Villa_Vids

11 minutes ago, TRO said:

I simply don't accept that.

that like heads you lose, tails you lose.

Man City, wouldn't give you the drippings off their nose.....They want to win everything.

That mentality, is wrong.... we will never win anything, with that attitude.

You could make a strong argument that we could have won 2-1 too. Our performance against City at home was a positive one, it is unfair to criticise Gerrard for that performance imo - when you (those who want him sacked asap) apparently have a lot more stats, performances and results to choose from that indicate that SG has been a poor appointment. If you want Gerrard out, why would you focus on a result/performance that was regarded as positive?  

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

How? There is more to a perfect platform than being unbeaten.  You can tell the players are really struggling, they are off form and lacking confidence.  The unbeaten run only includes one good performance arguably.  We played a poor Southampton team, a 10 man Leeds team for half a game and a poor Forest team.  We have been pretty poor from various viewpoints in the last three games and our points haul from those three games while ok at 5 points, the performances we sub par and in hindsight we should be picking up more points.  The quality of performances and lack quality in opposition has been masked by the view of points and been unbeaten. Only the City game was a good performance and great point.  The unbeaten run masks the massive underlying problems so I wouldn’t say it’s a perfect platform for a new manager.

As opposed to being "battered" by the opposition week in & out, I would choose us being unbeaten rather than being defeated. When Smith took over from Bruce, Bruce didn't lose a lot of games. He lost twice in 11 games but the club decided that it was time to act on that.

5 hours ago, El Segundo said:

Nope it's standard practice for Chelsea, Spurs. City, Liverpool, PSG, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern and other successful clubs who are a long way from "rudderless".  When a manager doesn't meet the expectations or remit of the club and fans, those clubs do not stick with them for fear of damaging the club or putting off other managers.  When the managers do meet the expectations and carry out the remit they tend to stay.  It's that simple and it's blindingly obvious.

The Lerner and Xia years saw a succession of poor manager choices, true - but would we have been better off sticking with McLeish after a year of failure, or Lambert or Bruce after a couple of years of failure? No because we eventually got Smith who got us promoted and then to 11th place. How was that unsustainable?    The fans wanted them out, it didn't put Smith or Gerrard  off joining - because they know that's how football fans are, and that's how football is. As Gerrard has said himself in the video above.  

Accepting short term pain for the possibility of a longer term gain is not illogical.  I don't want us to lose any game, however if it meant we got rid of Gerrard I would take one or two defeats, because I think the long term upside would be much greater than if we win and keep him.  What is illogical is looking at an 11 month track record of failure and inability to learn from mistakes and still believing it is all magically going to change and that it isn't doing serious damage to the club.  It's way more of a fantasy to believe  Gerrard will suddenly learns how to manage and coach, than to believe a carefully selected new guy coming in would do better. 

This is no irrational mob, angry yes, but it is perfectly rational to want rid of someone who has been failing our club for 11 months.  There is (or was) a well reasoned plan - continuous progress towards European places, development of the Academy, Identifying and buying promising players, build up demand and increase capacity to increase revenue, and so on.  There are managers currently available that would represent a "well reasoned appointment" who, based on their track records, would be way more likely to deliver on that plan than this competent  version of Gerrard that you and very few others seem to think is just about to materialise.     

   

All the clubs you list have a proper set up that has been built on multiple successful teams over the years, the head coach is a smaller cog in a much larger system. They have multiple players they can depend on, if we are being honest we have only had one player that we could depend on,  that was Jack Grealish. That is unacceptable. I am not trying to dampen excitement but we are nowhere near that level of consistency yet, even sacking Gerrard ASAP wouldn't bring us to that level immediately.  We are striving to be that sort of club, we need to be run more consistently from above, then the team and of course more consistent individual performers. But we can't be sacking managers and replacing them with different plans and ideas each time. That is unsustainable and reckless.

I also worry what culture you are projecting to the players if you sack managers over poor performances and results each season without giving them time to improve things. Gerrard overcoming this bad period to then kick us on will be game changing for the club's psychology  IMO (if he is capable of course). It is unlikely atm.

On your last paragraph, I am not denying what you are saying but maybe we have overhyped certain aspects based on a promotion bounce that has worn off as the seasons have gone on. We have only developed one player (Grealish) and have spent millions in the process on the first team. We have all the ingredients to be a successful club that is in Europe most seasons, but I  don't think we currently have the direction internally from those above Gerrard (i.e Lange & Purslow). It is why I worry about life after Gerrard.

