We've not had a Martin O'Neill argument in ages...

[Lucky Eddie]

I remember seeing GHou at the Emirates last year where I think he was working for French tv. I couldn't believe how frail and gaunt he looked, not to mention huge circles under his eyes

Yep; The Villa will do that to you alright!

[joe_c]

My new favourite thing on the internet

https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Martin_ONeill/personality

Grumpy, confrontational, bad listener? Who'd a thunk it.

[LeeB]

My new favourite thing on the internet

https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Martin_ONeill/personality

Grumpy, confrontational, bad listener? Who'd a thunk it.

Why don't they profile fans of 'Anal Sex'? I demand answers.

[SoccerHQ]

We should have followed him with continuity. We saw how he wanted to play with Young central, Downing wide and with players like Makoun and Bradley. Ok, they may have not worked out (I didn't think Bradley was given a chance and did well for Roma) but it was clear that we had a plan. Beyond an overarching strategic aim to reduce expenditure, there has been nothing on a smaller tactical level since.

I also agree with Lee that Houiller would have cut the corrosive element from the club a lot sooner in the likes of Warnock, Dunne and Collins and players of their character. At the least we would have not had the schism in the dressing room between those that had embraced Ged's ideas and those that were clearly against it. Performances like Liverpool, Wolves and Man City may not have reoccurred in a second season, who knows. We may have seen more performances like Man United at home, when a midfield of Hogg and Herd brought us pretty darn close to beating them for the first time since Morning Glory was in the charts.

Amusingly enough it was actually MON in pre season who started playing Young in the hole and then MacDonald played him there in his games at caretaker so Houllier just continued doing that rather than some revolutionary tactic he developed.

In any case I argued at the time Young should've been kept on the wing and Downing played inside which is relevant given how well he's playing there for West Ham. Young was overrated in that position if you compare him to someone like Van Der Vaart who signed for Spurs around that time.

He was right on the defence. The trouble with that is they had so much credit from the previous year's effort that I didn't like him messing around with them and the resulting deluge of goals that followed. In hindsight and the long term totally spot on however particuarly with signing Kyle Walker on loan as we badly needed pace in full back areas and most top clubs have that with their full backs.

He didn't help himself however dropping Cuellar for Dunne that one time after a MOTM performance.

[SoccerHQ]

You're forgetting the tactical masterstroke of Gary Mac at the Shrine. He decided to vacate our midfield when they were down to 10 men which saw us lose for the first time there since dinosaurs roamed the earth.

 Even crap Villa managers like O'Leary, McLiesh and Lambert don't get beat at the Shrine by the Stripey Filth.

Yep, I always bring that up when people say McAlister should've been given the full time job. That game sticks in my mind as he brought on Pires (hopeless in his time here) who single handedly slowed down all our counter attacks and we lost against 10 men.

[passport1]

Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.

[Sexual Ealing]

Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.

McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.

Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.

So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?

I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available.  An owner of a club should be able to find out though.  I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.

Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.

I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.

If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.

So you guys just see yourselves as background tactics consultants then?

[Ads]

Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.

You're a real banterlope! Top bants!

[Mister E]

I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available.  An owner of a club should be able to find out though.  I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.

There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.

[mr underhill]

Buying the Villa was probably very radical to other members of his family. Continuing his ownership would, to them, constitute extreme radicalism.

[cheltenhamlion]

Pleased to see that MON added another win to his international cv tonight. USA a good deal higher in the FIFA world rankings so a goid confidence booster.

Do you think it is Bibs or Cones manning the defence?
You're a real banterlope! Top bants!

[paul_e]

I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available.  An owner of a club should be able to find out though.  I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.

There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.

I wasn't singling you out, but as you yourself say you don't know the candidates, that's the point, none of us do. The obvious names (like Pulis) will all get mentioned but that doesn't mean they're the only options, Pochettino had an average record from a few years with Espanyol before Southampton took him and I'd be very surprised if he was named by any of their fans as a potential replacement before the official links started to appear.  It that kind of bravery that we need to show for the next manager.

[joe_c]

I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available.  An owner of a club should be able to find out though.  I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.

There was no 'argument' in my question, Paul. Just curiosity and 'putting ourself in Randy's shoes'.
My challenge is that there are no obvious candidates if we want to move in a more root-and-branches direction to change our playing style and the club footballing structure, which have been suggested on this thread. There are plenty of candidates if we want to continue bumping along in the Premiership basement.
But then I'm not particularly familiar with all the potential candidates.
FWIW, I think it's highly unlikely - even if he releases Lambert - that Randy will go radical on his next choice; which probably does not augur well.

I wasn't singling you out, but as you yourself say you don't know the candidates, that's the point, none of us do. The obvious names (like Pulis) will all get mentioned but that doesn't mean they're the only options, Pochettino had an average record from a few years with Espanyol before Southampton took him and I'd be very surprised if he was named by any of their fans as a potential replacement before the official links started to appear.  It that kind of bravery that we need to show for the next manager.

You could call the appointment of Alex McLeish brave. A walking slowly through a muddy field of barbed wire into a hail of machine gun fire kind of bravery but bravery nonetheless.

[rob_bridge]

MON-Houllier-McLeish-Lambert

I think the phrase 'under achievement whilst at Villa' is applicable to all regardless of circumstances in which they were hired / fired.

[pauliewalnuts]

Not getting a natural successor to Houllier was a huge mistake. He'd planted seeds for something that by now could have seen the club flourishing again. Once he'd put Bent up top he had the man at the fulcrum to find the space and put away the chances Young etc were creating, that previously Gabby and Heskey weren't really putting away. We looked good once we had Bent.
His summer transfer plans could have helped us too, and I think he'd have better replaced Young and Downing.

McLeish came in as Randolph felt we needed someone more like O Neill (deemed more successful obviously in a blinkered view, whilst Ged was clearly more progressive). He comes in, makes a few O Neill type signings, drags our football back into the dark ages and the rest is history.

Lambert comes in. We experiment with the young, cheap and hungry experiment. It's frankly a disaster. Lambert is also in the O Neill mould. Outdated, stubborn and unable to learn from and rectify his mistakes. This season his transfer policy was very O Neill-esque.

So, following your argument, who could fulfil the GHou role now? - what managers should we be slotting in to replace PL; who's affordable, available?

I hate this argument, how is a fan on a forum supposed to know who is and isn't available.  An owner of a club should be able to find out though.  I'm pretty certain that a few calls to some agents would produce a list of managers who'd have an interest pretty quickly, then it's up to the owner to decide how to use that info.

Indeed, I absolutely hate it, too, it is such a pointless, reductive argument.

I would have no idea how to identify and find managerial candidates, and appoint them, but that's because I run a software company, not a Premier League football club.

If I ever get to run a Premier League football club, I will make it top of my list of "things to be good at", though.

So you guys just see yourselves as background tactics consultants then?

No, just people talking about football on a forum.