So who do you want as the next Villa manager?

[pauliewalnuts]

Can you imagine the optimism of a new owner and the promise of another bright future followed by the crash to the earth, sick to the stomach feeling a week later when he announces his multi millions will go to new boss Pulis.? I would be seeking out the top of the CN Tower looking to abseil without a rope.

I think I'd fly over there, just to jump off it, and make sure the job got done properly.

[pauliewalnuts]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-news-paul-lambert-3564045

Nursey does seem to be quite close to Lambert, so it wouldn't be the biggest surprise.

Oh dear. I smell drift.

[Stu]

Cue the reverse gear being rapidly engaged over on bullshit Central...

There's a couple of people laying the boot in, but then they really should not be dressing anonymous sources' claims up as fact.

[VillaAlways]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-news-paul-lambert-3564045

Nursey does seem to be quite close to Lambert, so it wouldn't be the biggest surprise.

Oh dear. I smell drift.

I think he's just guessing like the rest of us.

[Stu]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/aston-villa-news-paul-lambert-3564045

Nursey does seem to be quite close to Lambert, so it wouldn't be the biggest surprise.

Oh dear. I smell drift.

Yeah. If Nursey has it right of course, which I hope he hasn't but I think he has.

[Des Little]

Cue the reverse gear being rapidly engaged over on bullshit Central...

There's a couple of people laying the boot in, but then they really should not be dressing anonymous sources' claims up as fact.

I think it's riddled with bullshitters wanting to gain some kind of credibility, which is more sad than anything. Credit to H&V for not buying the whole ITK myth

[peter w]

Ask Newcastle fans if they'd want Allardyce back, or West Ham fans if they want him now.

I appreciate things are bad now, but what I don't understand is why people think "he's better than Lambert" and accept that as enough. Surely if Lambert is that bad, it's easily possible to be better than him but still not be good enough?

And have people forgotten the horrible, embarassing, cynical offence to football which Pulis's Stoke were?

Football is supposed to be fun, the likes of Allardyce, Pulis and co make it anything but fun.

What's the point in jumping out of this frying pan and straight into another one? **







** Young Ones quote, there, I know it's meaningless.

Because Pulis saw what he had at Stoke and knew what tactically was needed to make them stubborn, tough to beat, and mid-table. He's done the same with Palace. Except, when looking at his team he made them tight but also they were looking to attack when they had the ball, and used their midfield playing with pace and with a threat. With the players at his disposal he has don't very well indeed. Giving him even better players at Villa will see him used them accordingly. And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having. If we're at the horses for courses stage I couldn't think ever anyone better than Pulis right now.

Errr

And I really don't know what these new training techniques are that you accuse him of not having

I wasn't aware I had?

My point about Pulis was that, given time at Stoke, he produced a team which were the antithesis of entertaining football, which earned a reputation for every type of horrible gamesmanship you could think of.

I appreciate he's done well at Palace, but he's done it by harnessing the "never stop trying, never give up" thing, which is fine when you're trying to not get relegated, but isn't going to get you any further.

I would rather keep Lambert over appointing Pulis, and it's not even close.

Well you mentioned it here which is where I got it from.

Pulis has done amazingly by getting Palace to where they finished, yes, but he's done so by adopting old fashioned, typical British manager tactics - running till you sweat your eyeballs out, organisation, aggression, not giving up.

If we appointed someone like him, or *shudder* Allardyce, or even Moyes, it would be repeating the mistakes of the past. Get a manager with a proven background in modern training methods and styles of play, and give him two or three years plus some money.

I have no idea what you mean by 'modern training methods'. I don't get why a British manager is seen as being reactionary whereas  any foreign name are seeing as exciting, possible, and forward thinking simply because they're foreign. Remember the furore on here when Solksjaer was linked with us?

A foreign name doesn't have modern training methods simply because he sounds suave and sophisticated. Anymore than a British manager doesn't just because he's been on the English manager gravy train for a while. Every team Allardyce has had has been more or less the same. But I wouldn't say the same for Pulis. he has evolved his teams and he just reached the end of his time with Stoke and went. Did wonders there, though, but they were horrible to watch. I wouldn't say the same for Palace, though.

[pauliewalnuts]

I have no idea what you mean by 'modern training methods'. I don't get why a British manager is seen as being reactionary whereas  any foreign name are seeing as exciting, possible, and forward thinking simply because they're foreign. Remember the furore on here when Solksjaer was linked with us?