And how does the hierarchy recapture that optimism of two season ago? I believe, to continue on this short term route, we would have to get a big name to take over (Poch?) and provide a decent level of funding to back that coach to achieve those short term aims. Is that realistic? Then what happens if that coach/manager can't get above a certain level? How long are they given? We don't have a clearly defined plan. Everton had been through a similar process, no guarantees when you start sacking coaches and give them limited time to implement ideas or learn, not withstanding bad luck with injuries/var decisions.

4 hours ago, nick76 said:

Yes because you are choosing him over the club by your argument

Angry mob, you mean Villa fans on here, other platforms, in pubs, work and at the ground….further confirmed by the away fans at Forest.  It’s not a mob, it’s the fan base.  A mob isn’t a mob because you don’t agree.  The Villa fan base are providing their view and it’s seems most are in agreement that it’s time for him to go.

As they say they want continual progression, Gerrard isn’t providing that, doesn’t look like he can and we seem to be drifting further away from it.  Time for him to go!

Offering an opinion of giving the Villa manager some further time does not equate to choosing him over the club. Far from it. The board would have sacked SG if we had lost to City, let alone Southampton. Or if the players are against him then he would have already been sacked. IMO But maybe Purslow is really pulling one over us. People on here want Villa to be battered by the opposition, so judging from their arguments - those posters are choosing their personal feelings towards Gerrard over the club's well being. Yet you type no distain for that sort of thinking, many try to rationalise or defend it.

I mean the mob on VT. There has been plenty of examples on this thread, for e.g - if you have to bring a Daily Mail article regarding Gerrard's personal life (or that pertaining to his daughter) then it goes beyond your dislike of his management imo. It goes well beyond criticism. It is purely personal and not objective. This mentality is also directed at posters who don't share the same opinions that condemn SG, or at those who give any encouragement in Gerrard's direction (i.e praise for the City performance). 

Then there are others that believe that sacking him will make us better, I respect those reasons and share some of them in some cases, but I am unconvinced sacking him is going to bring immediate progress. I don't mind people challenging my views, it is all fair. 

And as for your last point, there has been no progression from last season. No arguments from me. We have stood still with an enhanced squad. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind if the club were proactive and chose to replace him for the reasons you mention. But they are not looking to fire him quickly though are they. I would guess the team and board are behind him, he still retains their support and trust. We are also unbeaten at the moment which is the perfect platform to build from, under Gerrard or a new manager.

1 hour ago, El Segundo said:

You've been saying exactly that.  Yes the club (Purslow)  screwed up appointing him and have wasted a lot of time and investment in him and his "project" but you are suggesting we continue down that path and compound those failures when an 11 month trend indicates things will either stay the same or decline further rather than change for the better.  If the club is failing above and beyond Gerrard then that is a separate issue that needs addressing and will be neither directly helped nor hindered by Gerrard being sacked.

Gerrard is alienating the fanbase, our matches have stopped selling out, pretty much everyone including our own fans consider us boring and lacking in quality,  good players have been sidelined and will probably leave for less than they are worth,  and we are as low in the table as when he joined and we look like prime relegation fodder.  Just how much more damage has to be done before you think it's enormous?  What else is there to break?

We don't have to be "confident the next appointment will be successful".  We just need to be confident there is a chance he will be successful as opposed to what seems to be the guaranteed continued failure of Gerrard given the last 11 months.  The club made a mistake this time, but they were the same people who appointed Smith who got us promoted and then to 11th place.  So they have proven they can succeed as well as fail, when the choice of manager is not influenced by personal friendship.  The Board have not yet had the opportunity to learn from this mistake, and they won't until they replace Gerrard.    Gerrard has had 11 months of mistakes to learn from and hasn't.  The Board  might learn, they might not - what you are advocating is that they shouldn't even try and that is nonsensical. There is no contradictory logic or double standards in those facts.

Who says it's my fantasy?  It's what all clubs do, hire a manager, when it isn't working, try someone else, if that isn't working try someone else again.  Some get it wrong time after time, others, who are doing their jobs properly, eventually find someone who can move them forward. It's not unsustainable it's standard practice.

It is my belief that this is "standard practice" for a rudderless club with no identity. A club that has a plan that lasts only as long as the manager and invests millions into that person is unsustainable by every principle imaginable. Do you even remember the Lerner & Xia years? You won't get to the source of the problem if you keep moving the goal posts and hopelessly waiting for a messiah to come in. You can't simply chuck cash at the problem too & you can't be that carefree with the future of the club. I don't want to have an approach that "leaves it into the laps of the gods"

That is how I am viewing our predicament atm. Ridiculous thinking on here lately - from wanting the opposition to beat us by heavy margins and encouraging toxic support just to shift the manager. What am I reading? Crazy. This makes the club less attractive to potential good managers, and puts the club in a precarious situation. It is unhealthy and illogical thinking. Those thinking like this are potentially sabotaging the club's future too. But I am the guy who wants to damage the club because I believe a young manager can still turn it around and I have some hope in an individual coming good. Ludicrous. 

