To What End?

[onje_villa]

The problem for me is this: for what or whom exactly do we currently exist? It may seem harsh, but middling along while playing endlessly tedious football with the odd existential relegation crisis doesn't do much for the fans. Of course there are reasons much more important than entertainment or success to support a football club (let's face it, if there weren't, not many of us would support Villa), but it doesn't make us happy that we support this club.

Under MON, a lot of us put up with the often plodding football because it looked like the results were finally there. Looking back, of course, the limited style of play was an important cause and symptom of everything to do with MON's limitations. However, the point is that truly competing for things is the minimum extent to which the results have to be good before bad football becomes acceptable to fans. Results are everything, after all.

However, if we're not competing, if circumstances find us in that bottom twelve of the Premier League, then fine, no problem, that's easy enough to put up with - it's the fact that our football is so extraordinarily uncheerable which gets us down. Swansea might be below us in the league, but they have a baseline to their style of play which is competent and might lead, not by accident, to genuine entertainment. It looks like they're trying something. Our football is a bit cowardly and quite undercooked, if reasonably well-intentioned.

The tactical problem with Lambert as I've said before isn't necessarily long-ball, it's just impatient, it's all about getting it to the front as quickly as possible. So, when there's space in the midfield, they pass the ball along the floor through the middle and to Benteke, but when there isn't that space they boof it, as the quickest way to go 'back-to-front'. It's not designed to be long-ball - that usually means things like crossing wingers for your big guy to win headers, and so on - it's designed to play goo stuff in the final third with tricky, intricate players, but either the ball doesn't get to them because we just toss it away via a Big Boof, or it does get to them but they're so over-eager to make the chance NOW that they choose the wrong option at the wrong time and lose it. The upshot is consistently failing to break 35% of the ball over the course of a match.

Good intentions, inexpertly applied and inadequately understood, yielding bad results. Honestly, from players to boardroom is there a more accurate way of summarising the whole club at the moment.

Spot on

[Irish villain]

So glad most of these posters where not around the season we went into the 3rd div. but what we did then we need to do now.
And that is fill villa park to the rafters moan before the game moan at half time and moan at the end ,but for 90 minutes get behind the team like we know we can .fuck lambert fuck randy Lerner this is our club always has been and always will.
If anything this team no matter how poor needs our backing I will be doing my 300 mile round trip to cheer them on for 90 minutes lets hope another 39,999 can do the same.

Villa till I die

Fans need something in return every now and then.

[Ad@m]

However, if we're not competing, if circumstances find us in that bottom twelve of the Premier League, then fine, no problem, that's easy enough to put up with - it's the fact that our football is so extraordinarily uncheerable which gets us down.

You didn't cheer on Wednesday night?

As for why do we exist, and the apparent connection between that and challenging for honours, how many years in our history have we genuinely challenged for the league title?  I'd suggests the number of seasons we haven't stood a chance of challenging massively outweigh those we've had a realistic chance of winning the league.  And yet we're still one of the largest clubs in the country - what about all those fans of smaller clubs who've never challenged for the championship?

I don't think anyone's saying what we've got at the moment is ideal or the end product but the relentless depression of some on here isn't half wearing.  We came to a very precarious financial position at the end of MON's tenure and we're lucky we had an owner who carried on putting money in whilst the operating costs were sorted out.  You don't have to look very far down the road to see what happens when the owner is unwilling or unable to put extra cash in.

And just like I imagine not many people saw the financial retrenchment coming before MON left who's to say that once the wage base isn't sorted we won't start spending some serious money again?  Most people who complain about Randy conveniently ignore the fact we remain one of the highest spending clubs in the league when it comes to transfer spending - we're just not paying shit players like Habib Beye £40k a week any more.

[Irish villain]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

[Monty]

Wednesday night was great, but it was followed by the same-old. They learn nothing. If it was all like Wednesday then I'd have no problem, but clearly Wednesday was the anomaly, not the norm. Besides, even McLeish won at Stamford Bridge, and while Lambert is obviously better than him it does show that every dog has its day. Also, Wednesday was still frustratingly booftastic, and two of the goals weren't exactly the result of brilliant tactics - Lugano flicking a nice header through for Weimann, Delph borrowing Manuel Negrete's left foot - and were great fun but not really repeatable.

Anyway, if you read my post all the way through you'd know I was using the 'why do we exist' line more than a little facetiously, and I acknowledged this, but it is the kind of thing you feel when you see the club neither challenging for honours nor trying to entertain. It all feels just a bit futile.