A foreign name doesn't have modern training methods simply because he sounds suave and sophisticated. Anymore than a British manager doesn't just because he's been on the English manager gravy train for a while. Every team Allardyce has had has been more or less the same. But I wouldn't say the same for Pulis. he has evolved his teams and he just reached the end of his time with Stoke and went. Did wonders there, though, but they were horrible to watch. I wouldn't say the same for Palace, though.

Where did I say that any foreign manager means modern methods whereas any British manager doesn't?

What about Brendan Rodgers, for example? He is a very modern manager, but is also British.

I don't care what nationality our next manager is, but whoever it is, I want it to be someone who isn't a relic of football of years gone by, and is someone who will move the club forward, into the 21st century.

Pulis has a track record of horrible football - he probably more than anyone else symbolises uncultured hoof ball - and horribly cynical play (look at the shit Stoke used to get up to). You say he's evolved his play at different teams - based on what? Half a season at Palace and his work at Stoke?

I would want someone closer to the Rodgers way of doing things than the Pulis way every single time.

I don't give a toss if they are British or Spanish or whatever, nationality doesn't come in to it. Pulis certainly is not it, though. When I say "old fashioned British methods" i mean the sort of outdated football we used to get served up in the 1980s, when all the managers were British.

Since you mentioned Solksjaer, I'd actually take him over Pulis given the choice, easily. At least there'd be a chance he'd try to play football. With Pulis there is no chance - he's all bluster and motivation. i've had enough of that, to be honest.

Pulis did an excellent job keeping Palace up, but I can't believe how quickly people forget his track record. Is that what you'd really want at Villa? Towels sewn into shirts to help with the long throw in into the box? Time wasting in the first half? Really?

[peter w]

You still haven't said what a very modern manager is? Somebody not from the 80s British way of football. So a Rodgers with all the money available to him is better than a Bob Paisley?

Do I want Pulis at Villa? Ideally, no. If we have little to spend again then I think Lambert should stay. If we have a new owner who wants to get a new manager but wants stability first then yes, I think Pulis is a good enough stop-gap manager to give us that stability. Solkskjaer, would have us playing lovely stuff maybe, but would take us down even further.

[Monty]

If Bob Paisley tried to do now what he did in the 80s he'd get destroyed. The game moves on - it's happening to Wenger, and Ferguson's great ability was to recognise when it was happening to him and take steps to prevent it (usually hiring a good-seeming coach).

You also seem to believe that there is an inherent correlation between playing passing football and losing at the relegation-end of the table. There is just no evidence for this - in fact, most teams who go down attempt to play a limited style of football, and lose doing so.

[pauliewalnuts]

You still haven't said what a very modern manager is? Somebody not from the 80s British way of football. So a Rodgers with all the money available to him is better than a Bob Paisley?

The thing is, it isn't the 1980s any more. I mean a manager who is attuned to the way the game is played today. We have just had a really good example of what happens when you sink huge amounts of money into a club but ally it with a manager who is tactically stuck in the past. It doesn't work. It didn't work when we gave MON 200m to make it work, and it won't work now.

I have no idea what would happen if we transplanted Bob Paisley, or any manager successful in this country in the past into the modern game, I genuinely don't know, but it doesn't really matter, because it is not going to happen, is it?

I don't care what nationality our next manager is, I genuinely do not. What I do care about is that he sets about moving this club properly into the 21st century. I want to see us keep the ball, pass it well, play a game based on possession.

What I don't want to see is us play the sort of football that got "found out" decades ago. We have got to start to move on. I genuinely do not give a flying one if the manager is british or european or south american, or what, but I can't think of many things I'd like to see us do less than start to be molded in the shape of Pulis's Stoke City.

Do I want Pulis at Villa? Ideally, no. If we have little to spend again then I think Lambert should stay. If we have a new owner who wants to get a new manager but wants stability first then yes, I think Pulis is a good enough stop-gap manager to give us that stability. Solkskjaer, would have us playing lovely stuff maybe, but would take us down even further.

If you want an owner who puts stability first, then to be honest, I'd agree, keeping Lambert is the obvious choice. There's zero point ditching him and taking someone else on when, ultimately, they're going to have to work with the same financial restrictiions. They might finish a few places higher, but ultimately the money is going to be the restraining factor.