Lastly, I am not advocating the board shouldn't be vested and consider making a change. I am not opposed to moving Gerrard out for a well reasoned appointment and plan, but not just so we make an angry and irrational mob feel better about themselves for a tiny amount of time - no way. And for the same reason Gerrard shouldn't be kept on if purely for Purslow's vanity and reputation. The true question is what do Aston Villa want to be?

6 minutes ago, Rustibrooks said:

Pinch of salt as always but…

 

"Unsteady" - What does that even mean? The tweet is not telling us anything new.

34 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

So you're  saying it's a failure for the club to sack him for being a failure, so they shouldn't sack him, even though he's failed.  

And you think we shouldn't sack a manager who is damaging the club enormously while failing because it would damage the club.

And because the club failed to make the right appointment we should not have any hope they will do any better with the next one, so instead we should just keep the incumbent failure and let him keep failing in the hope that eventually he stops failing, with no evidence to suggest that will ever happen.

Just a wild stab in the dark but I'm guessing you've never studied logic.

 

No. I am not saying that. I am saying  he was appointed 11 months ago, a lot of investment pumped into his ideas and now he is on the verge of being sacked - that is a sign that the club is struggling and failing internally, which goes above and beyond the Gerrard question.

You are clearly exaggerating and catastrophizing about Gerrard's management too - "damaging the club enormously"?  That is OTT. Simply untrue. Calmly...the truth is we aren't getting winning results and the football is dour. I believe it is resolvable not fatal.

And if Gerrard is doing really bad, why are we confident that next appointment will successful? The same people who appointed Gerrard are still here and will be making the decisions.  "The will learn from their mistakes" - Oh so they can but Gerrard can't - great logic. Nice double standards too.

Sacking him is justifiable in many cases, doesn't mean your dream fantasy will play out. And then will the goal posts move again?  I suppose a new target will emerge. This is unsustainable.

13 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

This theory is rubbish though.

It's not difficult to understand why people would take one or two defeats in the extreme short term, in hope that the manager is sacked - to then have a MUCH better future short, medium and long term.

Disagree. I believe it will have a worse effect on morale and leave us in a worse place. I rather be sacking Gerrard from a position of strength (unbeaten, drawing games) rather than being "battered" by teams.

1 minute ago, Villan_of_oz said:

Compared to Gerrard still being here, Smith was wrongly sacked.

I was actually all for Smith being sacked, if you can be bothered you'll find my opinions at the time.

Smith shouldn't have been sacked for an L plate manager.

Under the same criteria Smith was sacked, Gerrard should be long gone too.

You can keep pushing your narrative about us hating him cos we loved Smith and you can keep ignoring the facts too. Your entitled to that right, but I'm entitled to point out how wrong you are!

So in 12 months time you will say Gerrard was wrongly sacked? 

Anyway, I am not talking about Smith anymore - he is in the past and has no relevance to what Gerrard is doing or not doing as manager.

3 minutes ago, RicRic said:

Thank f**k your not apart of the board… we’d be in the conference

Appointing Gerrard 11 months ago, investing in him and now sacking him isn't a good thing. The club has failed with this appointment. 

1 hour ago, Ingram85 said:

Ah the old “I’m a better fan because I support Gerrard” bollocks. Piss off with that crap. You could argue you aren’t a better fan for supporting Gerrard. Stop with that crap. 

Don't misrepresent me. I'm not saying about being a "better fan".  I'm saying if you want the opposition to batter us you aren't a fan of the club - so go and support somebody else. You are not a fan. Clear as crystal. I'm not saying anything about supporting Gerrard. Support or abuse whichever individual you choose. 

1 minute ago, AntrimBlack said:

Totally wrong.

Not when you have people mentioning Smith like he was wrongly sacked it isn't.

1 hour ago, IrishVilla10 said:

Gerrard absolutely does not have a harder job than smith, the players smith had in the first two seasons were championship level. The fact he took us to a cup final was an incredible achievement, look at the 11 he had in the final.  We’re not asking Gerrard to move mountains here I genuinely think the majority of us would be happy if we played decent football, looked in any way well coached. The players look shot of confidence, the fans are unhappy, Gerrard has thrown the players under the bus multiple times. It’s a complete and utter shit show 

I have already said why I think this is a harder job than Smith's was. Which doesn't mean Gerrard is doing a better job than Smith or Smith was totally crap. To be totally clear.

