It's not Sherwood!

[Monty]

Wow, I'm being debated! How odd.

I don't think football is anywhere near an exact science, and I also don't think that it's entirely enthusiasm and bullshit with someone like Sherwood, nor with the likes of, I don't know, Gary Megson (the basics of training sessions etc. aren't the easiest things to learn). I just think there's quite a lot of bullshit out there, and there always has been. Our board are a very good example of just how incompetent it is possible to be in this game at any level.

Obviously without the right mentality tactics won't help you (Lambert wanted short passing and 4-3-3, but his outlook was so dreary and meek it didn't matter). However, if you're doing the wrong things in games it often doesn't matter how 'up for it' you are - if you keep running up blind alleys it doesn't matter how vigorously you sprinted.

My problem with Sherwood was mostly that he might be this sort of manager, and he might still be to some extent, but at least he can switch the formations effectively. Look at the numbers we had against Baggies in the midfield - we were all over them. That was partly attitude, going after the opposition from the first whistle, but you also needed the tactics to put the physical humans in the midfield in the first place. Long may it continue - I just have my doubts as to how long.

[KRS]

I understand your concerns over the long term Monty, however getting the best out of players is relative to the players ability on the pitch. There will be a ceiling where he can't take or get anymore out of the current squad using the techniques and tactics employed now, and we'll see how that evolves if he's allowed to identify and bring in players of higher quality...alternatively he'll have to either tweak his methods to push them further or settle at the ceiling of their ability. With the current squad that could be mid table or pushing for European places...with more quality players on the pitch and throughout the squad it could be more sustainable in the long term and take us further.

[Toronto Villa]

Not sure debated. I just think you have an opinion and a strong perspective on this topic Monty that has divided opinion. I know my views, evolving as they are are not universally received either. That's fine.

As for Sherwood, one thing I think we can all agree on is that he is making Lambert look like a complete and utter incompetent tool.

[Monty]

Yep, that's fair KRS. Managers all have different levels - MON, for instance, would usually get bottom-half squads to overperform, but would underperform with higher-level squads and expectations. Who knows what Sherwood's level will be - we'll find out.

And I know, TV, I was just being a bit tongue-in-cheek! For sure you're right, though - Lambert's staggering incompetence gets worse and worse in hindsight.

[paul_e]

For me the key to being a good manager in any organisation, is knowing your own merits and being willing to 'highlight' your flaws by recruiting to fill those gaps.  I still think Sherwood is limited in his depth of understanding but I think he knows that and has gone out of his way to get in coaches who fill the gaps.  It's still very early but I'm impressed that he doesn't have as much of an ego as I expected, it bodes well for his ability to adapt with the situation at the club, so long as he doesn't fall into the trap of retaining too much loyalty to the people who are with him now.

[PaulWinch again]

For me the key to being a good manager in any organisation, is knowing your own merits and being willing to 'highlight' your flaws by recruiting to fill those gaps.  I still think Sherwood is limited in his depth of understanding but I think he knows that and has gone out of his way to get in coaches who fill the gaps.  It's still very early but I'm impressed that he doesn't have as much of an ego as I expected, it bodes well for his ability to adapt with the situation at the club, so long as he doesn't fall into the trap of retaining too much loyalty to the people who are with him now.

I agree he appears to be aware of his limitations and he actively addresses them. He also maximises his strengths. I don't know how far it'll take him, but he's doing excellently so far.

[Clampy]

I don't think we should concern ourselves too much with what Sherwood will bring in the long term. He's been brought in to keep us up. Let's deal with that for now.

[Toronto Villa]

I can't recall the last Villa manager we appointed where whether or not he will be here long term has been such a topic of discussion. Exactly how many Villa managers have we had in the past 20 years have lasted more than 4 years anyway? In one fashion or another it ended, in most cases badly. The notable exceptions being Sir Brian and Sir Graham. So what Sherwood does short term is far more relevant than whether or not he'll be at the club in 2017.

[OCD]

The biggest subject that seems to be debated is the long-term. That's going to be the case with any manager though, let alone one who's had their first full-time appointment. Short-term (to the end of the season), things are looking good though and medium-term (the next couple of seasons, including transfer windows) should be an interesting time.

