles in-built in their DNA, they're people with talents for various things which may be utilised in various ways.

Quite, similarly football isn't chess with a manager moving the pieces around the pitch.

It isn't his fault that we fucked up to gift SwNsea 2 goals, which is the reason that we lost the game not some tactical master stroke by their manager. They played well to keep the ball to defend the lead but that's a different matter. We did a similar thing at Bristol in the cup, got in front and then kept the ball to stop them playing and the post match thread was all about how boring we were.

As I keep saying, we've got an unbalanced squad so there isn't a pattern of play that suits all members of it. What we're having to do until that can be rectified is to make do and mend and that is why we're seeing inconsistent performances.

[WA Villan]

If Scotland is kicked out / decides to leave the United Kingdom, can Macleish be considered an alien or persona non grata. This may be a get out of jail free card, maybe worth looking into. Shame it wasn't done 20 years ago, Manure could be playing Leatherhead now.

[Monty]

Few things there, Chris. Firstly, I don't take any conclusions from the Bristol game, positive or negative. The circumstances are so far removed from any long-term trend or pattern that I wouldn't consider it a valid piece of data. Just to make it clear, that's neither a criticism nor compliment for McLeish, just neither.

Second of all, these defensive errors do keep happening, and it may be worth noting the difference in approach McLeish and Rodgers took when talking publicly about errors. Rodgers backed his players, saying to keep true to their philosophy of playing, whereas McLeish practically heaped blame on these errors, effectively singling out individuals. That's not good for confidence, and when confidence is low errors are more likely to happen.

Finally, you talk about there not being 'a pattern of play that suits all members of [the squad]'. This assumes all styles of play to be equal, when clearly they're not. McLeish's methods actively give the ball away and do not serve the best players in our team to the best of their ability. He picks James Collins every game he's available, he plays Emile Heskey to try and 'suit' his favoured direct system, and we have not once played better this season with Heskey in the team playing to that system.

I've said, I admire your attempts to look on the bright side and to the positives. It's something I myself did with MON and Houllier, despite their flaws. However, I'm sorry, I fail to see any way this situation will improve with him in charge. He's not the only problem at the club, and in many ways the fact that he was appointed shows that there are bigger problems, but he is definitely an indicative one.

[Merv]

As I keep saying, we've got an unbalanced squad so there isn't a pattern of play that suits all members of it. What we're having to do until that can be rectified is to make do and mend and that is why we're seeing inconsistent performances.

I don't really understand that. I don't see that we have got an unbalanced squad - we're weaker than ideal in central midfield, but we have plenty of numbers and cover and the manager should be more than capable, by now, of assessing his squad, realising what suits the players he has at his disposal, and putting something more effective together. Really, injuries have been very kind to us so far, but we're still stumbling around from game to game in many ways.

I'm not sure what we're expecting to be rectified, as this is the squad we have, the manager we have, and we're facing a rather uncertain future in terms of investment in the squad. I struggle to equate the situation the club is in and the strategy it has declared - heavy emphasis on Academy/youth players - and the manager we have chosen to appoint. Totally at odds from one to the other.

I'd like to be more positive about the state of affairs, but this is how I'm reading the situation.

[Concrete John]

As I keep saying, we've got an unbalanced squad so there isn't a pattern of play that suits all members of it. What we're having to do until that can be rectified is to make do and mend and that is why we're seeing inconsistent performances.

I don't really understand that. I don't see that we have got an unbalanced squad - we're weaker than ideal in central midfield, but we have plenty of numbers and cover and the manager should be more than capable, by now, of assessing his squad, realising what suits the players he has at his disposal, and putting something more effective together. Really, injuries have been very kind to us so far, but we're still stumbling around from game to game in many ways.

I'm not sure what we're expecting to be rectified, as this is the squad we have, the manager we have, and we're facing a rather uncertain future in terms of investment in the squad. I struggle to equate the situation the club is in and the strategy it has declared - heavy emphasis on Academy/youth players - and the manager we have chosen to appoint. Totally at odds from one to the other.

I'd like to be more positive about the state of affairs, but this is how I'm reading the situation.

We bought our star player, Bent, with an eye to a passing game and two good supply lines from wide in Young and Downing.  Both have been sold and AM plays less of a pass game than Houllier did.

The defence, Hutton apart, was bought by MON, who had a 'get it forward quickly' approach, which they then had to change under Houllier and now seem stuck somewhere between with McLeish.

It's a symptom of our scatter gun approach to the managerial role in that the last three have been so different, hence players bought and told to play a certain way may not suit the next man in the manager's chair.

I agree we should be doing a bit better by nowm, but that doesn't take away from the fact McLeish's squad, which he's laregely inherited, was bought by two different managers with two different styles in mind. 

[Chris Smith]

We don't have a genuine ball winning midfield player, we're making do with using an inexperienced centre half there. Central midfield is the most important area of the team and we've been trying to find a combination that works all season, it's improved in recent weeks since Ireland has found some form but it's still far from ideal. We're still trying to find a way of getting the best out of Bent and Gabby at the same time, there are precious few goals in the side so leaving either out isn't an option but without the right midfield they'll continue to blow hot and cold. We're also trying to blood a lot of youngsters at the same time and consequently will get inconsistent performances. 

That's what I mean by being unbalanced.