It's not Sherwood!

[Monty]

Lots of dislikeable people are good managers - in fact, sometimes I wonder if that's one of the necessary aspects of a good manager.

I dunno about that - Carlo Ancelotti always seems like a rather lovable teddy bear.

True, he's an exception. But most successful managers in recent years - Fergie, Mourinho, Van Gaal, Antonio Conte, Mancini, Heynckes, Jogi Loew - all of them have mean streaks you'd want to steer clear of. Even Guardiola to me like he's got a prickly side. Now Ancelotti, Del Bosque, Klopp, Pellegrini, they all seem nice, but they're outnumbered I feel.

[pauliewalnuts]

Gabby's problem isn't that he never looks brilliant, it is that he only looks it for a match here and there.

I won't start throwing street parties for his work with Gabby till I see it over a longer period of time.

Once again, it is five matches. Five matches. Why on earth go so ridiculously overboard about it based on that?

[Toronto Villa]

Gabby's problem isn't that he never looks brilliant, it is that he only looks it for a match here and there.

I won't start throwing street parties for his work with Gabby till I see it over a longer period of time.

Once again, it is five matches. Five matches. Why on earth go so ridiculously overboard about it based on that?

Nobody is going overboard. It's just a friendly discussion amongst mates.

[Dave]

All managers come out with complete bollocks; Mourinho is fabulous at it. The difference is he has a lot to back it up so I agree too much from Sherwood can get rather old

I would argue that the main difference is with Mourinho is that it's calculated. If he says something, he knows why he has said it and what he hopes to achieve by saying it. With Sherwood it seems that he's saying the first thing that comes into his head, with little thought for the consequences.

I'm not saying that it's a wholly bad thing or that by doing so it means that his Villa team win win fewer games.

That whole "nice little club" thing about West Brom the other week is a good example. It didn't bother me at all that he said it, I don't think it was going to have any impact on the matches (unless you're Bill Howell) or buy into the whole "that's their team talk written for them" bluster, but it didn't strike me as thought he thought about what he was saying before he said it. But hey, it makes life more interesting.

[pauliewalnuts]

Gabby's problem isn't that he never looks brilliant, it is that he only looks it for a match here and there.

I won't start throwing street parties for his work with Gabby till I see it over a longer period of time.

Once again, it is five matches. Five matches. Why on earth go so ridiculously overboard about it based on that?

Nobody is going overboard. It's just a friendly discussion amongst mates.

I'll be honest and say I think you are (and of course it is friendly, but you know i wasn't suggesting otherwise).

Why do you have to engage in this slightly daft over-egging of the pudding all the time? There's no need to do it. There's no need to start talking the manager up so much after a handful of games.

It just sounds a bit fanatical and over the top to me.

Just as labelling Sherwood a failure would do after so few games, FWIW.

[Toronto Villa]

All managers come out with complete bollocks; Mourinho is fabulous at it. The difference is he has a lot to back it up so I agree too much from Sherwood can get rather old

I would argue that the main difference is with Mourinho is that it's calculated. If he says something, he knows why he has said it and what he hopes to achieve by saying it. With Sherwood it seems that he's saying the first thing that comes into his head, with little thought for the consequences.

I'm not saying that it's a wholly bad thing or that by doing so it means that his Villa team win win fewer games.

That whole "nice little club" thing about West Brom the other week is a good example. It didn't bother me at all that he said it, I don't think it was going to have any impact on the matches (unless you're Bill Howell) or buy into the whole "that's their team talk written for them" bluster, but it didn't strike me as thought he thought about what he was saying before he said it. But hey, it makes life more interesting.

I would agree with that Dave. It was funny for us that's for sure. I imagine privately he might look back on that and have a tiny bit of regret because since he's a little more reserved. What's been fun is that he has really bigged us up, which going back even to MON at times, our managers didn't do a great job of. In fact, some of the stuff they came out with was essentially belittling of our history and place in the game. And lets not go back to O'Leary. I like that he says we are going into a game to win, not try to win, which I have grown to hate. Even if we all know all team try to win. I just want to know our manager has only one goal in mind when we play, that is to win games.I'll worry about parking the bus tactics when we need to defend our 3 goal first leg lead in the Nou Camp.

[pav]

Gabby's problem isn't that he never looks brilliant, it is that he only looks it for a match here and there.

I won't start throwing street parties for his work with Gabby till I see it over a longer period of time.

Once again, it is five matches. Five matches. Why on earth go so ridiculously overboard about it based on that?

Nobody is going overboard. It's just a friendly discussion amongst mates.

I'll be honest and say I think you are (and of course it is friendly, but you know i wasn't suggesting otherwise).

Why do you have to engage in this slightly daft over-egging of the pudding all the time? There's no need to do it. There's no need to start talking the manager up so much after a handful of games.

It just sounds a bit fanatical and over the top to me.

Just as labelling Sherwood a failure would do after so few games, FWIW.

hey with the utter dross we have been served up previously ....we can get as excited as we want ,enjoy it as much as you want ,it's also nice and refreshing to listen to Tim compared to them mumbles .
Well done Tim long may it continue

[Toronto Villa]

Gabby's problem isn't that he never looks brilliant, it is that he only looks it for a match here and there.

I won't start throwing street parties for his work with Gabby till I see it over a longer period of time.

Once again, it is five matches. Five matches. Why on earth go so ridiculously overboard about it based on that?

Nobody is going overboard. It's just a friendly discussion amongst mates.

I'll be honest and say I think you are (and of course it is friendly, but you know i wasn't suggesting otherwise).