[tomd2103]

I can't recall the last Villa manager we appointed where whether or not he will be here long term has been such a topic of discussion. Exactly how many Villa managers have we had in the past 20 years have lasted more than 4 years anyway? In one fashion or another it ended, in most cases badly. The notable exceptions being Sir Brian and Sir Graham. So what Sherwood does short term is far more relevant than whether or not he'll be at the club in 2017.

I think it's an area where the game in this country is slowly catching on.  Managers have such a short shelf life in the current climate, that it is foolish to allow them to influence every aspect of the club only for that template to be ripped up after a couple of years when the next incumbent arrives in the hot seat.  I think Swansea are a good example of how it should be done.  Those behind the scenes at Swansea are responsible for creating the template of how they want the club to be run and they go out and find managers who they feel best fit that template.  They've had a fairly high turnover of managers in the past few seasons, but have been able to maintain some kind of consistency because the template hasn't really altered.  OK, Swansea are never going to trouble the upper reaches of the Premiership, but if you look where they were a decade ago then it has to go down as a success. 

[Rudy Can't Fail]

The biggest subject that seems to be debated is the long-term. That's going to be the case with any manager though, let alone one who's had their first full-time appointment. Short-term (to the end of the season), things are looking good though and medium-term (the next couple of seasons, including transfer windows) should be an interesting time.

I agree with most of that except your definition of medium term. I really hope we finally put an end to this self infliction of we have to give the manager two or three years. If he's delivering, no problem, we keep him. If by the end of next season things are not looking like we're progressing, get rid. We've repeatedly given managers far more time than they deserved. MON, despite all the funding he received took us round in circles, the football was generally poor, especially at home and it certainly didn't improve over the years. I cringe when I read how he took us to Wembley twice - big fking deal and just look at his legacy.

Lambert should have gone at the latest last summer. Once again, we heard the cries of 'stability' or 'let's break the three year cycle' or heaven forbid 'he deserves another window'. He wasn't up to the job and should have been replaced. He has however left us with a more interesting legacy; a more than decent squad that doesn't need binning or a massive overhaul and he'd finally moved us on from hoofing.

Sherwood inherited a team that didn't know how to capitalise on a passing game. As we've seen, all his done is speed it up and suddenly we don't recognise the team. A couple of wins and you see the confidence appear from no where, just by tweaking a half baked plan. I don't see him taking us back to hoofball, I don't even think we'll be struck with 'counter-attacking Aston Villa', I think there's more and better to come from this squad. He's raising the bar and he'll have to learn to live it as demands and expectations from fans rise too.

We shouldn't ever be afraid to replace a manager, we need to make sure we replace him with a better manager that can continue to build on what's already been constructed, instead of waiting until the walls are showing cracks and and the roof is about to cave in.

[Damo70]

I think Lerner only stuck with Lambert for so long because of the restrictions he had supposedly had to work under and also I think he was fed of of getting rid of managers. He got rid of TSM quickly enough and I think Houllier may also have gone sooner rather than later regardless of his health.

[brian green]

Brilliant post TSOV. Thank you for that.

[inside right]

The Television money signed Lamberts departure Lerner suddenly woke up once the ackers were revealed

[not3bad]

The biggest subject that seems to be debated is the long-term. That's going to be the case with any manager though, let alone one who's had their first full-time appointment. Short-term (to the end of the season), things are looking good though and medium-term (the next couple of seasons, including transfer windows) should be an interesting time.

I agree with most of that except your definition of medium term. I really hope we finally put an end to this self infliction of we have to give the manager two or three years. If he's delivering, no problem, we keep him. If by the end of next season things are not looking like we're progressing, get rid. We've repeatedly given managers far more time than they deserved. MON, despite all the funding he received took us round in circles, the football was generally poor, especially at home and it certainly didn't improve over the years. I cringe when I read how he took us to Wembley twice - big fking deal and just look at his legacy.

1. What defines "progress" is highly debatable.  You say MON took us in circles towards the end of his tenure, but the record shows an improvement in Villa's points total year on year while he was here. And yeah, those two Wembley appearences - they happened alongside the best points total Villa achieved during his time at the football club. 

2. So "medium term" if I'm reading correctly is one season to you?  Just the kind of thinking that encouraged the "short termism" that the likes of MON were critisised for (replacing his defence in successive years is an example) and lumbered us with a squad full average unused players.

I do agree that Lambert should have gone at the end of last season though.