[paulcomben]

Whilst broadly agreeing with most of the above, here is what baffles me. Our team was always going to be inconsistent, due to consisting of bargain players lacking experience. But, why oh why is that inconsistency exacerbated by endless unnecessary chopping and changing of team selections, formations and tactics?

When players lack know-how, they succeed by being coached to do a clear job in a regular position very well. Take the success of the non English speaking coach of Southampton as a perfect example.

Yesterday, Villa played 3412 then 532 then 433. The substitutions seemed designed to lose us the match. They cannot keep the ball. They do not play through midfield. They have nothing to offer at set pieces. They can't even anticipate a knock down when playing route one to two big strikers. Sunday morning parks teams almost all have more tactical nous.

[Ad@m]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

I don't think I said all the blame lay at MON's door.  In fact, I'm certain that in the past on here I've said the blame lay as much, if not more, at Faulkner's door.  He's the CEO and had responsibility for the budget the manager (an employee) was given to work with.

So what's your point?

[Monty]

I agree on the points about MON. He (as you say, along with Faulkner) was entrusted with a fuck of a lot of money from what was not a Man City-style bottomless pit, and really didn't do well enough with it. Randy's retrenchment on this makes sense to me.

[dave.woodhall]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

I don't think I said all the blame lay at MON's door.  In fact, I'm certain that in the past on here I've said the blame lay as much, if not more, at Faulkner's door.  He's the CEO and had responsibility for the budget the manager (an employee) was given to work with.

So what's your point?

He wasn't CEO for most of O'Neill's time.

[django]

What Bob said.

[supertom]

I can't really blame MON. Like any manager, if you're given a shite load of money to spend, you're likely to spend the lot. Randy made a mistake coming into our club without bringing in 1-2 football men to help him run it. He was naive during O Neill's tenure, and lets face it, O Neill can talk the talk. O Neill had four years of spending a lot and recouping little. Randy, with a bit more sense could and should have told him to start recouping money back on a lot the high earners we had but barely played, earlier than he did.

I'm also sure O Neill didn't come to this club purely under the idea that he'd be given license to spend what he liked and not worry about what he recouped as well. It worked out that way for four years, then all of a sudden Randy closed the tap. Quite why O Neill finally fucked off, we'll never know entirely, but I'm sure had O Neill been under stricter conditions from the off he might not have blown so much on players like Harewood who we never really needed, our finances after 4 years wouldn't have been quite so bad.

It's just been piss poorly handled right from the off. Rather than a consistent financial line, we went from spending a shite load, beyond our means, to our current situation which sees us spending barely anything on players who largely aren't good enough and never will be.

[eastie]

@patmurphybbc: Paul Faulkner CEO of @AVFCOfficial  has just told me he's spoken to Randy Lerner,who's rubbished stories that he's looking to sell up.

[Ad@m]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

I don't think I said all the blame lay at MON's door.  In fact, I'm certain that in the past on here I've said the blame lay as much, if not more, at Faulkner's door.  He's the CEO and had responsibility for the budget the manager (an employee) was given to work with.

So what's your point?

He wasn't CEO for most of O'Neill's time.

Fair point - he doesn't deserve any flack for MON's spending on that basis.  Incidentally, do you know who was CEO between Fitzgerald and Faulkner?

[Monty]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

I don't think I said all the blame lay at MON's door.  In fact, I'm certain that in the past on here I've said the blame lay as much, if not more, at Faulkner's door.  He's the CEO and had responsibility for the budget the manager (an employee) was given to work with.

So what's your point?

He wasn't CEO for most of O'Neill's time.

Fair point - he doesn't deserve any flack for MON's spending.  Incidentally, do you know who was CEO between Fitzgerald and Faulkner?

Hemingway? John Dos Passos?

[dave.woodhall]

'financial position at the end of MON's tenure'

AH, there's our Trotsky being rolled out again! Bad MON, he has been gone for the past four years, huge signings followed him (Bent, Makoun, N'Zogbia), he  was let do what he did by Lerner& Faulkner yet it is still he who gets all the blame.

What is the common denominator?

I don't think I said all the blame lay at MON's door.  In fact, I'm certain that in the past on here I've said the blame lay as much, if not more, at Faulkner's door.  He's the CEO and had responsibility for the budget the manager (an employee) was given to work with.

So what's your point?

He wasn't CEO for most of O'Neill's time.

Fair point - he doesn't deserve any flack for MON's spending.  Incidentally, do you know who was CEO between Fitzgerald and Faulkner?

Effectively Michael Cunnah, although his title wasn't CEO.