At home but where is the comfort?

[eastie]

The poll is interesting as almost 60% feel that the manager is to blame for the home form be it just him or the tactics.

[As both are the same thing]

This is interesting because on other threads the manager gets support for his 'plan' but in reality a majority of those polled feel that his 'plan' is not working especially at home

Agreed, I made a similar point earlier - the manager decides the tactics so surely the poll should include tactics as manager,

[olaftab]

The 1960's and now is probably just about the only era when we haven't been regarded as one of the top sides.

The fact we have won one league title in the last 100 years and one fa cup in the last 90 years suggests your opinion is not quite correct.

When we won the League in 1981 ( making it 7 titles and 7 FA cup wins) and European cup a year later we were amongst a the top 4/5 English clubs. Others being Manu, Arsenal, Liverpool and Leeds at that time. Since the start of football as we know it today (1992) we are in about 5/6 position on points accumulation. So we ARE in the top half a dozen clubs in this land therefore a TOP club.

[eastie]

The 1960's and now is probably just about the only era when we haven't been regarded as one of the top sides.

The fact we have won one league title in the last 100 years and one fa cup in the last 90 years suggests your opinion is not quite correct.

When we won the League in 1981 ( making it 7 titles and 7 FA cup wins) and European cup a year later we were amongst a the top 4/5 English clubs. Others being Manu, Arsenal, Liverpool and Leeds at that time. Since the start of football as we know it today (1992) we are in about 5/6 position on points accumulation. So we ARE in the top half a dozen clubs in this land therefore a TOP club.

Affers my old friend , I agree with your point about top club , however there is a difference between top club and top side - the poster suggested only in the 60s and now could we not be called a top side .

[Irish villain]

Where did it all go wrong ? For me there are 2 key moments of mons  reign that were pivotal-

1- The fiasco in Moscow - to play so many games to reach that stage and then put out a weak side was unforgivable , and the following draw with stoke only added to the distress.

2- The decision by dowd  not to send off vidic - had we won that final it would have been silverware and European qualification and we may well have finished the season with a flourish .

Just to add also - the signing of heskey rather than bent also contributed.

Spot on. I'd add to that a certain 'sense' that the players we were buying weren't quite the cream of the crop. We were buying lots of players and spending big money but they were not signings to get excited about (with the exception of perhaps Petrov, Milner, Young and Carew). I think we all had reservations about the likes of Harewood, Knight, Heskey and Beye turning up at Villa Park. It was hard to reconcile those type of signings to our supposed billing as 'the one to break into the top four'.

[eastie]

Top sides of the 60s arguably Liverpool, Manu, everton, man city .
70s - Liverpool, Leeds, derby, forest
80s - Liverpool, arsenal,
90s- man utd, arsenal
00- Chelsea , man utd

I didn't include us in the 80s as we had 2 really good years in the decade - winning the title , and European cup ( remember we finished 11th that season ) .

If we wish to be perfectly honest its over a century since we could be called one of the top 2 sides of the decade .

[Irish villain]

Top sides of the 60s arguably Liverpool, Manu, everton, man city .
70s - Liverpool, Leeds, derby, forest
80s - Liverpool, arsenal,
90s- man utd, arsenal
00- Chelsea , man utd

I didn't include us in the 80s as we had 2 really good years in the decade - winning the title , and European cup ( remember we finished 11th that season ) .

If we wish to be perfectly honest its over a century since we could be called one of the top 2 sides of the decade .

Didn't we have a fourth place finish in the 70s too and sixth in 82/83? In the years from 81-93 we finished in the top two on three occasions! It all depends how you look on it. We have missed opportunities to 'build' in the modern era. That's how I look at it and I do think villa have underachieved.

[eastie]

Yes we have had a few top 4 finishes but nothing hugely consistent compared to the likes of Liverpool , utd and arsenal who have won trophies galore in that period.

We are in my opinion one of the top 6 clubs in the country and probably everton would say the same - similar in many ways - but the likes of arsenal, Man U and Liverpool are well  ahead of us.

[eastie]

Just to add we are far away the biggest and most successful club in the midlands by a million miles  .
Contrary to our neighbours ' we know what we are !"

[Irish villain]

Yes we have had a few top 4 finishes but nothing hugely consistent compared to the likes of Liverpool , utd and arsenal who have won trophies galore in that period.

We are in my opinion one of the top 6 clubs in the country and probably everton would say the same - similar in many ways - but the likes of arsenal, Man U and Liverpool are well  ahead of us.

If only we could 'doctor' the decades! To say there was a decade that stretched from 74-75 to 84-85 you would say that was a great decade for villa or even a decade from 91-92 to 01-02  where you could say we were only out of the top ten once, regularly finished top six, won a couple of trophies and finished runners up in the league.

Edit. I am well aware things could be doctored to make us look like a yo-yo club too. My point is, our current trophyless run is an exception and we seem to be falling behind where we traditionally were.