Why do you have to engage in this slightly daft over-egging of the pudding all the time? There's no need to do it. There's no need to start talking the manager up so much after a handful of games.

It just sounds a bit fanatical and over the top to me.

Just as labelling Sherwood a failure would do after so few games, FWIW.

No I'm not but feel free to read it that way. There are people who will agree with me giving Sherwood some credit for the turnaround even if it is five games, and those who won't and keep pointing to it only being five games. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you fall on.

[pauliewalnuts]

What's been fun is that he has really bigged us up, which going back even to MON at times, our managers didn't do a great job of. In fact, some of the stuff they came out with was essentially belittling of our history and place in the game.

That's an example.

What about Lambert? He was a shit manager, but he was nothing but respectful of our place in the game. Even when he was losing matches for us as fast as they came and under pressure, he remained like that.

Sherwood is saying what he thinks he should say. Which is great, and a million times better than Houllier telling you you're shitter than Liverpool, but it's hardly a new thing.

Even MON did it.

There. Praise for MON. And on that bombshell, I'm going for a lie down.

[pauliewalnuts]

No I'm not but feel free to read it that way. There are people who will agree with me giving Sherwood some credit for the turnaround even if it is five games, and those who won't and keep pointing to it only being five games. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you fall on.

There's a difference between giving him some credit for what he has done so far and reading far too much into it, which is what I believe you're doing.

And once again, that goes for the other end of the argument when it comes to moaning about how he's a bit of a twat (who cares) or tactically iffy (who cares at this point if we get the results).

One thing we should learn from this season alone as Villa fans is the danger of making any great proclamations about managers on the basis of a handful of games. That's what we've spent the last eight months criticising Lerner for.

Surely it's enough to just be happy to have won three times in a week and a bit rather than seek to proclaim him either a great success or a chancer?

Who cares. We can worry about that when he crashes and burns or takes us to the Champions League, but that's all in the future.

[Toronto Villa]

What's been fun is that he has really bigged us up, which going back even to MON at times, our managers didn't do a great job of. In fact, some of the stuff they came out with was essentially belittling of our history and place in the game.

That's an example.

What about Lambert? He was a shit manager, but he was nothing but respectful of our place in the game. Even when he was losing matches for us as fast as they came and under pressure, he remained like that.

Sherwood is saying what he thinks he should say. Which is great, and a million times better than Houllier telling you you're shitter than Liverpool, but it's hardly a new thing.

Even MON did it.

There. Praise for MON. And on that bombshell, I'm going for a lie down.

Haha got you to praise MON!! I never said those managers were not respectful, but that's not the same as what I was referring to. Like McLeish, Lambert was hugely complimentary about being Villa manager, but towards the end we became little Aston Villa in how we approached whoever we played. He might not have said it, but it is how he presented the club on the pitch that mattered. We went into games scared to death, not confident of anything at all.

[pauliewalnuts]

Surely entering games negatively doesn't mean the manager can't be respectful of the club?

Good point about McLeish, he was good that way as well. Which, as well as marking out that Sherwood is hardly something new, points out how meaningless it can look when events start on the pitch.

McLeish made me want to stop watching football, it was that depressing. Lambert did the same towards the end. But I think suggesting they weren't both highly respectful of the club and that they didn't say the same things as Sherwood has is grossly unfair to them.

O'Leary, on the other hand...

[Toronto Villa]

No I'm not but feel free to read it that way. There are people who will agree with me giving Sherwood some credit for the turnaround even if it is five games, and those who won't and keep pointing to it only being five games. It doesn't matter what side of the fence you fall on.

There's a difference between giving him some credit for what he has done so far and reading far too much into it, which is what I believe you're doing.

No, I'm reading something into it as opposed to not reading something into it. Like I said it's not like he's achieved anything and we should give him a new contract. I am saying that he deserves credit for the job done SO FAR, as opposed to some people trying really hard not to because they didn't or don't like him. I didn't want him either because of a lot things I believed about him. He has started to dispel some of those beliefs.

[SoccerHQ]

I think it was massively unfair Monty if you genuinely considered Sherwood's qualities as zero. If he came with no badges and straight from being a player I might agree with you but he didn't. And how in earth would he have kept us up with zero ability? You can't just bullshit your way through PL games.

He is a qualified coach and did his job quite well as manager, albeit briefly. In fact given what he has done in a short time and very professionally I might add, he puts the like of a number of so called "experienced" or better established managers to shame.

He'd had next to no games. You absolutely can bullshit your way through that number of games, especially with those sorts of players, and what's more his tactical record was ominously bad. He started similarly here, with a rigid 4-4-2 with wide open spaces and lumping to the big guy. He's since done what I didn't think he would do: changed it, and changed it to something interesting. We had more men in midfield, and that combined with his obviously actual quality (enthusiasm) to produce something like real football. Long may it continue - it just doesn't feel sustainable to me somehow.

I don't understand why his Spurs record is constantly derided.

Even this season under Pochettino they've lost 3-0 today to Man. United, 4-1 at City and 3-0 at Chelsea. Under Redknapp they lost an FA cup semi final to Chelsea 5-1 in 2012.

Spurs have had major pyschological performances against top teams for years and years, Lads it's Spurs as a wise man once said so Sherwood losing heavily to a few teams last season is just par for the course down there.

And remember last season he didn't have one Gareth Bale endlessly winning games in the last minute for him as Vila-Boas had.

[Toronto Villa]

good point Soccer. He gets some unfair stick for his time at Spurs that you think they ended the season 14th. Spurs have been battered by many clubs over the years, just like Arsenal did last year almost every time they played one of the top sides.