The reason the idea of someone like Pulis taking over at Villa makes me want to gag is because I have seen the way he gets his teams to play, and I am basing that on his time at Stoke far more than the shorter time at Palace, because it is more relevant - there was more of it.

I just want us to start to play actual football, to do the basics, to show movement, to be able to start to benefit from throw ins in our favour, to have a style of play based on keeping the ball instead of chasing it around like morons.

Until we start to do that, things are really never going to get better.

[peter w]

If Bob Paisley tried to do now what he did in the 80s he'd get destroyed. The game moves on - it's happening to Wenger, and Ferguson's great ability was to recognise when it was happening to him and take steps to prevent it (usually hiring a good-seeming coach).

You also seem to believe that there is an inherent correlation between playing passing football and losing at the relegation-end of the table. There is just no evidence for this - in fact, most teams who go down attempt to play a limited style of football, and lose doing so.

That's not my point. Rodgers has a lot of money behind him so suggesting he has 'modern training methods', whatever that means, which makes him a good coach is a self-defeating argument. Yes, he may be a good coach but there were brilliant coaches in the past that aren't defined by era. Is Jimmy Hogan limited because he hasn't coached in the 21st century? Of course not.

The 80s style of football is one thing. But we're talking about managers now. Pulis is a means to an end, should we need one, and probably the best 80s throwback with modern training methods out there.

[pauliewalnuts]

That's not my point. Rodgers has a lot of money behind him so suggesting he has 'modern training methods', whatever that means, which makes him a good coach is a self-defeating argument. Yes, he may be a good coach but there were brilliant coaches in the past that aren't defined by era. Is Jimmy Hogan limited because he hasn't coached in the 21st century? Of course not.

The 80s style of football is one thing. But we're talking about managers now. Pulis is a means to an end, should we need one, and probably the best 80s throwback with modern training methods out there.

Why is it a self defeating argument? Rodgers has had decent money at Liverpool, but he didn't at Swansea, and his performance at Liverpool this season is far beyond what you can put down just to money.

As for 80s throwbacks, who says we need one?

[hilts_coolerking]

I think what's admirable about Rodgers is that after his first season at Liverpool he realised his overall approach needed tweaking and he did just that.  Unfortunately he didn't seem to realise that it needed further tweaking to be a bit more canny in the last three or four games.  The Palace game is a prime example of that.

I'm sure he'll learn from that bitter experience too.

Re Pulis, he definitely has qualities but his style of football isn't one of them.  He's very good at what he does but what he does we don't need.

[Monty]

If Bob Paisley tried to do now what he did in the 80s he'd get destroyed. The game moves on - it's happening to Wenger, and Ferguson's great ability was to recognise when it was happening to him and take steps to prevent it (usually hiring a good-seeming coach).

You also seem to believe that there is an inherent correlation between playing passing football and losing at the relegation-end of the table. There is just no evidence for this - in fact, most teams who go down attempt to play a limited style of football, and lose doing so.

That's not my point. Rodgers has a lot of money behind him so suggesting he has 'modern training methods', whatever that means, which makes him a good coach is a self-defeating argument. Yes, he may be a good coach but there were brilliant coaches in the past that aren't defined by era. Is Jimmy Hogan limited because he hasn't coached in the 21st century? Of course not.

The 80s style of football is one thing. But we're talking about managers now. Pulis is a means to an end, should we need one, and probably the best 80s throwback with modern training methods out there.

Actually, they really are defined by era, and Jimmy Hogan might be the best example of 'modern training methods' you can find, seeing as he actually invented the idea of 'training' (as opposed to the 'starve' the player of the ball during the week and he'll be 'hungry' for it at the weekend, which sounds nuts but was actually the prevailing feeling of the time). Jimmy Hogan could not have envisaged what the Hungarians would do with his ideas, however, because he was of his era. What is revolutionary in one decade is outmoded the next.

Pulis-football was revolutionary once, if always a bit limited, as was MON-ball, which was the style played by a decade of English European Cup winners. However, the game has changed - since then (among others) we've had Sacchi, Cruyff, Aime Jacquet, Wenger (who was utterly new in England at the time but now looks a little rigid), Mourinho, Guardiola and now Klopp. Yes, these are top-of-the-table managers but their ideas trickle down, and the general trend in the PL is towards possession football as not only more entertaining but actually safer, actually less risky. I want a manager who gets that.

PS: citation - Wilson, Jonathan, 'Inverting the Pyramid', published by yada yada yada.