[Jimbo]

Like most 'genuine' football fans, I'd love to see the day where Abramovich and the Arabs get bored, drop their respective clubs and buy an ice-hockey franchise instead. Sadly, it isn't going to happen. Football clubs aren't playthings for these people, they have yachts the size of small towns and diamond encrusted Ferraris for that. What these football clubs represent is prestige, validation and legitimacy.

Owning Man City, winners of arguably the world's most famous league, lends an air of respectability to human-rights abusing Abu Dhabi, as does the World Cup for the equally questionable Qataris. It's a form of membership. They have enough money to buy 100 Man Citys and the next 50 World Cups. As that isn't yet possible, they're not about to give up what they've got in a hurry.

As for Man United's bubble bursting, that worked well with Liverpool didn't it?

*Devil's advocate warning* Perhaps we as Villa fans have to get used to the fact that we can't compete and never will. Maybe our future triumphs will be in the form of relegation escapes, spawny wins against the Sky Five and the occasional Sunderland-style tonking. Perhaps what we need to do is accept that and make the fan experience better, more enjoyable, fun - like an away game. Which is where the safe standing initiative is crucial. St Pauli fans know their team is shit and always will be, but they have built a cult around their club and they have a ball at home games. Maybe that's the future?

[LeeB]

Like most 'genuine' football fans, I'd love to see the day where Abramovich and the Arabs get bored, drop their respective clubs and buy an ice-hockey franchise instead. Sadly, it isn't going to happen. Football clubs aren't playthings for these people, they have yachts the size of small towns and diamond encrusted Ferraris for that. What these football clubs represent is prestige, validation and legitimacy.

Owning Man City, winners of arguably the world's most famous league, lends an air of respectability to human-rights abusing Abu Dhabi, as does the World Cup for the equally questionable Qataris. It's a form of membership. They have enough money to buy 100 Man Citys and the next 50 World Cups. As that isn't yet possible, they're not about to give up what they've got in a hurry.

As for Man United's bubble bursting, that worked well with Liverpool didn't it?

*Devil's advocate warning* Perhaps we as Villa fans have to get used to the fact that we can't compete and never will. Maybe our future triumphs will be in the form of relegation escapes, spawny wins against the Sky Five and the occasional Sunderland-style tonking. Perhaps what we need to do is accept that and make the fan experience better, more enjoyable, fun - like an away game. Which is where the safe standing initiative is crucial. St Pauli fans know their team is shit and always will be, but they have built a cult around their club and they have a ball at home games. Maybe that's the future?

Spot on regarding the real reasons for ownership, but Jesus, if that's the future I'm off to watch Boldmere.

[Mister E]

A detail that undermines an argument that we barely broke even on him, which is not remotely true.

Well, make of it what you want but I was responding to someone who claimed that we are not a successful club. The topic of transfer success was added as an indicator that we've not done too badly in certain aspects.

Anyway, home form ...

[itbrvilla]

Like most 'genuine' football fans, I'd love to see the day where Abramovich and the Arabs get bored, drop their respective clubs and buy an ice-hockey franchise instead. Sadly, it isn't going to happen. Football clubs aren't playthings for these people, they have yachts the size of small towns and diamond encrusted Ferraris for that. What these football clubs represent is prestige, validation and legitimacy.

Owning Man City, winners of arguably the world's most famous league, lends an air of respectability to human-rights abusing Abu Dhabi, as does the World Cup for the equally questionable Qataris. It's a form of membership. They have enough money to buy 100 Man Citys and the next 50 World Cups. As that isn't yet possible, they're not about to give up what they've got in a hurry.

As for Man United's bubble bursting, that worked well with Liverpool didn't it?

*Devil's advocate warning* Perhaps we as Villa fans have to get used to the fact that we can't compete and never will. Maybe our future triumphs will be in the form of relegation escapes, spawny wins against the Sky Five and the occasional Sunderland-style tonking. Perhaps what we need to do is accept that and make the fan experience better, more enjoyable, fun - like an away game. Which is where the safe standing initiative is crucial. St Pauli fans know their team is shit and always will be, but they have built a cult around their club and they have a ball at home games. Maybe that's the future?

Great post. Like other have said if thats the future of football I'll go watch something else or non-league.

[spk]

As for the super rich Russian/Arab syndrome being essential to buy sucsess ,who won the FA and League Cups last season,cannot see that Wigan or Swansea are richer than us.

[OCD]

Having a super rich owner is one way (and the main way) of getting to the top but it's not the only way. A club can also be built-up and well run over the long-term and you gradually inch your way up. It's not a stylish way and it's going to be very frustrating but that's the realistic alternative. As much as people won't thank me for saying this and as much as I'm trying to avoid typing it, look at Tottenham. They've been in the mix for a CL spot the last few years but they were mid-table some time before that. Then they develop a player like Bale and sell him for £80m and re-invest it wisely to potentially make the jump up. They've had clubs come in for their players over the years but they've got the most money they could and then generally used it well.