"We’re not asking Gerrard to move mountains here I genuinely think the majority of us would be happy if we played decent football, looked in any way well coached" - I think that isn't true. People don't like Gerrard because he isn't Smith, he has no connection with the club.  There is an emotional aspect to wanting Gerrard to fail and they have no sentiment towards him. The last month the goal post have totally moved around. Gerrard has no hope on here with the mob.

I can't think (or know) of any players that have come out and criticised Gerrard. Mings? He is a regular for SG. Gilbert? Sanson? All these players had issues with Smith last season. Smith dropped Mings against West Ham remember.  I worry that our problems run a bit deeper than Gerrard. A lot of the same group of players got Smith fired.

7 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

Nothing you say offends me, in fact I find it very entertaining, I have no need to ignore you.

Good. 

1 hour ago, Villan_of_oz said:

Because I disagree with you, that makes me someone who doesn't support the club?? Righto, I noticed in your rant you failed to answer my question, which was what has SG achieved in 11 months here??

If my opinion on this social media platform has offended you so much, maybe you should ignore me then.

 

 

 

Rant?  

What has he achieved in the 11 months here? A lot people think the squad quality has got better, we should be doing better right? so I would say the signings of higher calibre players - Kamara, Carlos, Coutinho etc. But on the whole Gerrard's reign is not what I wanted or expected. 

You want Chelsea to batter us over a manager you personally dislike? I think that it is pathetic and shit support. Ignore me if you wish.  

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

You're entitled to the view. My view is that each and every day he stays at this club, he does more and more damage. The sooner he is sacked and we move on, the better.

Sacking Gerrard is a failure. It means the club has failed to make the right appointment, what gives you hope for the next one?

1 minute ago, penguin said:

How?

Smith essentially had to build a whole new side in our first Premier League season, on paper looking back it was dire, and stayed up.

Then built on this finishing 11th the following season, our squad now is considerably stronger than that which accomplished this. 

Got sacked the following season with Jack being sold and being unable to settle on a system to utilise his 3 “replacements”. The reason being he wasn’t delivering on “continual improvement”.

Gerrard then comes in and starts strongly followed by a theme of regression. After bringing in his own players, being allowed to completely smash the club ethos of not buying older players for big money/wages in the process, and having a full pre-season to settle we’ve proceeded to look worse than ever.

I can’t fathom how you’ve arrive at the opinion Gerrard has had it harder.

How?  Gerrard has the task of kicking Villa on to the "next level", the standard of football is higher and requires more - which Smith ultimately failed at last season. That already puts Gerrard under more pressure, yes I know Gerrard has been backed financially - so was Smith but he had no clue to a winning (even drawing) system without Grealish. Also remember Gerrard doesn't have the positive stuff that Smith had in the bank, i.e the progress we made from the Championship and personal identification/connection that he had with the club. 

Therefore, I think it is a harder job for Gerrard than it was for Smith because of the aforementioned reasons. You seriously saying if Smith didn't turn a few of those defeats last season into draws people on here wouldn't spin it as a positive?  

I am not trying to diminish what Smith achieved here but he was supported through some rough spells too. Gerrard isn't afforded the same, rightly or wrongly.

But then we have people tell me that Purslow didn't back DS? Didn't hand him a new contract?  Didn't stand by him in poor spells? Don't revise history. Smith run out of ideas and did not have skill set to kick us on. Smith oversaw five defeats in a row, not even a draw or anything to build some hope from in that run last season. Smith wasn't the answer. 

17 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

lol

Standing still? I wish.

Great response. 

3 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

Thanks for your opinion!!! 

DS beat Man U at old Trafford without Grealish what has Slippy G done??

Please stop your delusional support of SG

I don't understand how you can want your team to be battered by Chelsea? The only reason being of course, unless you aren't a supporter of the club. it is unfathomable to me. I take offense because I support Villa. 

What delusional support? Attempting to be reasonable isn't delusional. I have said what I think of Gerrard - a young manager deserves a chance to sort his mess out. It doesn't mean I like how we are playing or the decisions that have been made by Gerrard. Gerrard being sacked isn't healthy for the club, it does damage.

20 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

I think NSWE should get rid of Purslow tbh. His time is up for me.

Would it harm the stadium redevelopment? 

Just now, VillaChris said:

Think it's a hangover of 90s when so many jumped on their bandwagon for a couple of years.

And that shite movie Goal! in the 00s too

19 minutes ago, Risso said:

You know we haven't played this weekend, right? I know he's not popular on here but he can't do anything if we haven't played!

The only manager who can lose when we haven't even played a match. 

4 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

Oooo touched a nerve did I?

I was joking mate. 

Just now, Sulberto21 said:

*and Gerrard still gets sacked off and Pochettino gets the job. . 

Then you wake up.