Randy Lerner

[Marlon From Bearwood]

I was much more offended by Houllier's surrender at the Etihad than anything he did at Anfield.

[Villa in Denmark]

I was much more offended by Houllier's surrender at the Etihad than anything he did at Anfield.

Is the correct answer.

[cdbearsfan]

Correct. A disgrace to the club's name. We should never give up on a major cup competition. We were actually on a decent run before that, too! That soon stopped.

[Monty]

Agreed.

[richard moore]

Correct. A disgrace to the club's name. We should never give up on a major cup competition. We were actually on a decent run before that, too! That soon stopped.

Yes, agree with that too. Silhill was spot on in what he says about the myth of Houllier.

[silhillvilla]

Here's the team from the 0-3 loss in the cup in March. We'd also lost 0-4 there in the December

Aston Villa
01 Friedel
05 Dunne (Walker 83)
21 Clarkyellow card
13 Bradley (Young 71)
16 Delph
19 Petrovyellow card
25 Bannan
31 Herd
11 Agbonlahoryellow card
14 Delfouneso (Downing 71)
18 Heskey
Substitutes
33 Marshall, 36 Walker, 06 Downing, 07 Young, 08 Pires, 12 Albrighton, 20 Reo-Coker

[Rudy65]

Everybody in your world Silhill is a conspirator. Everything is so black and baleful. The Houllier at Anfield incident was an hour in 150 years of Villa history not some bloody vengeful apocalypse.

Not really Brian , we were discussing GED and his brief time at the club. Over time I think some see him now as some shining beacon in 5 or 6 declining, wasteland seasons. The anfield night yes was one evening. The comments were ill judged, but it kind of somew him up for me , he never really came across as fully engaged in the job. Someone on here described him as a distant consultant which was quite apt. The results were not great either and GMAC salvaged our league position ultimately not GED. He wasn't of good health and that is somewhat mitigating but I don't see him as this visionary guru some are now portraying him as.

A good mate of mine managed a number of decent under 15 boys teams, all of whom tend to be above your average u15 team. As a consequence he has a lot dealings with local pro clubs as they often poach his players for their academies. One of GED's aims for to set up a decent academy structure at Villa which he was in the process of doing when he fell ill. Shame he didnt get to complete the process

[Richard E]

Everybody in your world Silhill is a conspirator. Everything is so black and baleful. The Houllier at Anfield incident was an hour in 150 years of Villa history not some bloody vengeful apocalypse.

You make it sound like we havent stopped discussing it since the day it happened, which just isn't true.

Evidently, which is why it is being talked about on here in October 2015!

[dave.woodhall]

Correct. A disgrace to the club's name. We should never give up on a major cup competition. We were actually on a decent run before that, too! That soon stopped.

Yes, agree with that too. Silhill was spot on in what he says about the myth of Houllier.

There is no myth. He was trying to bring a different ethos to the club, one which would have been far more modern and progressive, not to mention sustainable, than that his predecessor had employed. He had some limited success, some of the things he tried didn't work, but in contrast to those who came afterwards he had a clearly-defined idea he was working towards. And for reasons discussed earlier he was, and is still, given far less leeway than any other Villa manager before or since.

[silhillvilla]

Less leeway than say mcleish or even sherwood ? Sorry I don't see it .

[Villa in Denmark]

With regards to Houllier in general and why he was always up against it.

1. He wasn't MON and the rumours that he'd left after falling out with Randy over transfer funds.

2. He was underwhelming after some of the names that had been bandied about in the immediate aftermath of MON's departure.

3. For me at least, he'd always been one of those managers that pissed you off as soon as you saw/heard him. Particularly after his reaction to Gerrard getting sent off for trying to break Boateng's leg.

Then add in the delay in appointing him which amplified the feeling of being underwhelmed when he was revealed which was made worse by the further delay in him actually starting and the conditions were ripe for bad start.

Add the 8th to 12th comment at his introduction, regardless of how accurately it was or wasn't reported, and it was always going to be uphill from there.

[pauliewalnuts]

Not only with the benefit of hindsight, but Houllier is the one I'd have given more time to.

[bobdylan]

Correct. A disgrace to the club's name. We should never give up on a major cup competition. We were actually on a decent run before that, too! That soon stopped.

Yes, agree with that too. Silhill was spot on in what he says about the myth of Houllier.

There is no myth. He was trying to bring a different ethos to the club, one which would have been far more modern and progressive, not to mention sustainable, than that his predecessor had employed. He had some limited success, some of the things he tried didn't work, but in contrast to those who came afterwards he had a clearly-defined idea he was working towards. And for reasons discussed earlier he was, and is still, given far less leeway than any other Villa manager before or since.

A good manager would have looked at the players at his disposal and tried to play to their strengths not tried to force upon them a style that was not suited to them.  Dunne, Collins and Warnock had been excellent the previous season, they were awful under Houllier.  He basically almost relegated a team that had finished top 6 for 3 years running despite also adding an excellent striker to the group half way through the season.  He had a far better squad than the 3 managers that followed him.  I'll never forget the Wigan home match when we conceded a corner without a Wigan player getting near the ball, passing nervously for the sake of it until Dunne overhit a back pass.  I could understand Houllier trying to implement a different style after a major squad overhaul when he's brought in players more suited to his style, but trying to impose it on a good top 6 side who excelled with an alternative style of football was crazy imo.

[PeterWithesShin]

Houllier is one of the few managers we've had in my time where you actually felt they had a long term idea of what they wanted for the club. Far too often it's been way too short sighted.

[Monty]

A good manager would have looked at the players at his disposal and tried to play to their strengths not tried to force upon them a style that was not suited to them.  Dunne, Collins and Warnock had been excellent the previous season, they were awful under Houllier.  He basically almost relegated a team that had finished top 6 for 3 years running despite also adding an excellent striker to the group half way through the season.  He had a far better squad than the 3 managers that followed him.  I'll never forget the Wigan home match when we conceded a corner without a Wigan player getting near the ball, passing nervously for the sake of it until Dunne overhit a back pass.  I could understand Houllier trying to implement a different style after a major squad overhaul when he's brought in players more suited to his style, but trying to impose it on a good top 6 side who excelled with an alternative style of football was crazy imo.

He did actually change it to ensure results when they were needed, such as the Newcastle game. He also took over the team several weeks into the season with a few games down, including a traumatisingly massive defeat, having had no transfer window of his own and taking over a team which had lost its heartbeat in Milner. He made mistakes, but I don't think he did too badly in the circumstances - circumstances which included Dullins and Warnock exposing themselves as contemptibly unprofessional ratbags and pissheads.